Introducing Triangular Diplomacy

  • Alasdair R. Young
  • Vicki L. Birchfield


Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine represent the greatest security threat to western Europe since the end of the Cold War and a profound challenge to international norms. This volume is explicitly comparative, considering how the European Union and the United States responded to the same crisis. It also employs a ‘360-degree’ perspective, considering how the US and EU each regard the other in its dealings with Russia, and how Russia and Ukraine perceive them. This chapter sets the stage analytically for the other contributions by making the case for studying the EU’s foreign policy from a comparative perspective and setting out the triangular diplomacy framework. It concludes by introducing the other contributions to the volume.


  1. Berridge, G. R. (2005). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, S. (2014). Power, Perception and Policymaking: The Foreign Policies of the US and the EU towards China. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  3. Carter, A. B. (2006). America’s New Strategic Partner. Foreign Affairs, 85(4), 33–44.Google Scholar
  4. Commission (2014, May 28). European Energy Security Strategy, COM(2014) 330 final.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, R. (2003). The Breaking of Nations: Order and Change in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cross, M. D. & Karolewsk, I. P. (2017). Europe’s Hybrid Foreign Policy a Special Issue of JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(1).Google Scholar
  7. Damro, C. (2012). Market Power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dee, M. (2013). Challenging Expectations: A Study of European Union Performance in Multilateral Negotiations. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  9. Drezner, D. W. (2007). All Politics is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duchêne, F. (1973). A Nation Writ Large? Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, D. and Schneider, J. (2014, May 22). Treacherous Triangle: China, Russia, the United States and the New Superpower Showdown. Foreign Affairs, Snapshot.Google Scholar
  12. Hallenberg, J., & Karlsson, H. (2006). A New Strategic Triangle: Defining Changing Transatlantic Security Relations. In J. Hallenberg & H. Karlsson (Eds.), Changing Transatlantic Security Relations: Do the US, the EU and Russia form a New Strategic Triangle? (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Haukkala, H. (2010). The EU-Russia Strategic Partnership. The Limits of Post-Sovereignty in International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, C. (2016). Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Jörgensen, K. E., Aarstad, A. K., Drieskens, E., Laatikainen, K., & Tonra, B. (Eds.). (2015). Sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Jørgensen, K. E., Oberthür, S., & Shahin, J. (2011). Introduction: Assessing the EU’s Performance in International Institutions—Conceptual Framework and Core Findings. Journal of European Integration, 33(6), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelemen, D., & Vogel, D. (2010). Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics. Comparative Political Studies, 43(4), 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kissinger, H. (1979). White House Years. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Kotkin, S. (2009, September/October). The Unbalanced Triangle: What Chinese-Russian Relations Mean for the United States. Foreign Affairs 88(5), 130–138.Google Scholar
  20. Laatikainen, K. V., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2006). The European Union at the United Nations: Intersecting Multilateralisms. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  21. Lo, B. (2010). Russia, China and the United States: From Strategic Triangularism to the Post-Modern Triangle. Proliferation Paper, Paris: Institut Français des Relations Internationales.Google Scholar
  22. Manners, I. (2002). Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGuire, S., & Smith, M. H. (2008). The European Union and the United States: Competition and Convergence in the Global Arena. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, September–October). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77–89.Google Scholar
  25. Menon, R., & Rumer, E. (2015). The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mökli, D., & Mauer, V. (Eds.). (2011). European-American Relations and the Middle East: From Suez to Iraq. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Niemann, A., & Bretherton, C. (Eds.). (2013). EU External Policy at the Crossroads: The Challenge of Actorness and Effectiveness. International Relations, 27(3), 261–275.Google Scholar
  28. Oye, K. (1985). Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy. World Politics, 38(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft Balancing Against the United States. International Security, 30(1), 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, J. (2012). The EU as a Global Actor. In E. Bomberg, J. Peterson, & R. Corbett (Eds.), The European Union: How Does It Work? (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson, J., & Pollack, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Postnikov, E. (2014). The Design of Social Standards in EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements. In D. A. Deese (Ed.), Handbook of the International Political Economy of Trade. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Renard, T. (2012, April). The EU Strategic Partnerships Review: Ten Guiding Principles. Policy Brief 2, European Strategic Partnership Observatory.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, K. (2014). Détente 2.0? The Meaning of Russia’s ‘Reset’ with the United States. International Studies Perspectives, 15(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sakwa, R. (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London/New York: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt-Felzmann, A. (2015). European Foreign Policy Towards Russia: Challenges, Lessons and Future Avenues for Research. In K.-E. Jörgensen et al. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy (pp. 598–614). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, M. H. (2015). The EU and the US. In K.-E. Jörgensen et al. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy (pp. 570–583). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soesanto, S. (2015, February 12). Europe Needs Less Soldiers—But More European Ones. NATO Review, 77–89.Google Scholar
  40. Stent, A. (2012). US-Russia Relations in the Second Obama Administration. Survival, 54(6), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USTR [United States Trade Representative]. (2016). National Trade Estimates Report 2016. Washington, DC: United States Trade Representative.Google Scholar
  42. Walt, S. M. (2014, September 4). NATO Owes Putin a Big Thank You. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  43. White, B. (2001). Understanding European Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine in Crisis: What It Means for the West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wouters, J., Defraigne, J.-C., & Burnay, M. (2015). China, the European Union and the Developing World: A Triangular Relationship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alasdair R. Young
    • 1
  • Vicki L. Birchfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Sam Nunn School of International AffairsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations