Search

Begin New Search Topic Alliance Political Geography Europe

41. Solid foundation, rocky future? Assessing transatlantic defence and security ties after NATO’s Madrid summit

Author:
Michael J. Mazarr and Daniel Fiott
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Russia’s war on Ukraine has raised serious questions about European security, but it has also led to much greater transatlantic unity. This Policy Insights paper argues that the war on Ukraine has given rise to a new consensus among large parts of NATO and the EU to reinvest in collective security. Charting the progress made by both NATO and the EU, this paper looks at how transatlantic partners are addressing questions related to the so-called need to balance between Europe and the Indo-Pacific, EU strategic autonomy and the implementation of NATO’s Strategic Concept and the EU’s Strategic Compass, as well as the conclusions of the NATO Madrid Summit. It finds that there are several areas for enhanced EU-NATO cooperation, but issues pertaining to future US elections, defence industrial policy and NATO’s force posture could sorely undermine transatlantic unity.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Alliance, Transatlantic Relations, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe

42. NATO’s 2030 Reflection Process and the New Strategic Concept: Implications for the Security in Northern Europe

Author:
Robin Allers, Rachel Lutz Ellehuus, Claudia Major, Christian Mölling, Paul O'Neill, and Johannes Gullestad Rø
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
The NATO 2030 reflection process was sparked by worries that the Alliance might falter as a forum for political consultation. Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States all have a shared interest in ensuring NATO's coherence, improving the credibility of its deterrent, and strengthening its capacity to act. This report from the Security in Northern Europe (SNE) project presents contemporary views on NATO's Strategic Concept 2030 from Berlin, London, Oslo, and Washington D.C.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe

43. The Gulf Countries and Turkey: (Re-)Drawing the Map of Alliances in the Middle East

Author:
Yoel Guzansky and Gallia Lindenstrauss
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
After a decade of hostility, and against the background of Turkey’s weak economic situation and Iran’s expanded regional presence, there is a significant improvement in the relations between Ankara and Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. What opportunities might this change bring for the region, and how might this affect Israel’s relations with Turkey and with the Gulf countries?
Topic:
International Cooperation, Alliance, Strategic Interests, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Gulf Nations

44. Russian-Turkish Relations: Past & Present

Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
The Harriman Institute
Abstract:
As Istanbul hosts Russian and Ukrainian negotiators for peace talks to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, and Turkey balances between Ukraine and Russia, Russian-Turkish relations may be entering a new phase. Relations between the two states have grown increasingly fraught in recent years, as the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Russia’s role in Syria and the Middle East come up against Turkey’s growing influence in the region. Panelists will discuss relations between Russia and Turkey by analyzing the historical legacies of the Russian and Ottoman empires, and by situating current policies in the broader context of Turkish and Russian relations with NATO, Europe, and the U.S.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Turkey

45. Brothers in arms: The value of coalitions in sanctions regimes

Author:
Sonali Chowdhry, Julian Hinz, Katrin Kamin, and Joschka Wanner
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
This paper examines the impact of coalitions on the economic costs of the 2012 Iran and 2014 Russia sanctions. By estimating and simulating a quantitative general equilibrium trade model under different coalition set-ups, we (i) dissect welfare losses for sanction-senders and target; (ii) compare prospective coalition partners and; (iii) provide bounds for the sanctions potential — the maximum welfare change attainable — when sanctions are scaled vertically, i.e. across sectors up to an embargo, or horizontally, i.e. across countries up to a global regime. To gauge the significance of simulation outcomes, we implement a Bayesian bootstrap procedure that generates confidence bands. We find that the implemented measures against Iran and Russia inflicted considerable economic harm, yielding 32 – 37% of the vertical sanctions potential. Our key finding is that coalitions lower the average welfare loss incurred from sanctions relative to unilateral implementation. They also increase the welfare loss imposed on Iran and Russia. Adding China to the coalition further amplifies the welfare loss by 79% for Iran and 22% for Russia. Finally, we quantify transfers that would equalize losses across coalition members. These hypothetical transfers can be seen as a sanctions-equivalent of NATO spending goals and provide a measure of the relative burden borne by coalition countries.
Topic:
Globalization, International Trade and Finance, Markets, Sanctions, Alliance, and Embargo
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

46. NATO Allies’ geopolitical diversity and the cohesion of the Alliance

Author:
Thierry Tardy
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The Russia-Ukraine war has revealed a high degree of cohesion among NATO Allies, who largely converge on what the Alliance is about and how it should respond to the Russian threat. In the longer- term, though, NATO’s cohesion will be dependent on Allies’ success in knitting together a common vision from their varying strategic cultures and threat assessments. And indeed, from the United States’ global reach and first-class military to France’s strategic autonomy imperative and the UK’s renewed ambition for ‘Global Britain’; from the Baltic states’ and Poland’s geographical proximity to Russia, to Italy’s and Spain’s regional southern focus; and from Türkiye’s special defence and foreign policy posture to Germany’s Zeitenwende, the Atlantic Alliance brings together a wide range of geopolitical diversity. This Policy Brief draws on a study conducted by the author1 to build a typology of NATO Allies based on three sets of variables: the nature of the relationship between any given Ally and the United States; the Ally’s perception of the Russian threat; and the extent to which NATO is given exclusivity in the Ally’s defence policy. Against this backdrop, Allies can be classified into three groupings that reveal persistent fault lines running through the Alliance, making cohesion a permanent challenge.
Topic:
NATO, Geopolitics, Alliance, Diversity, Russia-Ukraine War, and Cohesion
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

47. The Dominance Dilemma: The American Approach to NATO and its Future

Author:
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Despite the Biden administration’s push to revitalize U.S. alliances, U.S. relations with NATO are due for a reset. The United States should incentivize European members of NATO to take on additional responsibilities for their defense. Encouraging the European allies to take initiative will help the United States focus on its other domestic and international priorities and may facilitate improving relations with Russia. This approach will also prove attractive to European states concerned about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. Recalibrating the U.S. role in Europe would conform with the United States’ post–World War II efforts to stabilize European security — and stand as the fruit of Washington’s success in this regard.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, International Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus

48. What threatens NATO – and what members can do? The case of Norway and Poland

Author:
Jakub M. Godzimirski
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
This research paper examines the critical external and internal challenges that faced NATO at its 70th anniversary, and how the policies of two members – Norway and Poland – can influence the internal cohesion of the Alliance and thus its ability to provide security to all its members. The survival of NATO as a viable security actor will depend on its capacity to maintain internal cohesion, a crucial factor influencing its ability to address external risks, challenges and threats in the increasingly turbulent international environment. This study places the debate in the broader context of discussion on alliance survivability in general, maps the external and internal challenges facing the Alliance after seven decades of its existence, and examines possible risks that the policies of Norway and Poland may pose to NATO’s internal cohesion and thus its ability to react to external challenges.
Topic:
Security, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, Norway, and Poland

49. Preventing Nuclear Proliferation and Reassuring America's Allies

Author:
Ivo H. Daalder, Chuck Hagel, Malcolm Rifkind, and Kevin Rudd
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
In recent decades, the threat of nuclear proliferation has emanated primarily from the Middle East and from south and northeast Asia. But the proliferation threat wasn’t always concentrated in these regions. Long before countries like North Korea and Iran topped the list of nuclear threats, leaders in Washington and elsewhere worried about a different group of countries—America’s allies in Europe and Asia. Indeed, in the early 1960s, intelligence officials projected that by the mid-1970s there likely would be 10 to 15 nuclear powers in the world within a decade, as countries like Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey would opt to join a growing nuclear club. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 was designed to prevent this, and it did. But it succeeded in large part because of a concerted US effort since the 1960s to reassure its allies around the world that America’s nuclear umbrella would extend to their territory and ensure their security. Rather than developing their own national nuclear capabilities, key allies in Europe and Asia opted to rely on the US nuclear guarantee instead. Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, just four countries (India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) have acquired nuclear weapons. More recently, however, questions about the credibility of the American nuclear guarantee have arisen again in Europe and Asia. Allies in both regions confront growing military threats from a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and a nuclear North Korea. At the same time, successive US administrations have sought to retreat from some longstanding commitments, leaving America’s allies around the world uncertain whether they can still rely on the United States for their defense and security—nuclear and otherwise. So far, the discussions about nuclear deterrence and reassurance have played out largely beyond public view. But the issue is becoming increasingly salient, given growing threats from Russia and China especially, and growing doubts about the United States. America and its allies cannot ignore this new reality. For if we are to prevent new nuclear proliferation among these allies, it is essential to acknowledge that what has long been unthinkable is becoming thinkable once more.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, East Asia, North America, and United States of America

50. What Europeans think about the US-China Cold War

Author:
Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
A majority of European citizens believe a new cold war with both China and Russia is under way – but they mostly do not think that their own country is involved. Most believe the US is already taking part in these confrontations, and they consider EU institutions as more likely than their own governments to be in a cold war with China and Russia. An optimistic interpretation sees the outsourcing of such great-power competition to Brussels as the arrival of a true EU foreign policy – but a more pessimistic analysis sees a gap emerging between Brussels on the one hand and member state capitals and EU citizens on the other. This difference in views between whether one’s own country is taking part in the brewing conflict, as opposed to whether America and the EU are, suggests there is no European public consensus that the world of tomorrow will be one of growing competition between democracy and authoritarianism. Given this risk, policymakers should find a different, less ideological, framing to generate public support for a strong transatlantic alliance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Authoritarianism, European Union, Democracy, Alliance, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America