Russian strategic ambiguity as a tactic for desecuritization: a case study of the Ukrainian conflict.

Abstract

Following Russia’s incursion into Crimea, ambiguous warfare and strategic ambiguity used during the Ukrainian conflict have been cited by NATO as a threat to the future of European security. The use of strategic ambiguity holds many benefits over clear communications, particularly its ability to foster multiple interpretations of and create a united diversity around a specific issue during times of crisis. Within the Copenhagen School of Security Studies and Dr Holger Stritzel’s analytical frameworks for securitization and desecuritization, this research asks the question of whether strategic ambiguity can be used as a tactic to influence audiences for the purpose and process of desecuritization. Critical discourse analysis is used in a case study of the Ukrainian conflict, analysing NATO and Kremlin speeches and transcripts, to identify and analyse how Russia has used strategic ambiguity as a tactic for desecuritization in order to influence its targeted audiences. Much focus is also directed towards explaining how strategic ambiguity has benefited Russia’s campaign of information and psychological warfare. The outcome of this studied has shown mixed results. The author argues from the position that while Russia has been overall unsuccessful in its attempted desecuritization, strategic ambiguity still serves as an important tactic for influencing and dividing perceptions of targeted audiences for the purpose and process of desecuritization.