Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Stability Publication Year within 1 Year

1. Pivotal States, Not Swing States

Author:
Mohammed Soliman
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
The United States, in particular, is grappling with the challenges posed by the emerging multipolar order and the need to secure a favorable position in this evolving global landscape. As part of this contemplation, there is a growing recognition of the significance of “swing states” like India, Türkiye, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia in shaping the outcome of the postCold War order and the broader global system. However, framing these consequential states as “swing states” in and of itself carries significant risk, as it implies that the only choice they have is a binary one: pick the U.S.-led West or the China and Russia axis. In reality, their strategic posture is far away from choosing one side over the other; at the same time, they are not behaving similarly to the Cold War-era non-aligned movement that was inherently anti-Western and leaned towards the Soviet-led block under the disguise of anti-colonialism solidarity. The appropriate strategic name for this growing list of countries in the present-day is “pivotal states,” and includes Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, chosen for their strategic geography, demography, and overall strength. Alongside these, there are other pivotal states with unique roles, such as Vietnam due to its position in the global supply chain and Egypt as a maritime bottleneck between the East and West. It is now widely acknowledged that international stability and the outcome of the U.S.-China neoCold War are influenced by factors beyond the behavior of Russia and China. But one crucial factor that remains underappreciated is that the behavior of pivotal states— which are determined to chart an independent course—will play vital roles in shaping the future of the international system. It is essential to recognize that these pivotal states inherently reject the bipolarity and “Cold War 2.0” framing that dominates the perspectives of, for example, Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, Strategic Stability, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

2. Deterrence, escalation and strategic stability: rebuilding Australia’s muscle memory

Author:
Bec Shrimpton
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
To build an effective deterrence strategy, Australia needs urgently to improve its skills and understanding of deterrence, and raise the topic’s profile in our public and policy discussions. Despite having previously been a global thought leader on nuclear weapons and deterrence half a century ago, Australia today doesn’t have a strong grasp of the basics of modern deterrence. Knowledge of and literacy in deterrence are vital for adapting and applying such concepts to meet today’s extraordinarily complex, multidomain and multidimensional requirements. A lack of understanding of deterrence can critically undermine the ability to get strategy and policy right. The implications for Australia’s national interests are urgent and serious. The limited debate in Australia about what good deterrence strategy looks like and its key components can’t be advanced without better understanding of key terms and ideas that are fundamental to deterrence theory and practice. There are, of course, obvious limits to what Australia can achieve alone. Our ability to integrate and combine our military capabilities with those of the US and other critical partners is fundamental to our ability to achieve our security objectives, but some of our partners are working more closely together on building deterrence strategies. We have some catching up to do. This report explains what deterrence is and why it matters. It looks at Australian deterrence policy in practice and at deterrence efforts by some of our partners and allies and it highlights a number of gaps in Australia’s strategic and deterrence planning. The report makes a series of policy recommendations for government, and especially for the Department of Defence, to rebuild Australia’s position as a thought leader on deterrence.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Deterrence, Strategic Stability, and Escalation
Political Geography:
Australia and Australia/Pacific

3. Navigating Security Dilemmas in Indo-Pacific Waters: Undersea Capabilities and Armament Dynamics

Author:
Tytti Erästö, Fei Su, and Wilfred Wan
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
This paper examines the drivers and implications of naval build-ups in the Indo-Pacific, considering key actors’ security objectives and threat perceptions, as well as the interplay of regional dynamics and strategic relations between nuclear-armed states. The focus is on undersea armament involving submarines and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities, which constitute a significant focus of military investments. The paper considers the related horizontal and vertical escalation risks, meaning a potential increase in the scope and scale of conflict. Particular attention is paid to nuclear-conventional entanglement related to the counterforce potential of ASW capabilities. In addition to seeking to raise awareness of these dynamics, the paper provides recommendations aimed at mitigating the risks related to the increased undersea activities in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:
National Security, Strategic Stability, Submarines, and Threat Perception
Political Geography:
Indo-Pacific

4. Turkey’s Dilemma and Strategic Stability

Author:
Jean-Pier de Vasconcellos Esquia and José Miguel Quedi Martins
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This article deals with Turkey’s international relations and the impact of its choices in the International System (IS) in this new era marked by the return of competition between the world powers. Specifically, it discusses the Turkish dilemma, reduced to two possible courses of action: between adherence to revolutionary behavior, or association with the institutions of the Emerging Industrial Axis. This dilemma is confronted with Turkey’s trajectory since the end of the Ottoman Empire, in an explanatory historical effort. As for strategic stability, it should be clarified that it is understood as the set of elements that shape the ‘rules’ of the game in a multipolar world. The question that guides the research is how will Turkey’s international insertion take place? The hypothesis that runs through the text is that, unlike other times when Turkey has been subjugated by international constraints, this time it will be able to choose its form of insertion into the IS. The article is divided into five parts. The first concerns the predominance of necessity in Turkey’s IR trajectory. The second deals with the legacy of extra-economic coercion, which the US used during unipolarity, and the challenges this poses for strategic stability - which must be approached from a multidimensional perspective. The third part deals with Turkey’s insertion into the South-South Axis - it remains to be seen whether it will also join its institutions. The fourth part deals with revolutionary behavior. Finally, the fifth and last part deals with the role of the Middle East in the outcome of the Turkish dilemma.
Topic:
International Relations, History, Strategic Stability, International System, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Turkey and Middle East

5. Controlling the danger: managing the risks of AI-enabled nuclear systems

Author:
Noah Greene
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Research on AI and nuclear weapons often discusses three broad categories of risk: technical risks, pitfalls in human-machine teaming, and strategic stability concerns. The potential solutions for mitigating these risks include international political declarations, United Nations level reporting, and a limited purpose AIenabled nuclear weapons treaty.
Topic:
NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Weapons, Risk, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Global Focus