The concept of treating ideas like symbolic technologies is an interesting route to go on. To paraphrase an argument from the readings, page 217 of Laffey and Weldes, this is indeed like finding oneself buying into the mind set of a group after using the terminology of the group. The very act of using the terminology, language, and conceptions of a symbolic technology change one's own world view. That is the power of ideas. Almost like if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It seems to me that the end result of this concept is that symbolic technologies define the world that an actor is living in. In the United States we see NATO as a guarantor of security for individual states. Russia sees NATO as a threat to its very existence. Is it any wonder that Russia would go so far as to annex Crimea to secure access to the Black Sea if there was even a hint of Ukraine becoming more friendly with NATO?
An article on RT, essentially an English language mouthpiece of the Kremlin, quotes a spokesman:
"The Kremlin has warned that NATO’s further advance towards Russia’s borders will entail counter measures.
“We must not forget that NATO is an organization that has been created during the time of confrontation and for confrontation, that’s why it cannot change its nature,” the Russian president’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters in Moscow, as cited by Sputnik.
“That is why any advancement by such an organization toward our borders will force us to take adequate counter-measures to safeguard own security, our national security,” Peskov said." https://www.rt.com/news/316237-poroshenko-ukraine-nato-outpost/
The mere existence of NATO is a threat to Russia. The annexation was not an act of aggression, it was essential to Russia's national security interests. This isn't a question of ideas vs interests, this is an example of the world view, the frame of mind, the symbolic technology defining the basic concept of the interest.
This really looks like a case where it's difficult to tell the difference between interests and ideas. Anti ideology sentiments have not completely dissipated since 1991. The interests are clear but there is also a clear offense to the value system of Russia when dealing with NATO. It is difficult to not be offended by an organization that was built primarily as an anti to your own existence.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely an interesting post. Nice thoughts on the matter. This issue of Russia against NATO, of Russia against Ukraine (in regard to Crimea), is typically a very one sided discussion in the U.S. I'm not at all advocating what Putin decided to do, but it is interesting to acquire greater foresight in regard for the state's motivations and logic behind doing what it does as it perceives encroachment by NATO.
ReplyDelete