Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Restoring the practical logic of peace
- Part II The symbolic power politics of NATO–Russia diplomacy
- 4 The logic of practicality at the NATO–Russia Council
- 5 The early steps: NATO, Russia and the double enlargement, 1992–1997
- 6 The fallout: NATO and Russia from Kosovo to Georgia, 1998–2008
- 7 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in International Relations
5 - The early steps: NATO, Russia and the double enlargement, 1992–1997
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and tables
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Restoring the practical logic of peace
- Part II The symbolic power politics of NATO–Russia diplomacy
- 4 The logic of practicality at the NATO–Russia Council
- 5 The early steps: NATO, Russia and the double enlargement, 1992–1997
- 6 The fallout: NATO and Russia from Kosovo to Georgia, 1998–2008
- 7 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- Cambridge Studies in International Relations
Summary
This chapter and Chapter 6 look back into history and seek to explain the main finding of Chapter 4 – that in 2006, NRC practitioners embodied diplomacy as a normal though not a self-evident practice in solving Russian–Atlantic disputes. Recovering the practical logics of NRC diplomacy raises the question: what made this practical sense possible in the first place? Since all socially constructed meanings emerge from past social struggles, one must add a diachronic dimension to the analysis and set meanings in motion (see Chapter 3). To do so, I analyze the historical evolution of NATO–Russia interactions with regards to the double enlargement – a vexing and persistent bone of contention in the post-Cold War era.
In order to shed light on practices, I combine field analysis with the interpretive study of habitus. In terms of the former, I locate Russia and NATO inside the field of international security and describe the evolving rules of the game in the post-Cold War era, in particular the changes in the conversion rates between forms of capital. For the sake of clarity, and in accordance with the recent evolution of the field's doxa, I reduce the range of capital in this field to only two types of resources. First, material-institutional capital refers to military forces, money and material riches (industrial capacity, demographics, etc.), as well as networks of allies, friends and other institutional ties. This form of capital was the main currency of Cold War realpolitik and balancing.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Security in PracticeThe Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy, pp. 148 - 193Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010