Reading Richard Sakwa’s book The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War (2024), I was struck by the following words:
…the ‘securitisation’ of new policy areas, both in Russia and the West. According to the Copenhagen School, securitisation is the way that ‘normal’ politics is subsumed into national security discourses, which then shape policy.
Just what does that mean? I wondered. Could those words, whatever their meaning, somehow explain why corporate and state media in my country give an incorrect picture of the causes and consequences of the Ukraine war and of how it is being handled by the political West?
I pasted the quote into an AI powered search engine and asked what it meant (Yes, I know that is cheating, but I was “securitising” as I don’t have time to enrol in a course of Security Studies):
What Securitisation Theory Says:
The Copenhagen School argues that “security” is not an objective fact, but a discursive construction. Something becomes a “security issue” not because it inherently threatens survival, but because political actors successfully frame it that way.[In] normal politics: Issues are debated through ordinary political channels—with compromise, trade-offs, and democratic deliberation.
A securitising move: A political actor (leader, institution, media) declares an issue an existential threat requiring emergency measures—”this isn’t just policy, it’s about our survival.”
[Source: AI-response]
Aha! So there is such a thing as securitisation theory! Bingo. Now I know what to look for.
AI continues:
[When a] security discourse takes over:
Once accepted, the issue moves from normal politics into the realm of security, where:
- Emergency powers are justified
- Scrutiny is reduced (“we must act quickly!”)
- Opposition can be framed as disloyal or dangerous
- Policy priorities shift dramatically
So much for AI.
Here, then, is an article explaining the Copenhagen School’s securitisation theory and here. There are lots of papers about the topic. Next, I looked for articles about “securitisation theory” and Europe, but most of the hits concerned migration or “market competition”.
One article, however, in the Eurasian Review deals with the issue I am looking for: Securitization And Militarization Of European Politics:
EU leaders have consistently securitised the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war (now in its fifth year) as an “existential threat” to Europe’s security, democracy, and sovereignty.
For the 2026 Iran war, triggered by US-Israeli strikes, leaders portray Iran’s nuclear/missile capabilities as a “huge threat” to Europe. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called Iran an “existential threat” to Israel and a regional peril spilling into Europe via energy crises, migration, and potential terror.
The article goes on to refer to the Copenhagen School, explaining that the very concept of securitisation in international relations “represents a paradigm shift in security studies”. The article outlines some of the Copenhagen School’s key concepts, such as the “speech act”:
When a securitising actor successfully presents an issue as an existential threat to a referent object—whether state, society, or other entity— and this claim is accepted by a relevant audience, the issue becomes securitised. This process legitimises the adoption of emergency measures that would be unacceptable under normal political circumstances. [emphasis by Pelshval]
That securitisation may lead to militarisation is implied rather than stated – after all, the name of the article is, I repeat, Securitization And Militarization Of European Politics, and the section headed “Militarisation phenomenon” starts with what I interpret as a warning:
The militarisation of politics in international relations refers to the increasing influence of military institutions, values, and personnel in political decision-making processes and the normalisation of military solutions to political problems.
Under the heading “Militarisation of European Politics”, the article continues:
Security Action for Europe (SAFE), adopted by the EU Council in May 2025, is a €150 billion loan program designed to bolster European security amid ongoing threats, … and strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB)
… As part of the Readiness 2030 agenda, it has disbursed billions to nations like Poland (€43.7 billion) for procurements, integrating non-EU allies like Canada while excluding others.
…
SAFE integrates Ukraine’s defence industry on equal terms with EU states, allowing Kyiv to participate in projects and access funding indirectly through member states. (By 2026, 19 national plans had been submitted, with 15 including support for Ukraine worth billions, fostering interoperability and industrial ties.)
…
Politically, SAFE advances federalisation by centralising defence decisions, bypassing unanimity through “coalitions of the willing” and joint borrowing. EU spending rose 30% to €326 billion by 2024, with SAFE enabling deviations from fiscal rules for defence. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz push for European-led forces in Ukraine post-ceasefire, while Andrius Kubilius highlights SAFE’s role in binding Ukraine to EU structures.
[emphasis by Pelshval]
Phew! Pretty hot stuff, that.
… Critics argue this erodes national sovereignty, risking over-militarisation and internal divisions. (ibid)
No wonder!
But how do do European leaders convince their populations that all this defence spending is necessary? For instance by frightening them:
In Sweden, Lithuania, and Poland, governments distribute booklets like “If Crisis or War Comes,” instructing citizens to stockpile essentials and locate shelters, reviving Cold War-era resilience efforts. Allegedly, the Netherlands mailed emergency guides to all households, stressing survival for 72 hours without utilities. France introduces voluntary national service for teens, integrating defence education, while Poland mandates security courses in schools, including firearm training for youth. (ibid)
Going forward:
Institutionally, the EU’s Readiness 2030 plan, endorsed by leaders, … €800 billion in initiatives like SAFE for joint procurement and infrastructure upgrades. This includes boosting military spending by 30% since 2022 and fostering irreversible integration to counter political volatility…. (ibid)
[emphasis by Pelshval]
Voila!: “irreversible integration to counter political volatility”. That is the key and the only phrase in the entire article that is veiled. Even the Eurasian Review needs to keep its head down.
So lets dig a little more.
Didier Bigo, Professor of International Relations at King’s College London is considered a leading figure in the so-called Paris School of security studies. He is quoted in a paper about Security professionals and public opinion: Legitimacy, publicity and brand identity which, by the way, introduces me to a rather cute word, securocrates:
… the crucial role and importance of non-elected security officials to how security is designed, administered and experienced. One concern is whether such officials lack public accountability and whether their performance of such roles and functions lies in tension with democratic norms. As Bigo (2002): argues ‘They [security professionals] benefit from the belief that they know what ‘we’ (non-professionals, amateurs) do not know and that they have specific modes of action of a technical nature that we are not supposed to know about’. Further, this ‘field’ of security is able to use this expert knowledge to define key questions of (in)security, over and above those of other actors, such as public voices and thus ‘exclude[s] other actors. . . by disqualifying their points of view on the definition of threats and on the public policies aiming to prevent the threats’
Professor Didier Bigo has written several articles and papers, some of which can be downloaded, discussing EU/Schengen security arrangements. His writing is conspicuously academic. Being French, he also has a penchant for convoluted sentences, and I see that he, too, keeps his head down. He frames criticism of the system as recommendations to the authorities rather than as flak. All in all, it is difficult to distil key points of his critique.
On the other hand, for the CGT, the largest trade union in France, the situation is quite clear. On the streets, no less: No longer does the Law limit power; power redefines the Law. I believe many US Americans will recognise the veracity of that statement. The following is from a CGT flyer.
Security vs Justice:
Signals intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). As classified and sensitive information is usually encrypted, signals intelligence may necessarily involve cryptanalysis (to decipher the messages). Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity—is also used to integrate information, and it may complement cryptanalysisSignals intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). As classified and sensitive information is usually encrypted, signals intelligence may necessarily involve cryptanalysis (to decipher the messages). Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity—is also used to integrate information, and it may complement cryptanalysisThis obsession with security is a sign of a democratic and social system that has ground to a halt; Loïc Wacquant was already highlighting this situation back in 2004: ‘The penal state develops where the welfare state withdraws’. It is a veritable headlong rush, coupled with the art of making people believe that action is being taken; it does not protect, but rather numbs and obscures the real solutions: prevention, education and social justice. …social movements are no longer treated as legitimate political expressions, but as threats to be contained, disturbances to be suppressed, risks to be eliminated. A succession of police custody and summary court appearances, preventive detention, bans on demonstrations, administrative dissolutions of organisations, severe criminal charges, and the use of anti-terrorism legislation against activists: … Social conflicts are being redefined: they are no longer political disagreements, but are presented as public order issues….Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
We are not there, yet, in Norway, mainly because there is virtually no dissent. Our authorities wisely allowed us to voice our outrage about the treatment of Palestinians, they even agreed with us! They declared they recognised the State of Palestine! (Look to Norway, Starmer!).
But they have convinced us so completely that Russia has evil designs that even I am silent except in writing, here, under the name of Pelshval.
Journalism is a popular field of study. Only the best students are admitted, and requirements are stringent. What I am trying to say is that Norwegian journalists are neither stupid nor ignorant. But what they are telling us about the Ukraine war is hogwash.
Whereas I have absolutely no proof of censorship, I believe there can be no doubt about it. How that censorship has been put in place remains to be discovered.
By the way, SIGINT, which is an important tool for the secret services, means Signals intelligence-gathering, which can include communication between people (COMINT) and “traffic analysis” the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity. Journalists are very aware of the use of SIGINT.