Securitization of an Imaginary Threat as an Authoritarian Legitimation Instrument: The Cases of Belarus and Uzbekistan. July 2021 GUID: 2458329A DCU ID: 19108281 CU ID: 22199053 Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the 
 Degree of International Master in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies Word Count: 22 451 Supervisor: Donnacha Ó Beacháin Date of Submission: 31.07.2021 Abstract This research explores how the securitization of imaginary and exaggerated threats is used as a legitimation instrument in hegemonic authoritarian regimes. Approaching the task through the cases studies, this thesis will situate the securitization practice within the performance mechanism of authoritarian legitimation and apply it in two hegemonic autocratic regimes - Uzbekistan of Islam Karimov and Belarus of Alexander Lukashenko. This dissertation picks qualitative research design. Methodologically, discourse and content analysis will be used to test the theory that will be developed in this project. The arguments presented in the thesis draw upon the primary sources such as speeches, official statements, and memoirs. The dissertation will also refer to the secondary sources in order to synthesise arguments provided by the existing literature related to the issue in question. This research project...

Goal of this master thesis is to show that the myth of the Great Patriotic War is a source of Russian soft power in Belarus. After the methodology chapter, the thesis continues with connecting the concept of soft power authored by Joseph Nye with the concept of myth which is here defined on the basis of theories of Eliade and Malinowski. The next part discusses Russian soft power in the Post-Soviet area in general and in Belarus in particular. It demonstrates that Russian soft power rests largely on common history shared by Russians and other Post-Soviet nations. As a consequence, the main sources of Russian soft power rest on identities and narratives, including myths. The myth of the Great Patriotic War was at the center of Soviet mythology and it has preserved its dominant position also in the Post-Soviet period, what holds true particularly for Belarus. The following part retraces the evolution of the myth of the Great Patriotic War from its emergence during the Second World War until today. It shows that the essence of this myth is a feeling of togetherness and of community that unites the former Soviet nations. The last part presents an interpretative analysis of five qualitative interviews with Belarusians. The analysis of individual cases to a large extent confirmed that the myth of the...

On September 24, 2011, it was announced that Putin would run for president once again in 2012. The reaction in the West was that ―the more things change, the more they stay the same.‖ The Western conception of the post-Cold War Russia is often one of remarkable consistency since the turn of the century. This Western narrative focuses on an autocratic Putin reigning over his resurgent and confrontational Russia. Does this narrative tell the story of Russia today, or does it instead obscure it? To answer this I have elected to analyze Russian identity and how it relates to Russia‘s foreign policy with Belarus, traditionally a close ally of Russia. Analyzing news articles from state-owned Russia Today, I look at changes in reporting and Russian identity over time. I argue that a shift in Russian identity towards a more liberal outlook between 2006 and 2010 motivated a degradation of relations with Belarus. I argue that once the simplified narrative of a resurgent Russia is peeled back, a closer look reveals competing identities and competing interest groups in Russia‘s domestic arena. Finally I conclude that not only does identity play a pivotal role in Russia‘s relations, but also that researching identity is important in that it gives us a window into a fairly closed regime that lies at the center of the global stage. Discovering how Russian identity reacts to and influences foreign policy can offer insight into the domestic framework of contemporary Russia, as well as offer us an understanding of how central ideas are to crafting the world around us

Russo-Belarus Unification. Chosen Problems and perspectives of Union State (1999-2008). The main subject of the diploma thesis is cooperation between Russia and Belarus within the Union State of Russia and Belarus, which was established in 1999. After the break up of the USSR, cooperation between the newly independent states was largely defined by their membership in CIS. However, during the first five years an integration core emerged, consisting of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. These states were mainly cooperating in economic sphere, which finally emerged into international organization (Eurasian Economic Community). Belarus is one of the former Soviet republics, which kept and is still keeping very close relations with Russian Federation. Their bilateral integration begins after the breakup of USSR and culminates in 1999, when treaty of establishing Union State of Russia and Belarus is signed. During the almost 10 year period between 1999 and 2008, however, the cooperation did not move forward as was originally planned. In my opinion, the main topics which delay effective Russo-Belarus integration are as follows: prices for energetic commodities (oil and gas) for Belarus; implementation of common currency - Russian ruble; and ratification of Constitutional Act of Union State....

The purpose of the paper is to study whether there are any democratic tendencies in Belarus. The question that the paper intends to answer is, are there any signs of democracy in Belarus. The paper is based on a qualitative case study where the paper is assessed with Juan J Linz and Alfred Stepans (1996) theory about five interactive arenas where they explain how a democracy is consolidated. The five arenas are Civil society, Political society, Rule of law, State apparatus and Economic society. Regarding the result, this study has shown that Belarus has a very low grade of democracy tendencies in every arena and much of that because the president Aleksandr Lukasjenko’s undemocratic authoritarian regime. Only in the economic arena there are some small democracy tendencies. The conclusion is that Belarus won’t make required democratic changes as long as Lukasjenko rules the country.