O. A. Moskalenko, A. A. Irkhin, N. E. Kabanova. The Black Sea Region as a Conflict Space in the Discourse of Foreign Think Tanks of 2018–2021

UDК 323:327.56 

DOI: 10.15507/2413-1407.119.030.202202.258-277

Abstract

Introduction. The strengthening of Russia’s subjectivity in the Black Sea region makes it the center of the Western media and expert-analytical agenda. The authors of the study aim to define the mechanisms of metaphorical construction of the Black Sea region as a space of conflict in the discourse of the Western think tanks.

Materials and Methods. The reports of the leading Western think tanks developing the region concept are used as research materials. The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach that combines the methods of political linguistics and geopolitical analysis and synthesis. The authors use the methods of discourse analysis to interpret the materials of foreign think tanks devoted to the study of the region, and based on the definition of dominant metaphorical models in the discourse of the Black Sea region, consider possible scenarios for the leading actors in the region.

Results. The narratives of the leading American, European and British think tanks are considered and the main metaphorical models characterizing the geopolitical processes in the region are highlighted. The American discourse is dominated by the sports metaphor and its subspecies associated with gambling: the region is perceived as a space of competition, but not war, as evidenced by the lack of military metaphor, which, however, appears in the narratives of the European experts. The Black Sea region is a platform, a springboard for the projection of Russian power in the Mediterranean, which is realized through metaphors with the component “aggressive”. For the British, the Black Sea region is metaphorized as a space of information warfare.

Discussion and Conclusion. There are two main types of perception of the Black Sea region as a geopolitical unit by the Western think tanks: the American think tanks see it as a space of global competition of the great powers; the Great Britain has made the Black Sea region a platform for a return to the global arena of Global Britain by drawing on the rhetoric of universal values. The materials of the article and the methodology may be useful for information and analytical support of the foreign policy of the Western countries and for design of response from part of Russia under the condition of intensification of contest of the main Black Sea region actors.

Keywords: the Black Sea Region, geopolitics, narrative, metaphorical model, discourse, think tanks

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

For citation: Moskalenko O.A., Irkhin A.A., Kabanova N.E. The Black Sea Region as a Conflict Space in the Discourse of Foreign Think Tanks of 2018–2021. Regionology. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2022;30(2):258‒277. doi: https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.119.030.202202.258-277

REFERENCES

1. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. The Black Sea Region in the Contest of Geopolitical Projects of the Great Powers, 1991–2019. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2021;21(3):498–516. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-498-516

2. Ilyin M.V. Introductory Essay to the Greater Mediterranean. Project: Greater Mediterranean. 2020. (In Russ.) doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22076.18569

3. Nechaev V.D., Chikharev I.A., Irkhin A.A., Makovskaya D.V. Framework of the Geostrategic Atlas of the Greater Mediterranean. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 5, Geography. 2019;(1):67–74. Available at: https://vestnik5.geogr.msu.ru/jour/article/view/506?locale=ru_RU (accessed 10.02.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

4. Chikharev I.A. Russia in Greater Mediterranean: New Pacific Eurasian Transition. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2021;21(3):441–458. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-441-458

5. Chikharev I.A. The Great Mediterranean as a Multi-Dimensional Object of Political Research. Polis. Political Studies. 2021;(3):129–146. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.03.09

6. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. Russia’s Foreign Policy in the Great Mediterranean: Prospects and Constraints. Geopolitics Quaterly. 2020;(15):110–121. Available at: http://journal.iag.ir/article_93709.html?lang=en (accessed 10.02.2022).

7. Aghazada M.M. Greater Mediterranean Regional Security Complex: Myth or Reality? Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2021;21(3):429–440. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-429-440

8. Asmus R. Developing a New Euro-Atlantic Strategy for the Black Sea Region. Insight Turkey. 2004;6(3):43–65. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26328588 (accessed 10.02.2022).

9. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. “The World is Bigger than Five”. Turkey’s Emergence as a Global Actor in World Politics: Prospects and Challenges for Russia. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2021;21(1):91–107. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-1-91-107

10. Bryza M. The Policy of the United States toward the Black Sea Region. In: Asmus, R. editor. Next Steps in Forging Euroatlantic Strategy for the Wider Black Sea. Washington D.C.: The German Marshall Fund of the United States; 2006. р. 37–42. Available at: https://atlanticpartnership.org/2006/11/next-steps-in-forging-a-euroatlantic-strategy-for-the-wider-black-sea-ap/ (accessed 10.02.2022).

11. Tsantoulis Y. Geopolitics, (Sub)Regionalism, Discourse and a Troubled ‘Power Triangle’ in the Black Sea. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2009;9(3):243–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14683850902934168

12. Tsantoulis Y. The Geopolitics of Region Building in the Black Sea: A Critical Examination. London: Routledge; 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429264412

13. Semenyshyn M. The Black Sea Region in the Media. ICBSS Policy Brief. 2014. No. 29. Available at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/182969/1163_original.pdf (accessed 10.02.2022).

14. Chikharev I.A., Yarmak O.V. The Greater Mediterranean in the Discourse of Research and Expert Analytics Centers. RUDN Journal of Political Science. 2019;21(1):99–109. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) doi: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2019-21-1-99-109

15. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003. Available at: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html (accessed 10.02.2022).

16. Moskalenko O.A., Irkhin A.A. Exterior Enemy Verbalization in USA Doctrinal Documents. Colloquium-Journal. 2019;(27-7):53–54. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=41662641 (accessed 10.02.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

17. Wallerstein I. European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: New Press; 2006. Available at: https://sociology.yale.edu/publications/european-universalism-rhetoric-power (accessed 10.02.2022).

18. Godovanyuk K.A. Ukraine in Light of British Foreign Policy Interests. Post-Soviet Studies. 2021;4(5):427–434. Available at: https://www.postussr.org/_files/ugd/0206eb_aac2d3a1005f4aea822d0a07f008cec3.pdf (accessed 10.02.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

Submitted 11.02.2022; approved after reviewing 22.03.2022; accepted for publication 31.03.2022.

About the authors:

Olga A. Moskalenko, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and Practice of Translation, Sevastopol State University (33 Universitetskaya St., Sevastopol 299053, Russian Federation), Cand. Sci. (Philology), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4162-3162, Scopus ID: 57211746837, Researcher ID: F-2699-2016, kerulen@bk.ru

Aleksandr A. Irkhin, Head, Department of Political Science and Philosophy, Sevastopol State University (33 Universitetskaya St., Sevastopol 299053, Russian Federation), Dr. Sci. (Political Science), Associate Professor, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7895-550X, Scopus ID: 57212405239, Researcher ID: A-4781-2019, alex.irhin@mail.ru

Natalya E. Kabanova, Senior Lecturer, Department of Theory and Practice of Translation, Sevastopol State University (33 Universitetskaya St., Sevastopol 299053, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1395-3217, natalia.kabanova@gmail.com

Contribution of the authors:

O. A. Moskalenko – draft of the manuscript; concept of the research.

A. A. Irkhin – concept of the research; development of the methodology.

N. E. Kabanova – critical analysis and editing of the text; formal data analysis.

All authors have read and approved the final version of manuscript.

To download article