Archetypes of Icelandic Strategic Culture: A Visual Analysis
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2025-2-101-44-68
Abstract
This article traces the evolution of Iceland’s strategic culture from 1945 to 2024 by examining how Icelandic media visually construct the “Other.” Political cartoons serve as the primary evidence base: their recurring motifs and metaphors reveal the values that underpin national security thinking.
The analysis yields three core findings. First, Icelandic strategic culture is founded on a normative aversion to force: military power is portrayed as legitimate only when exercised in self-defence. Second, this pacific norm produces a consistently defensive—rather than offensive—posture toward external threats. Third, Icelandic identity is forged relationally, through shifting depictions of major international actors.
These relational patterns unfold as follows. Between 1945 and 2024 the United States and the United Kingdom transition from suspicious “Others” to trusted allies, adding a distinct transAtlantic layer to Icelandic self-conception. By contrast, the Soviet Union (1945–1991) and its successor, Russia (1991–2024), remain durable cultural antagonists: Cold-War tropes such as the Russian bear continue to symbolize an assertive, menacing foreign policy. After 1991 the European Union emerges as an ambivalent figure, blending attractive and repulsive traits that mirror Reykjavík’s own indecision over deeper European integration.
The cartoons also project a reflexive self-image: Icelanders emphasise their small size and material weakness while acknowledging reliance on external security guarantors—above all, the United States. Finally, the broader international environment is depicted as anarchic and inherently hazardous, reinforcing Iceland’s defensive orientation and its search for reliable partners.
Keywords
strategic culture,
identity,
Iceland,
metaphor,
constructivism,
symbols,
semiotics,
political cartoon,
Сold War
About the Authors
V. V. Vorotnikov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladislav V. Vorotnikov – PhD (Candidate of Historical Sciences), Associate Professor of Department for European and American Studies; Leading Research Fellow of the Institute for International Studies
76 Vernadsky avenue, Moscow, 119454, Russia
E. S. Pankov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeni S. Pankov – Intern of the Centre for European Studies of Institute for International Studies
76 Vernadsky avenue, Moscow, 119454, Russia
References
1. Callahan W.A. 2020. Sensible Politics: Visualizing International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. 364 p.
2. Campbell D. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press. 308 p.
3. Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part II). 2006. International Relations. 20(2). P. 231–243. DOI: 10.1177/0047117806063851.
4. Dalgaard-Nielsen A. 2005. The Test of Strategic Culture: Germany, Pacifism and Pre-Emptive Strikes. Security Dialogue. 36(3). P. 339–359. DOI: 10.1177/0967010605057020.
5. Eitelhuber N. 2009. The Russian Bear: Russian Strategic Culture and What it Implies for the West. Connections. 9(1). P. 1–28. DOI:10.11610/Connections.09.1.01.
6. Endres F. 2018. Öffentliche Meinung und strategische Kulturen. Außenpolitische Überzeugungen in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien. Wiesbaden: Springer. 244 p.
7. Gray C.S. 1999. Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes Back. Review of International Studies. 25(1). P. 49–69.
8. Green J.A. 2022. The Rise of Twiplomacy and the Making of Customary International Law on Social Media. Chinese Journal of International Law. 21(1). Р. 1–53. DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmac007.
9. Hálfdanarson G. 2011. “The Beloved War”: The Second World War and the Icelandic National Narrative”. Nordic Narratives of the Second World War: National Historiographies Revisited. Ed. by Stenius H., Österberg M., Östling J. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. P.89-100.
10. Johnston A.I. 1995a. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton University Press. 307 p.
11. Johnston A.I. 1995b. Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security. 19(4). P. 32–64. DOI: 10.2307/2539119.
12. Johnston A.I. 1999. Strategic Cultures Revisited: Reply to Colin Gray. Review of International Studies. 25(3). P. 519–523.
13. Jóhannesson G.Th. 2004. To the Edge of Nowhere? U.S.–Icelandic Defense Relations During and after the Cold War. Naval War College Review. LVII(3/4). Р. 115–137.
14. Kanet R.E. 2019. Russian Strategic Culture, Domestic Politics and Cold War 2.0. European Politics and Society. 20(2). P. 190–206. DOI:10.1080/23745118.2018.1545184.
15. Keohane R.O. 1969. Review: Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization. 23(2). P. 291–310.
16. Klein B.S. 1988. Hegemony and Strategic Culture: American Power Projection and Alliance Defence Politics. Review of International Studies. 14(2). P. 133–148.
17. Klein Y. 1991. A Theory of Strategic Culture. Comparative Strategy. 10(1). P. 3–23.
18. Kuznar L.A., Heath N., Popp G. 2023. Strategic Culture – Its History, Issues, and Complexity. NSI Inc. Prepared for Strategic Multilayer Assessment, Joint Staff, J3. 22 p.
19. Larsen J.A. 2006. Comparative Strategic Cultures Project: Assessing Strategic Culture as a Methodological Approach to Understanding WMD Decision-Making by States and Non-State Actors. Washington, D.C.: Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and Concepts Office. 457 p.
20. Longhurst K. 2018. Germany and the Use of Force: The Evolution of German Security Policy 1990–2003. Manchester University Press. 244 p.
21. Matlary J.H. 2006. When Soft Power Turns Hard: Is an EU Strategic Culture Possible? Security Dialogue. 37(1). P. 105–121. DOI:10.1177/0967010606064140.
22. Nuechterlein D. 1961. Iceland: Reluctant Ally. New York: Cornell University Press. 213 p.
23. Snyder J. 1977. The Soviet Strategic Culture. Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations. Rand Corporation. R-2154-AF. September. 40 p.
24. Steinsson S. 2016. The Cod Wars: a re-analysis. European Security. P. 1–20. DOI:10.1080/096 62839.2016.1160376.
25. Thorhallsson B. 2019. Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs. New York: Routledge. 242 p.
26. Twining D.T. 1989. Soviet Strategic Culture – The Missing Dimension. Intelligence and National Security. 4(1). Р. 169–187.
27. Wendt A. 1995. Constructing International Politics. International Security. 20(1). P. 71–81.
28. Whitehead Þ. 2006. Hlutleysi Íslands á hverfanda hveli, 1918–1945. Saga. 44(1). Bls. 21–64.
29. Alekseeva T.A. 2012. Strategicheskaya kul'tura: evolyuciya koncepcii [Strategic Culture: Evolution of the Concept] Polis. Political Studies. № 5. P. 130–147. (In Russian).
30. Batalov E.Ya., Zhuravleva V.Yu., Hozinskaya K.V. 2009. ‘'Rychashchij medved’' na ''dikom Vostoke’' (obrazy sovremennoj Rossii v rabotah amerikanskih avtorov: 1992—2007) [“Roaring Bear” in the “Wild East” (Images of Modern Russia in the Works of American Authors: 1992-2007)] Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russian). 380 p.
31. Bogaturov A.D., Dundich A.S., Troickij M.A. 2010. Centralnaya Aziya: ‘'otlozhennyj nejtralitet'' i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v 2000-h godah [Central Asia: “Deferred Neutrality” and International Relations in the 2000s]. Moscow: NOFMO. (In Russian). p.99.
32. Chekov A.D. 2023. Estonskaya «pribaltijskost'» kak social'nyj konstrukt: smysly i kontekstual'naya specifika [Estonian “Balticness” as a Social Construct: Meanings and Contextual Specificity]. Baltic Region. 15(1). P. 34—51. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2023-1-3.
33. Gurevich A.Ya. 1972. Kategorii srednevekovoj kultury [Categories of Medieval Culture]. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russian). 318 p.
34. Khrustalyov D.G. 2011. Proiskhozhdenie ''russkogo medvedya’' [The Origin of the “Russian Bear”] Mocscow: NLO. № 107. P. 137–152.
35. Kokoshin A.A. 2018. Voprosy prikladnoj teorii vojny [Issues in Applied War Theory]. Moscow: HSE (In Russian). 227 p.
36. Kurilla I.I. 2018. Zaklyatye druzya. Istoriya mnenij, fantazij, kontraktov, vzaimo(ne)ponimaniya Rossii i SSHA [Sworn friends. A History of Opinions, Fantasies, Contracts, and Mutual (Non) Understanding of Russia and the United States]. Moscow: NLO (In Russian). 424 p.
37. Kucherov M.A., Kharkevich M.V. 2023. ‘'Narodnaya sekyuritizaciya’': vizualnyj povorot v issledovaniyah bezopasnosti [“Popular Securitization”: A Visual Turn in Security Research]. Lomonosov World Politics Journal. 15(4). P. 61–83. DOI: 10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-4-61-83. (In Russian).
38. Loshkarev I.D., Kuchuk A.V. 2022. Strategicheskaya kul'tura Pol'shi: variacii i ih otrazhenie v oficial'nom diskurse [Poland's Strategic Culture: Variations and their Reflection in Official Discourse]. Contemporary Europe. 4(111). P. 37–49. DOI: 10.31857/S0201708322040039. (In Russian).
39. Mamedova A.O. 2013. Simvoly vojny i mira v sovetskom politicheskom plakate i karikature perioda ''holodnoj vojny’’ [Symbols of War and Peace in Soviet Political Posters and
40. Cartoons of the Cold War Period]. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. №1. P. 110–115. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Vorotnikov V.V., Pankov E.S. Archetypes of Icelandic Strategic Culture: A Visual Analysis. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2025;18(2):44-68. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2025-2-101-44-68
Views:
438
Email this article 