Authors

Discussion

My paper seeks to outline a theoretical framework for a comparative understanding of how the differing historical memories of European nations have affected their foreign policy responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While economic and geopolitical factors are well-understood, the influence of historical memory has been under-examined. Furthermore, authors have considered the effect of historical memory on the responses of countries individually, but not in a way that compares Eastern, Central, and Western European and Atlantic viewpoints. This ignores how official discourse concerning Ukraine relates to how nations discursively interact and compete to construct identities and maintain ontological security. I propose that the recently-developed theory of national vicarious identification provides the best means to analyse countries’ foreign policy vis-à-vis Ukraine. This is because it explains how national ontological security is maintained through the identification of shared values and characteristics in a perceived friendly nation, which complements the opposite and more studied phenomenon of differentiation with a perceived enemy nation or Other. My paper represents an important contribution to the new and growing literature on memory and ontological security, which perceives foreign policy as the expression and maintenance of national identity, in addition to realist geopolitical goals. Additionally, it has policy applications in the sphere of international diplomacy, as NATO members can better understand why their partners have responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the way that they have. This will help resist efforts by Russia and other hostile actors to exploit differences between members and sow division within the alliance over its Ukraine policy.