Publications

Disclaimer:
This article was first published in Un cambio de época: América del Norte y la intervención rusa en Ucrania. Geopolítica y nuevas dinámicas de la globalización.

Abstract

This paper examines the evolving dilemma of European defence integration through the prism of institutional competition between the EU and NATO. It analyzes the structural, political, and strategic tensions shaping EU–NATO defence cooperation in the context of renewed great-power competition and Russia’s war against Ukraine. The study situates the discussion within broader debates on European strategic autonomy, transatlantic burden-sharing, and institutional duplication, assessing whether deeper EU defence integration strengthens or fragments the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. By exploring initiatives such as PESCO, the European Defence Fund, and the EU Strategic Compass alongside NATO’s force posture adaptation and enlargement dynamics, the paper evaluates the degree of complementarity and competition between the two organizations.

The analysis argues that the core challenge is not a binary institutional choice but the inherent impossibility of functional complementarity and interdependence. While greater EU defence capabilities may enhance European resilience and contribute to fairer burden-sharing within NATO, misaligned political visions, capability gaps, and fragmentation of national interests turns the EU in terms of defence capacity and mission execution into a inherently deficient structure . The paper concludes that sustainable European security requires strengthening EU defence instruments while anchoring them firmly within NATO’s collective defence framework (Europeanization of NATO).

Youth resistance in Georgia has emerged as a key actor within the landscape of non-parliamentary opposition. This paper examines how university students mobilised during the 2024 protests, not simply to contest a piece of legislation, but to engage in broader acts of political redefinition and identity reclamation. Drawing on twenty-eight ethnographic diaries, the paper investigates how emotional, symbolic, and generational practices are deployed by young activists to articulate belonging, citizenship, and resistance outside formal political institutions.
Rather than acting in coordination with the parliamentary opposition, students build their own oppositional identity through emotionally charged practices such as “identity marches,” protest rituals, and symbolic appropriation of public space. These actions reveal how emotions—particularly anger, hope, fear, pride, and confusion—function as more than expressive tools: they structure participation, forge horizontal solidarities, and sustain collective motivation over time.
The analysis highlights how students reinterpret national and European belonging as affective and civic projects, positioning themselves in opposition to both Russian influence and domestic political elites. Their actions suggest a transformation of Europeanisation from a top-down institutional narrative into a lived, grassroots civic identity. This case contributes to broader discussions on how extra-institutional opposition actors generate political agency in post-communist hybrid regimes.