Crisis as practice: routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries

Crisis as practice:
routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries

Neklyudov N.Y.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia,

elibrary_id: 984594 |

Baykov A.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia,

elibrary_id: 621264 |

Shchekin A.S.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia,

Article received: 2023.06.05. Accepted: 2023.08.30

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06

For citation:

Neklyudov N.Y., Baykov A.A., Shchekin A.S. Crisis as practice: routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No. 6. P. 66-82. (In Russ.). EDN: NEXGKI

The authors express their gratitude to Igor Istomin, Alexander Chekov, Iver Neumann, and Ted Hopf. The authors also thank Anne Crowley-Vigneau for her help in editing the paper.


This article contributes to the debate on how an international crisis may contribute to ontological security. We argue that ontological security can paradoxically be achieved through escalating practices capable of provoking international crises. By merging ‘practices’, a fairly distinct theoretical perspective of International Relations, with ontological security, we seek to expand Jennifer Mitzen’s premise that “even dangerous routines provide ontological security” and consider practices as a source of attaining ontological security. To partake in the practical turn in ontological security studies, we borrow the concepts of Practice Turn in IR, habitus (disposition), and field (environment). After substantiating the connection between the two theories, we take the demise of the INF Treaty as an example of a crisis. We argue that the INF Treaty, as a field, has become a source of ontological threat to both the U.S. and Russia. Following the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have constantly changed their habitus by developing key missile technologies and deteriorating bilateral relations. Accordingly, the changed habitus no longer conformed to the realities of the field, making its delegitimization by both sides self-evident.

practices, ontological security, INF, Russia, US.


Addison, B. (2009). A feel for the game – a Bourdieuian analysis of principal leadership: a study of Queensland secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 327-341.

Adler, E. (2008). The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-cold war transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230.

Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1-36.

Adler-Nissen, R., & Pouliot, V. (2014a). Power in practice: negotiating the international intervention in Libya. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 889-911.

Akchurina, V., & Della Sala, V. (2018). Russia, Europe and the ontological security dilemma: narrating the emerging Eurasian space. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(10), 1638-1655.

Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 457-481.

Arbatov, A. (2020). Saving strategic arms control. Survival, 62(5), 79-104.

Batyuk, V. (2019). The collapse of the Treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range missiles: what next? Russia and America in the 21st Century, (Special Issue).

Bicchi, F. (2014). Information exchanges, diplomatic networks and the construction of European knowledge in European Union foreign policy. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 239-259.

Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2007). Security communities and the habitus of restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 285-305.

Borgen, C.J. (2009).  The language of law and the practice of politics: great powers and the rhetoric of self-determination in the cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago Journal of International Law, 10(1), 1-33.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The Play of International Practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460.

Buzhinsky, E. (2014). Does the INF Treaty Have a Future? Security index: a Russian journal on international security, 20(2), 89-93.

Carlson, L.J. (1995). A theory of escalation and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(3), 511-534.

Cohen, A. (2013). The genesis of Europe: competing elites and the emergence of a European field of power. In Transnational Power Elites (pp. 103-120). London: Routledge.

Croft, S., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2017). Fit for purpose? Fitting ontological security studies “into” the discipline of international relations: towards a vernacular turn. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 12-30.

Ejdus, F. (2018). Critical situations, fundamental questions and ontological insecurity in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(4), 883–908.

Fearon, J.D. (1994). Signaling versus the balance of power and interests: an empirical test of a crisis bargaining model. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(2), 236-269.

Georgakakis, D., & Rowell, J. (Ed). (2013). The field of Eurocracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

George, A.L. & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ghoshal, D. (2016). China and the INF Treaty. Comparative Strategy, 35(5), 363-370.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan Education UK.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-Identity. Self and society in the late Modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gustafsson, K., & Krickel-Choi, N.C. (2020). Returning to the roots of ontological security: insights from the existentialist anxiety literature. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 875-895.

Gutkowski, S. (2012). The British secular habitus and the war on terror. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 87-103.

Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice. Discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. New York, London: Routledge.

Homolar, A., & Scholz, R. (2019). The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 344-364.

Hopf, T. (2018). Change in International Practices. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 687-711.

Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1988). Deterrence failure and crisis escalation. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 29.

Huysmans, J. (1998a). Security! What do you mean? European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226-255.

Huysmans, J. (1998b). The question of the limit: desecuritisation and the aesthetics of horror in political realism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27(3), 569-589.

Kauppi, N., & Madsen, M.R. (2014). Fields of global governance: how transnational power elites can make global governance intelligible. International Political Sociology, 8(3), 324-330.

Kearn, D.W. (2012). Facing the missile challenge U.S. Strategy and the future of the INF Treaty.

Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741-767.

Kinsella, D., & Russett, B. (2002). Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1045-1068.

Kroenig, M. (2015). Facing reality: getting NATO ready for a new Cold War. Survival, 57(1), 49-70.

Kühn, U. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place: Europe in a post-INF world. The Nonproliferation Review, 26(1-2), 155-166.

Kühn, U., & Peczeli, A. (2017). Russia, NATO, and the INF Treaty. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11, 66-99.

Kühn, U., Shetty, S. & Sinovets P. (2017). Europe s nuclear woes: mitigating the challenges of the next years. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73(4), 245-254.

Kustermans, J. (2016). Parsing the practice turn: practice, practical knowledge, practices. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(2), 175-196.

Larsen, J.A. (2019).  NATO nuclear adaptation since 2014: the return of deterrence and renewed Alliance discomfort. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 17(2), 174-193.

Leduc, R. (2021). The ontological threat of foreign fighters. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 127-149.

Levine, D.J. (2017). “These days of Shoah”: history, habitus, and realpolitik in Jewish Palestine, 1942-1943. In Political Power and Social Theory (Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 32) (pp. 99-125). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Little, R. (2011). Britain s response to the Spanish Civil War. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 174-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lupovici, A. (2012). Ontological dissonance, clashing identities, and Israel s unilateral steps towards the Palestinians. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 809-833.

March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (2008). The logic of appropriateness. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mérand, F. (2010). Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense. Security Studies, 19(2), 342-374.

Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341-370.

Neumann, I.B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651.

Neumann, I.B., & Pouliot, V. (2011). Untimely Russia: hysteresis in Russian-Western relations over the past millennium. Security Studies, 20(1), 105-137.

Pifer, S., Kulesa L., Bahr E., Neuneck G., Troitskiy M. & Kroenig M. (2015). Forum: NATO and Russia. Survival, 57(2), 119-144.

Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(02), 257-288.

Pouliot, V. (2010a). International security in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pouliot, V. (2010b). The materials of practice: nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplaces and committee meetings in Russian-Atlantic relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 294-311.

Pouliot, V. (2020). Historical Institutionalism meets practice theory: renewing the selection process of the United Nations Secretary-General. International Organization, 74(4), 742-772.

Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: a research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297-315.

Ringmar, E. (2014). The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: practices as inter-paradigmatic research program. International Theory, 6(1), 1-27.

Risse, T. (2000). “Let s argue!”: communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1-39.

Steele, B.J. (2005). Ontological security and the power of self-identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War. Review of International Studies, 31(3), 519-540.

Sushentsov, A.A., & Wohlforth, W.C. (2020).  The tragedy of US–Russian relations: NATO centrality and the revisionists spiral. International Politics, 57(3), 427-450.

Suzuki, A., & Loizides, N. (2011).  Escalation of interstate crises of conflictual dyads. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 21-39.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IIS). (Ed.). (2020). Asia-Pacific regional security assessment 2020. Routledge.

Voeten, E. (2011). The practice of political manipulation. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 255-279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wendt, A.E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International organization, 41(3).

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philisophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Zarakol, A. (2010). Ontological (in)security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations, 24(1), 3-23.

Zolotarev, P. (2008). Missile defense challenges, Russia in global affairs.

Zwolski, K. (2014). How to explain the transnational security governance of the European Union? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(4), 942-958. 

Content No. 6, 2023

See also:

Zamyatin D.N.,
Space and (In)security: ontological models of imagination. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No3

Analytical Report by the Institute of Sociology, RAS,
Russia’s national security in experts eyes. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3

Sheynis V.L.,
Russia’s national security. durability trial. Part II. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1

Arbatov A.G.,
Nuclear reloading and international security. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3

Morozov V.Ye.,
Security as a form of political issues: on securitization and politicization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3



   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991