Researcher
Julie Wilhelmsen
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Julie Wilhelmsen is Research Professor and Head of the Research group for Russia, Asia and International Trade at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. She holds a PhD in political science and conducts research in the fields of critical security studies, Russian foreign and security policies and the radicalization of Islam in Eurasia.
The two post-soviet Chechen wars have been a constant focus in her research and she is also heads projects related to conflict resolution in the North Caucasus. From 2012 to 2016 she was the editor of the Scandinavian-language journal Internasjonal Politikk, and has a wide outreach to the Norwegian public on issues related to Russia and Eurasia through frequent public talks and media comments. In 2019 – 2021 Wilhelmsen is an expert in the Cooperative Security Initiative (CSI), an initiative which is designed to generate ideas and shift momentum in favor of cooperative security and multilateralism through the OSCE in order to build a safer Europe.
Expertise
Education
2014 Ph.D in Political Science, University of Oslo. Areas of specialisation: Russian Politics, Critical Security Studies, Discourse Analysis
1999 Cand.Polit. (Political Science), University of Oslo
1996 Master of Science in Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science
1995 Mellomfag in Political Science, University of Oslo
1994 Mellomfag in Russian, University of Oslo
Work Experience
2025- Head of the Research group on Russia, Asia and International Trade
2022- Research professor
2022 Head of the Research group on Russia, Asia and International Trade
2014-2022 Senior Researcher, NUPI
2003-2014 Researcher, Centre for Russian Studies, NUPI
2001-2003 Researcher and Project manager, Norwegian Defence Reseach Establishment
1999-2001 Higher executive officer, Norwegian Directorate of Immigration
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersTopos of threat and metapolitics in Russia’s securitisation of NATO post-Crimea
This article makes a twofold contribution on the relationship between self/other securitisation, ambiguous threat constructions, and anxiety at the intersection of Securitisation Theory (ST) and Ontological Security Studies (OSS). First, we develop the concept topos of threat (TT) as a potent linguistic anchor in securitisation processes. TTs depict an entire self/other threat situation that warrants escape, serving identity needs while staying flexible and ambiguous. However, their frequent rhetorical deployment can blur the threat construction and increase anxiety: this challenges the classical scholarly assumption that antagonism necessarily alleviates anxiety. Second, we theorise metapolitics as an anxiety mediation strategy. Metapolitics is a mode of interpretation – a relentless analysis of surface clues to expose a deceptive, powerful adversary – which in the final event fails to alleviate anxiety. The dual practice of nurturing topoi of threat and metapolitics drives conflict because it sets in motion a vicious securitisation spiral that entrenches rigid patterns of self/other representation and fosters a bias of anticipating hostility. We employ abductive theorising: working with established theory alongside empirical discovery through a discourse analysis of Russia’s official rhetoric on NATO and the use of the TT ‘colour revolution’ since the conflict in Ukraine began in 2014.
Trump II: A new trajectory in Russia relations for NATO Nordic states
• The incoming Trump administration will replace the policy of “stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” with “making a deal with Russia”. This might entail de-escalation with Russia as well as economic and security burden-sharing with Europe. Norway and its now NATO neighbours Sweden and Finland have a window of opportunity to develop new policy for the second Trump term. • An adjusted approach to relations with Russia in the North can be devised that draws on Norwegian traditions in its relations with Russia. This approach will differ from the UK, Poland and the Baltic States but can represent a fruitful model of NATO membership for the Nordic states. • Despite a significant decline in military tension in the North since 2022, the risk of a future security competition with Russia and Nordic NATO members should not be downplayed. Presuming Russia is a status quo power in the North, NATO should have a clear and predictable posture in the North that combines deterrence and reassurance. • Russia should not be treated as a monolithic entity; there are moderates that would welcome diplomacy with Nordic NATO neighbours. Backchannel contacts between Russia and the Nordic NATO states can develop the outlines of an adjusted security posture for the North that could be received favourably by the new Trump Administration as it attempts to open negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
Differentiating Hybrid Threats against the High North and Baltic Sea regions
Russia’s grey-zone threats and actions are a major concern for bordering countries who are on the receiving end of such actions, both physical and cyber. This policy brief examines how such hybrid threats affect countries in the High North and Baltic Sea regions and evaluates the challenges related to response and countermeasures. NATO's policy is that the member nations are responsible for building resilience and responding to hybrid threats or attacks. To avoid invalid interpretations or paralysis in assessment and response to such complex and diverse threats, they should be differentiated and dealt with separately rather than boxed into a wide cognitive basket. This Policy Brief is part of the project ‘Norway as an in-between for Russia: Ambivalent space, hybrid measures’ financed by the Norwegian MoD.
Will a more humble NATO be a stronger NATO?
NATO’s narrative about itself has changed. However, this narrative is unlikely to gain much support elsewhere in the world, claim the authors of this op-ed in Aftenposten. NATO turns 75 and describes itself as "the world’s most successful military alliance". Like all other viable international actors, NATO must be able to look itself in the mirror and critically reflect on its own actions to maintain legitimacy both among its own populations and in the wider world, and, if necessary, adjust its course. This article, based on a longer analysis published in the journal Contemporary Security Policy, is an attempt to contribute to this reflection.
Trump Back in the Driver's Seat
NUPI’s Russia Conference 2024
NUPI’s Russia conference 2024: Wartime Russia – weak or strong?
Join us on 22 October for the annual Russia conference.
Reimagining NATO after Crimea: Defender of the rule-based order and truth?
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and war on Ukraine has led to upheaval in NATO’s discourse and practice. Taking a step back from the security debate, this article contends that the very process of responding to Russian aggression has led to the reimagining of NATO’s identity. While NATO tends to present change as continuity, this article’s mixed methods analysis illuminates how a trio of new and ambitious self-representations have risen to prominence within NATO’s post-Crimea discourse. NATO has anointed itself defender of the international rules-based order and purveyor of truth and facts amidst a world of disinformation, while pushing a resilience policy agenda that expands its authority into new domestic domains. Problematizing these shifts, the article warns that NATO’s new narrative ignores its own role in the problems it seeks to solve and thus risks undermining NATO efforts to rally global support for Ukraine.
The South Caucasus after 2022: Domestic developments and geopolitical challenges
Armenia now appears to be turning away from Russia and towards the EU and the USA, while Georgia seems to be heading in the opposite direction and and drawing closer to countries such as China, Turkey and Iran. How are shifts in the South Caucasus redefining the region's future?
NUPI på Arendalsuka: Her finner du oss