Number of results to display per page
Search Results
82. Technology and Strategy: The Changing Security Environment in Space Demands New Diplomatic and Military Answers
- Author:
- Torben Schütz
- Publication Date:
- 06-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- On the brink of being weaponized, space is becoming a military-operational environment. Proliferating anti-satellite weapons threaten space security and enable first strikes against military space assets crucial to conventional and nuclear forces. This affects the global strategic landscape and decreases crisis stability among major powers. As current arms control regimes are insufficient, Germany and NATO should push new initiatives to keep space peaceful and advance military planning should they fail.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, and Space
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Germany
83. Both Russian and American Publics Sense a Transatlantic Rift
- Author:
- Dina Smeltz and Lily Wojtowicz
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs
- Abstract:
- Building over the last few years, disputes between the United States and Europe over trade, climate change, and nuclear weapons were on full display at the annual Munich Security Conference last month. Russian leaders have tried to exploit these strains between the United States and its allies. In Munich, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia suggested that the European Union and Russia build a “shared European home.”[1] Sidelining the United States through deepened ties with Europe has long been a strategy of the Kremlin to weaken the West’s united front against Russia’s regional and international aggression.[2] Findings from a new US-Russia binational survey, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center, reveal that publics in both countries have noticed cracks in the US-EU relationship.[3] While Americans have long expressed support for NATO, a majority say that unity among NATO allies is weakening. At the same time, Russians’ impressions that transatlantic security links are weakening contribute to their sense that the United States is now in a weaker global position.
- Topic:
- International Relations, NATO, Public Opinion, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America
84. Fighting for Europe. European Strategic Autonomy and the Use of Force
- Author:
- Sven Biscop
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- Strategic autonomy: yes! But to do what exactly? To protect ourselves, or to protect others, outside Europe, as well? To protect ourselves by defeating the enemy on his own ground, in Europe’s neighbourhood or further afield? Or only by making sure he doesn’t breach the walls of Europe? To protect us from all enemies, or only from some? Who is the “enemy” anyway? The June 2016 European Union Global Strategy (EUGS) for the first time explicitly mentions strategic autonomy as an objective for the Union, and that raises a lot of questions. Sven Biscop argues that the EU’s priorities should be: (1) In the short term, to further strengthen its strategic autonomy in protecting our domestic security, and to achieve full strategic autonomy in crisis response, across the whole spectrum of operations, in our broad neighbourhood. (2) In the medium term, to achieve a significant degree of autonomy in securing Europe’s “connectivity” with the world, in space, air space and cyberspace and on the seas. (3) In the long term, to achieve a significant degree of autonomy for the European Allies and partners of NATO (who, pace Cyprus, happen to constitute the EU), to deter and defend against threats against our territory, in case the attention of our main non-EU allies is pulled away by contingencies outside the North Atlantic area.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
85. Securing Europe in Insecure Times: How Military Mobility and Deepened European Integration are Vital to Europe's Security
- Author:
- Adrian Blazquez
- Publication Date:
- 11-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Europeum Institute for European Policy
- Abstract:
- In 2017, Ben Hodges, back then the U.S. general in charge of the U.S. military in Europe, related to the press the problems he had to deal with to tackle the Russian threats in the Old Continent. He outlined that NATO military movements were continuously hampered by red tape. The reason being was that NATO allies did not enjoy freedom of movement through their borders. Every time a military force needed to cross a border, it had to deal with the bureaucracy and laws of each country, which may be the responsibility of different ministries (not necessarily the Ministry of Defence).
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Military Affairs, Regional Integration, and Army
- Political Geography:
- Europe
86. Europe can spearhead a new cycle in transatlantic relations, not President Trump
- Author:
- Martin Michelot
- Publication Date:
- 06-2019
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Europeum Institute for European Policy
- Abstract:
- Transatlantic cooperation has, ever since the election of President Donald Trump, been a topic of contention and concern in Europe, and created a lot of questions regarding whether the fundamentals of the transatlantic relationship were being questioned. Concerns about US engagement in NATO, a potential dissonant threat perception towards and relationship with China and Russia, and the tensions around trade agreements, and in general a perceived defiance of international liberal order are all issues that have ranked high on the agenda of European leaders since early 2017, and that continue to represent - among other issues - topics that require a deeper discussion at the political and the expert level.
- Topic:
- NATO, Engagement, Transatlantic Relations, and Donald Trump
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America
87. European Strategic Autonomy: Operationalising a Buzzword
- Author:
- Pauli Järvenpää
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
- Abstract:
- European Strategic Autonomy (ESA) is currently the subject of some debate and controversy. While this issue has been on the table since at least the 1990s, it was reinvigorated by the publication of the EU Global Strategy in 2016, itself a response to fundamental developments in European security. In this report, we consider the security and defence aspects of ESA, an area of particular difficulties and one in which in which Europe is presently weak. Even in this very practical area, the ESA concept is ill-defined and the term itself has become a buzzword. To move towards implementation, we discuss ESA in security and defence as the capacity to act in four dimensions: political, institutional, capabilities and industrial. Political autonomy, concerns questions such as to whom the ‘E’ in ESA refers, who is able to lead the development of ESA, and what is the level of ambition for this endeavour. Institutional autonomy refers to the availability of the governance structures required to prepare and administer these priorities, while capabilities autonomy refers to the availability of the military, civilian, financial, operational, and other capabilities to credibly implement priorities and decisions. Industrial autonomy refers to the availability of the industrial and technological base necessary to develop and deliver the required capabilities. In our report, we discuss how ESA might be attained in each of these dimensions and make policy recommendations.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, European Union, Autonomy, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- Europe
88. The Geostrategic Arctic: Hard security in the High North
- Author:
- Harri Mikkola
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The end of the Cold War meant that the Arctic region lost most of its geostrategic relevance. However, due to growing great power competition, the Arctic is back on the geopolitical map. Hard security dynamics in the region are defined by two key elements: the importance of conventional long-range missiles and nuclear weapons for Russia, and the importance of the North Atlantic sea line of communication for European defence. Russia has revitalized its Cold War-era bastion strategy, which aims to ensure the survival of its strategic ballistic missile submarines. In a crisis scenario, this strategy could pose serious challenges to the Nordic countries as well. Five Arctic states are members of NATO and the Alliance’s collective defence is operational in the Arctic. Even if the Arctic is still not a focus area for NATO, the North Atlantic maritime domain is increasingly back on the agenda. Given the divergent strategic interests and lack of common ground between Russia and other Arctic states on grand strategic issues, the Arctic will not be losing its geostrategic importance anytime soon.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Maritime
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Europe, Canada, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Arctic
89. The basis for strong US-European relations endures: Continuity in institutions and interests
- Author:
- Christopher Kojm
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- President Donald Trump’s words and actions are disrupting US-European relations. Yet the structural basis for strong transatlantic ties endures. Key institutions and forces involved in the making of US foreign policy exhibit more continuity than change with respect to transatlantic relations. Congress strongly supports NATO. It agrees with the President on the need for greater burden-sharing, yet opposes the President’s harsh and gratuitous attacks on the Alliance. Executive Branch Departments, especially the Department of Defence, have longstanding institutional ties with European counterparts. High-level meetings, defence cooperation agreements, military exercises, and relationship-building continue without interruption. The US business community strongly opposes tariffs, and has been able to blunt the Administration’s further imposition of tariffs on European partners. Public opinion still strongly supports transatlantic defence and trade relations, even as partisan differences grow.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Tariffs, and Transatlantic Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States, Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
90. Europe in a multipolar missile world – Why the EU and NATO should not try to salvage the INF Treaty
- Author:
- Bruno Hellendorff
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- On 1 February 2019, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that his country had suspended its compliance with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty, and would withdraw from it within six months. The INF Treaty, little known outside of arms control and disarmament circles, was a landmark Cold War agreement between the United States of America and the USSR – the first to ban an entire category of weapons (ground-based medium- and intermediate-range missiles). The US withdrawal, announced in dramatic terms by President Donald Trump in October 2018, followed the claim that Russia had recently developed and fielded a missile with performances forbidden by the INF Treaty. The end of this little-known treaty is not anecdotal. Not only will it further strain the US-Russia relationship and antagonise allies, it will also contribute to the erosion of what is left of the global arms-control architecture and incentivise arms-race behav- iours among great powers. In a world where security is increasingly less a question of multilateral deliberation and rules-based interactions, the end of the INF Treaty is a further signal that missile technologies are again becoming a venue for competition between great powers: only this time, at least three are playing the game (United States, China and Russia) rather than two (United States and USSR). Additionally, missile technology proliferation has turned into a major dimension of contemporary battlefield realities, and missile programmes of countries such as Iran and North Korea continue to pose important diplomatic and non-proliferation challenges. Meanwhile, Europe is, by and large, left watching as its regional security architecture erodes. Welcome to what US National Security Advisor John Bolton recently termed ‘a multipolar missile world’. The EU should not try to salvage the INF Treaty. Its diplomatic capital might be better spent in areas where it could potentially make a difference, rather than in a treaty to which it is not even party. Existing multilateral regimes and agreements with the EU or its Member States as parties are already in dire need of reinforcement in the face of technological progress, a volatile diplomatic environment and self-centred, competitive political narratives. These include, inter alia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) framework (including its Structured Dialogue), multilateral export control regimes (MECR) like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), transparency and trust-building mechanisms like the Hague Code of Conduct against missile proliferation (HCoC), and nuclear-related frame- works like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or ‘Iran deal’) or the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Process. These, however, may simply fail to meet the challenge of a multipolar missile world. Renewed efforts, both conceptual and in the realm of capabilities, are needed in a NATO framework to reinforce the linkage between deterrence and diplomacy. NATO-EU dialogue and cooperation on defence issues could be further enhanced, and European countries should work more with like-minded partners at both bilat- eral or multilateral levels on the challenges of non-proliferation and disarmament in the twenty-first century. The demise of the INF Treaty should therefore re-energise the debate on European strategic autonomy, help support collective capability building – not least in NATO – and prompt new discussions on stronger multilateral rules on missile development, use and proliferation.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America