The Role of Small Countries in Post-Soviet Territorial Restructuring: the Baltic Case
This author analyses the 2013 Lithuanian presidency of the EU in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and evaluates the contribution of Latvia and Estonia (the former Soviet republics set to preside over the EU in 2015 and 2018) to the shift in the power balance in the post-Soviet space. Through assessing the actions of small countries in promoting the Eastern Partnership programme with an emphasis on the anti-Russian agenda, the author concludes that they will inflict harm on the EU in a long-term perspective. These former Soviet republics no longer rely on mere diplomacy, but resort to a whole new problematic narrative, where Russia is described as an “aggressive and unpredictable neighbour” that poses the “threat from the East.” Being more mobile, small countries are able to concentrate power and resources in one or several key areas. This makes it possible for these countries to take advantage of international politics (even if the consequences of such steps are miscalculated) and “feed” on it through — so metimes consciously — creating “conflict nodes” in the relations between major players. This is especially true in the case of states that do not bear responsibility for global stability.
1. Accord between the political parties represented in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on strategic guidelines for the foreign, security and defence policy of the Republic of Lithuania for 2014—2020, 2014, Parliament of the Republic of ithuania, available at: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4028&p_d= 146140&p_k=2 (accessed 31.08.2014).
2. Agreement between political parties of the Republic of Lithuania on the main goals and objectives of the state foreign policy for 2004—2008, 2004, Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania, available at: www3.lrs. lt/docs2/QSJEWLHW. DOC (accessed 31.08.2014).
3. Agreement of the Political Parties of Lithuania on Foreign Policy Principles, Strategic Guidelines, and Goals of Lithuania for 2008—2012, 2008, Parliament ofthe Republic of Lithuania, available at: www3.lrs. lt/docs2/EKWJDONY. DOC (accessed 31.08.2014).
4. Budryte, D. 2005, The Dilemma of «Dual Loyalty»: Lithuania and Transatlantic Tensions. In: Lansford, T., Tashev, B. (eds.). Old Europe, new Europe, and the US: Renegotiating transatlantic security in the post 9/11 era, Aldershot, Hants, Ashgate.
5. Colomer, J. M. 2007, Great Empires, Small Nations: The Uncertain Future of the Sovereign State, L., N. Y.
6. Foreign Minister Rinkēvičs urges to transform Eastern Partnership into Euro-Atlantic Eastern Partnership, 2014, 23 March, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, available at: http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/press-releases/2014/march/23—1/ (accessed 31.08.2014).
7. Kasekamp, A. 2013, Estonia: Eager to Set an Example in Europe. In: Baunm, M., Marek, D. (eds.). The New Member States and the European Union: Foreign Policy and Europeanization, London.
8. Laurinavicius, C., Motieka, E., Statkus, N. 2005, Baltijos valstybiu geopolitikos bruozai. XX amzius, Vilnius.
9. Linkevicius, L. 2003, Membership of NATO is the Impulse for Reforms, Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review 2002, Vilnius, p. 7—16.
10. Lithuania and the United States enter a new stage of strategic cooperation, 2013, 30 August, President of the Republic of Lithuania, available at: http://lrp.lt/en/press_center/press_releases/lithuania_and_the_united_states_enter_a_new_stage_of_strategic_cooperation.html (accessed 25.07.2014).
11. Motieka, E., Statkus, N. 2004, Global and Baltic Geopolitical Situation: Review of 2001—2003, Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review 2003, Vilnius, p. 9—39.
12. Raik, К. 2013, Lithuania’s Presidency Gamble: The Activeness of Vilnius is Pushing the EU’s Eastern Partnership Forward, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Nov. 2013.
13. Rothstein, R. 1968, Alliances and Small Powers, Columbia University Press, New York, p. 29.
14. Ruse, I. 2012,The Bargaining Power of Territorially Constituted Institutionalised Coalitions in EU Council Negotiations, Journal of Contemporary European Researsh, Vol. 8, no. 3, p. 319—339.
15. Bogaturov, A. D. 2006, Iskushenie Rejganom. Limitrofy stanovjatsja znachimym faktorom v politike SShA na rossijskom napravlenii [Temptation Reagan. Border states are becoming a significant factor in US policy towards Russia], Nezavisimaya Gazeta, no. 99 (3779).
16. Ilyin, М. V. 2011, Al'ternativnye formy suverennoj gosudarstvennosti [Alternative forms of sovereign statehood], Sravnitel'naja politika [Comparative Politics], no. 3 (5), p.14.
17. Ilyin, М. V. 2008, Vozmozhna li universal'naja tipologija gosudarstv? [Is a universal typology of states?], Politicheskaja nauka [Political science], no. 4.
18. Kaveshnikov, N. Yu. 2008, Malye i vrednye? [Small and harmful?], Mezhdunarodnye processy [International processes], Vol. 6, no. 3 (18).
19. Lebedeva, М. М. 2014, Resursy vlijanija v mirovoj politike [Resources influence in world politics], Polis [Policy], no. 1, p. 99—108.
20. Mezhevich, N. М. (ed.), 2013, Otnoshenija Rossii i stran Pribaltiki: ot upushhennyh vozmozhnostej k real'nym perspektivam [Relations between Russia and the Baltic countries, from missed opportunities to real prospects], available at: www.sir. spbu.ru/news/?id=703 (accessed 31.08.2014).
21. Rekeda, S. Fedor Luk'janov: «Vostochnoe partnerstvo» zakonchilos' [Fyodor Lukyanov: "Eastern Partnership" has ended], 2014, Rubaltic. Ru, available at: http://politmos.ru/724-fedor-lukyanov-vostochnoe-partnerstvo-zakonchilos.html (accessed 31.08.2014).