Damian Szacawa & Kazimierz Musiał: Critical junctures and changing identity of the Baltic Sea Region

The Baltic Sea region (BSR), a seemingly peaceful space comprising diverse nations, has profoundly transformed in recent years. It is no longer just a geographic area where the sea in the middle plays a pivotal role in increasing its cohesion, but it has become a dynamic geopolitical scene reshaped by critical junctures. This essay will explore this evolution, tracing the shift from a post-Cold War soft security model and identity characterised by inclusive regionalism to a more assertive focus on collective defence and integration with the West resulting mainly from Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine.

The era of soft security and inclusive regionalism (1990 - 2014)

In the period following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new “soft security” approach was adopted by the state and non-state actors in the emerging BSR. This paradigm favoured cooperation over confrontation, emphasised dialogue and transnational collaboration, and pursued the building of a common identity among various stakeholders with the inclusion of Russia. The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), established in 1992, became a cornerstone of this endeavour. Its inclusive nature, accepting Russia as an equal member, reflected a belief in the possibility of managing regional challenges - environmental protection, economic development and even security - through shared responsibility based on multilateral dialogue.

During this period, we have witnessed the flourishing of various cross-border institutions, civil society organisations and expert networks, contributing to a dense web of interactions and constructing a distinctively new type of regional identification pattern. The success of BSR institutionalisation has often been ascribed to the emergence of “new regionalism” both as a social practice and a theoretical model that emphasised the power of shared narratives and discursive frameworks in shaping regional integration. In this sense, the BSR became a beacon of successful post-Cold War regionalism, often cited as a model for other regions to follow. However, the relative stability masked underlying tensions, mainly arising from Russia's sustained geopolitical ambitions.

The Crimea annexation and the erosion of trust (2014)

The year 2014 marked a turning point and, eventually, a critical juncture. Russia’s annexation of Crimea shattered the carefully constructed narrative of partnership and collaboration based on trust. This blatant violation of international law, although happening in Ukraine, sent shockwaves throughout the BSR, exposing the inherent fragility of a security architecture based on cooperation with a revisionist power. The annexation also signalled a shift in Russia's approach to its neighbours, from subtle, clandestine influence and hybrid warfare tactics to an outright military operation.

Reaction to the annexation varied, but unease and uncertainty were palpable. The CBSS tried to maintain dialogue, but the inherent distrust created by annexation undermined its effectiveness. The period witnessed a growing divergence between Russia and its neighbours, marked by rising military spending, enhanced border security and a cautious reassessment of security partnerships. While the soft security paradigm has persisted, its trust-based foundation was irreversibly damaged.

The invasion of Ukraine and accelerating shift toward collective defence (2022-present)

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marked a catastrophic critical juncture, definitively ending the era of soft security in the BSR. The invasion revealed the true extent of Russia's revisionist intentions and its disregard for international norms and agreements. The act of aggression was widely condemned, marking a clear punctuation of the power equilibrium in the regional security landscape.

The Russian invasion ushered in a rapid reassessment of security priorities in other states in the region. The Baltic states and Poland, already earlier suspicious of Russia, doubled their commitment to NATO, while Finland and Sweden, previously maintaining a policy of military non-alignment, quickly opted for NATO membership. The decision marked a spectacular shift in these states' national security strategies, though it was prompted by a deep recognition of the imminent threat posed by Russia and the need for security guarantees offered by NATO membership. While ultimately successful, this process encountered obstacles, particularly from Turkey and Hungary, which highlighted the complexity of collective security decisions that have consequences beyond the BSR framework.

The invasion also had a direct impact on the CBSS. Russia's expulsion from the organisation ultimately solidified its transformation from a regional platform to a forum for coordinated responses to Russian aggression. The focus shifted decisively to security issues, strengthening cooperation in areas such as civil defence and preparedness, enhancing societal resilience and protecting critical infrastructure. In these domains, due to its experience in coping with Russian aggression, Ukraine has become a valuable partner in several projects that previously were realised exclusively by the BSR states.

A new regional identity: Western integration and collective security

The BSR is forging a new identity rooted in collective security and close ties to the West. NATO's enlargement with Finland and Sweden has geopolitical consequences and marks a significant ideological shift, reinforcing the region's Western orientation and commitment to a rules-based international order. This new identity includes a greater emphasis on military capabilities and a more assertive stance against Russian aggression.

However, this new arrangement does not diminish the role of regional cooperation. While the focus has shifted to security, there is still a strong need to cooperate on common challenges such as environmental protection, economic development or energy security. While strongly linked to NATO and the West, the BSR states are well aware of their positionality and remaining common challenges that require continued dialogue and cooperation, albeit in a radically changed geopolitical environment. Pursuing sustainable regional development and mitigating transnational threats will remain key in shaping the future regional identity, even if building capacity for resilience and defence cooperation with NATO takes precedence.

Conclusion: A region transformed

The Baltic Sea region was irreversibly transformed at critical moments in 2014 and 2022. The era of soft security, characterised by inclusive regionalism and the hope of cooperation with Russia, ended. What has emerged is a region firmly committed to collective defence and closer integration with the West. While the long-term implications of this shift are not yet obvious, it can be asserted that Russia's aggressive actions have fundamentally redefined the BSR identity and security architecture. The regional futures will likely require a balancing act between the need for a solid collective defence and a continued pursuit of regional cooperation on shared challenges taking place among the complexities of a changing geopolitical landscape.