Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

This Master thesis takes its point of departure in the contemporary debate on the separation of the foreign policy strategies geopolitics and geoeconomics. Contrary to previous literature which analyzes geostrategies from the perspective of the operating state, this study offers a different perspective by shedding light on how the target (state) perceives and respond to a particular geostrategy. In doing so, it attempts to understand why a target treats a commercial project as geopolitics despite the project’s manifest geoeconomic character. By looking at Sweden’s geopolitical approach regarding the building of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the aim is to challenge a theoretical framework on geoeconomics and geopolitics which theorizes that certain geostrategies give rise to pre-determined behavioral paths. The method employed is a qualitative content analysis that uses open-coding to capture the essence of the Swedish parliament’s approach to the issue. Based on the analysis, there are signs of both geopolitical and geoeconomic effects with regards to the Swedish behavior. Territorial concerns regarding Slite port and increased energy dependence on Russia were in particular articulated throughout the debate as ways to block the pipeline. These frames were, however, to a large extent based on Russia’s previous aggressive behavior in Ukraine in 2014. This finding suggests that geostrategies cannot be fully understood without placing them in relation to crucial previous events. Ultimately, although an operation is geoeconomic by nature, the target may identify it as geopolitics if the operating state has displayed aggressive behavior in the past. Geopolitics and geoeconomics are as a result difficult to separate as distinct foreign policy strategies.