Search

Begin New Search Topic NATO Publication Year within 5 Years

331. España en la OTAN: una relación mediatizada por EEUU

Author:
Pablo Rey García
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
LaOTAN ha sido percibida principalmente como una organización estadounidense y, en consecuencia, con una gran capacidad de influencia en España desde su entrada en la Alianza Atlántica. Se analiza, hasta qué punto se ha cumplido este estereotipo a lo largo de 40 años desde el ingreso de Españaen la organización, y cómo ésta ha gestionado y lidiado simultáneamente con su membresía atlántica y su relación bilateral con EEUU.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Bilateral Relations, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, North America, and United States of America

332. ¿Un buen aliado? Análisis de la visión estadounidense sobre el rol español en la OTAN

Author:
Juan Tovar
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
Estados Unidos es el actor más relevante dentro de la OTANy ha condicionado la participación española en la organizacióndesde su ingreso. El artículo analiza desde la perspectiva estadounidense la participación española en la OTAN. Para ello se centra en diferentes factores como serían las declaraciones públicas de los dirigentes estadounidenses en las reuniones bilaterales,la posición de la opinión pública estadounidensey el análisis de diversos objetos de debate como el gasto en defensa, los activos estratégicos españoles, su participación en las diferentes misiones implementadas por la organizacióny la posición española en asuntos y regiones de interéspara Estados Unidos. A pesar de lasdeclaraciones de los líderes estadounidenses sobre el rol españoly la imagen positiva de Españaen la opinión pública estadounidense, se constata un importante margen para su mejora.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, Public Opinion, and Defense Spending
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, North America, and United States of America

333. 40 años dela pertenencia de España a la OTAN: desafíos pasados y futuros de una relación procelosa

Author:
Michele Testoni and Alberto Bueno
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
Este artículo explicalos elementos fundamentales de la relación entreEspaña y la OTAN en vista de su 40 aniversario de pertenencia a la Alianza Atlántica.El texto, tanto en su reconstrucción histórica como en su análisis de los desafíos quecaracterizan la postura española en la organización, pretende examinar tres elementosvertebradores de esta relación: la posición ambigua de las élites y la sociedad españolarespecto a la pertenencia a la OTAN y la relación con EEUU; la naturaleza legalista ymultilateral, con un explicita preferencia porla UE, de la política de defensa nacional;yla complejidad del “frente sur”, es decir, el sistema de múltiples y diferentes amenazasa la seguridad deEspañaprocedentes denorte de África, donde la OTAN tiene problemas para dar una respuesta satisfactoria. El artículoconcluye subrayando la inusual relevancia, para una potencia media como España, delos factores domésticos para determinar tanto la postura internacional del país como losaspectos principales de su doctrina militar.
Topic:
NATO, Military Affairs, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, and United States of America

334. World Risk Poll: Spotlight on Ukraine and Russia

Author:
Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)
Abstract:
The Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll, when combined with associated data from the Gallup World Poll and a number of other sources, reveals a complex and sometimes counterintuitive view of the world for both Ukrainians and Russians prior to the Russian invasion in 2022. Ukrainian citizens’ positive sentiments on a number of questions on social wellbeing were on the rise at a time when global averages were in decline. In the lead-up to the invasion, Ukrainians’ perceptions of safety and security were improving, with the percentage of people reporting feeling safer than five years prior rising from 19 to 26 per cent, bringing it closer to the global average. This represents a major increase, especially as it came at a time when the global average fell markedly, from 36 to 27.4 per cent, and for Russians the rate fell from 19.2 to 17.4 per cent. The conflict has unfolded within the context of Ukraine’s increasing socio-political reorientation toward the West. By November 2021, 58 per cent of Ukrainians said that, if the country were to join just one economic union, it should join the European Union (EU), compared to 21 per cent that said it should join the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union. This was the highest rating ever recorded. Similarly, 54 per cent said they would vote to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), compared to 28 per cent who would vote against joining. Surprisingly, “war and terrorism” was only the sixth highest-rated concern in Ukraine in 2021. Ukrainians rated health-related risks (not including COVID-19) as their top concern. Transportation-related risks, crime and violence, economic concerns and financial hardship were more frequently cited than “war and terrorism."
Topic:
Security, NATO, European Union, Conflict, Risk, Polls, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

335. Crisis and Bargaining Over Ukraine: A New US-Russia Security Order?

Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
The Harriman Institute
Abstract:
As Russian troops have amassed on Ukraine's border, talks aimed at resolving the standoff between Russia and NATO appear to have collapsed. Poland's Foreign Minister warned that "it seems that the risk of war in the OSCE area is now greater than ever before in the last 30 years." Russia has been seeking a new European security agreement that would include formal binding pledges to limit NATO's expansion and military activities across Eastern Europe. US and NATO officials respond that they will not give up on NATO's principles, especially its "open door" policy towards membership. Ukrainians are bracing for a renewed conflict amidst domestic political turmoil. Are the Russian and Western positions irreconcilable? How did we get to the brink of another conflict? And how would a Russian-Ukrainian war affect Russian and Ukrainian domestic politics? How would it impact Ukrainian identity and foreign policy goals?
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

336. The Parallels of Russian Bellicosity in the Balkans in the Example of Ukraine

Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
The Harriman Institute
Abstract:
Just last month, the Russian Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina issued issued a startling threat to the Bosnian government’s aspirations to join NATO. “Bosnia and Herzegovina have the right to decide whether to be a member of NATO, but Moscow reserves the right to respond to such an opportunity,” he said. Russia warned Bosnia and Herzegovina that it could be the Kremlin's next target following Ukraine. This is not the first time Russia has threatened Bosnia. The parallels to Russia’s threats to Ukraine are unerringly uncanny. Bosnia’s significance to Western powers and to Russia stems from the same fact: The country is located squarely at the intersection of NATO and Russian influence. The West recognizes some of the potential Bosnia could have if it were brought into the NATO bloc, but seems not to understand the ramifications of the country slipping into Kremlin-induced disarray. For its part, Russia is just being consistent: Just as it unsuccessfully attempted to prevent Montenegro and North Macedonia from joining NATO, so too is it trying to halt Bosnian aspirations toward the same goal. Bosnia and threatened Balkan states North Macedonia and Montenegro remain fragile to Russian manipulation of its proxies in all of these countries and in the Balkan neighborhood.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Hegemony
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina

337. La OTAN y los límites del crecimiento

Author:
José Luis Gordillo
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
La nueva guerra fría, cuya primera batalla parece estar librándose en Ucrania, se produce en un contexto muy diferente al de la guerra fría del siglo veinte. En la tercera década del siglo veintiuno, el mundo se enfrenta a las consecuencias dela superaciónde buena parte de los límites de sostenibilidad, cuyas principales manifestaciones son el cambio climático, el agotamiento de muchas materias primas y la crisis energética. Este hecho puede conducir a una lucha desesperada por los recursos limitados entre países y regiones. En estas circunstancias, una nueva confrontación planetaria entre potencias nucleares es lo que menos necesita la humanidad para poder afrontar con éxito los grandes problemas globales. En este artículo se propone una reflexión crítica sobre estas cuestiones con el fin de reivindicar el retorno a las políticas de cooperación internacional y de resolución pacífica de los conflictos.
Topic:
NATO, Cold War, International Cooperation, Natural Resources, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Global Focus

338. Finland in Afghanistan 2001–2021: From stabilization to advancing foreign and security policy relations

Author:
Katariina Mustasilta, Tyyne Karjalainen, Timo R. Stewart, and Mathilda Salo
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Finland participated in the international stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years, contributing around 2,500 soldiers and 140 civilian crisis management experts. During this period, Finland’s development cooperation funds and humanitarian assistance allocated to Afghanistan amounted to around EUR 398 million. When Finland made the decision to join the operations in Afghanistan at the turn of 2001 and 2002, the country was living in uncertain yet optimistic times. The Taliban regime had collapsed quickly after the US-led military intervention, and the international community was broadly committed to supporting the interim administration in changing the country’s course. Finland sent a CIMIC unit to Afghanistan to participate in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and support the stabilization and reconstruction efforts. It also began to channel development cooperation funds to Afghanistan, notably through UN and World Bank programmes, and soon allocated most of its civilian crisis management resources to the European Union Police Mission (EUPOL) in Afghanistan. In the second half of the 2000s, however, Afghanistan slid further into a devastating civil war. A decade into the international intervention, the early optimism had given way to Afghans’ growing distrust of their government and the international actors. The Finnish troops, now comprising around 200 soldiers, repeatedly engaged in combat as part of the military operation that was now led by NATO and had become a party in the conflict. While the security arrangements for the international actors required increasing resources, their room for manoeuvre became significantly more limited. After the ISAF mission ended, Finland continued to participate in the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission (RSM), which supported the Afghan security forces until the summer of 2021. Finland also remained one of the most important actors to support EUPOL until the end of the mission and took responsibility for co-hosting the 2020 Afghanistan pledging conference to support the country. Afghanistan was the biggest recipient of Finland’s development cooperation funds throughout the second half of the 2010s. In August 2021, Finland suspended its extensive activities in Afghanistan in chaotic circumstances as the international community left the country following the US decision to withdraw its forces and the Taliban’s seize of power. This research examines Finland’s activities in Afghanistan by focusing on why Finland decided to engage in Afghanistan, on what its activities were based, and what can be learned from them for future crises and conflicts. The research is based on the analysis of a broad set of qualitative data consisting of interviews with 64 people who were involved in the intervention in Afghanistan or employed in related activities. Workshop discussions were also held to hear the views of the Afghan diaspora in Finland and experts. In addition, the researchers analysed public documents and previous research literature and held background discussions with experts. This research report broadly examines the consequences of Finland’s objectives, the logic behind its activities and the key challenges from the perspectives of military crisis management, civilian crisis management, and development cooperation and humanitarian assistance. Our research findings suggest that Finland’s activities in Afghanistan were motivated by multiple objectives that were partly unclear and at times conflicting. Based on government reports and other public documents, Finland’s primary aim was to stabilize and support Afghanistan to enhance international peace and security. The proclaimed objectives highlighted Finland’s responsibility as part of the UN-led international community and its efforts to support the development of good governance and the rule of law and promote the rights of women and girls in particular. In our research, these objectives comprise a framework we call “Finland as a benefactor”. On the other hand, our analysis suggests that alongside – and over – these proclaimed objectives, Finland’s participation was primarily guided by its desire to maintain and strengthen its foreign and security policy relations with the US and other international partners, as well as its effort to deepen its collaboration with NATO. Within the limits of this “Finland as a partner” framework, Finland sought to position itself as a reliable benefactor but also to gain advantage by improving its national capacities. Finland’s multiple objectives in Afghanistan might not necessarily have posed a problem in terms of the appropriateness of Finland’s involvement. Indeed, at the beginning they worked in harmony as the operating environment allowed Finland to show solidarity with the US and support it in the fight against terrorism while also appearing as a humanitarian actor that promoted stability and development in Afghanistan. However, tensions emerged between the different rationales when the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, and the nature and outcomes of the intervention became more conflicted. In the absence of clearly and transparently set objectives, it was challenging to build an action plan and assess the activities. One particular factor that made the planning and monitoring of Finland’s participation difficult was the effort to disguise the fact that it was motivated by a desire to foster transatlantic relations and partnerships. From the perspective of the international partnerships, it was enough that Finland participated in the intervention. In terms of Afghanistan and its development, the objectives of the various activities remained vague, unrealistic and unclear, and they received insufficient attention. Instead of critical analysis and strategic monitoring, both international and Finnish actors attempted to meet the stated objectives by highlighting the progress made in Afghanistan and keeping silent about the combats and difficulties. It is almost impossible to assess to what extent Finland achieved its objectives in Afghanistan, because no clear and transparent objectives had been set. Based on our interviews, Finland’s involvement benefitted its transatlantic relations, Nordic cooperation and position in the international community. Besides defence cooperation, Finland developed its national capacities and raised its profile within the EU’s civilian crisis management framework. It is however difficult to assess in retrospect how the different forms of participation deepened Finland’s relations with the US, for example, and whether Finland’s activities were cost-efficient in terms of its partnership goals and national capacities, because no expectations had been explicitly stated. While temporary successes were achieved in improving security and the conditions for education in some areas, for example, issues such as a lack of understanding of the context of the conflict, challenges related to local ownership and the absence of a coherent long-term strategy became stumbling blocks in the international intervention in Afghanistan. Previous research has already called attention to the negative impacts of the intervention: the civilian victims of the military operations, the changes in local power structures, the displacement of local activities and increased corruption are only some of the examples of the impacts for which Finland has also been partly responsible. During, and partly as a result of, the intervention in Afghanistan, Finland’s policy came to be underpinned by a comprehensive crisis management strategy. In Afghanistan, this meant that Finland participated in multiple sectors and placed emphasis on the interdependence between the development and civilian crisis management efforts and military crisis management. Overall, our interviewees assessed that the activities of Finland and Finnish actors in Afghanistan were of high quality and appreciated. Our research suggests that the comprehensive strategy adopted by Finland served to justify its participation in different areas of the intervention and especially its military participation. However, Finland failed to fulfil the strategy in terms of coordinating its various activities in Afghanistan. Finland’s experiences in Afghanistan provide lessons learned that can be used to guide its activities in future crisis and conflict situations. First, it is necessary to set clearer and more transparent objectives to enable the effective planning and strategic monitoring of activities. In the context of partnership and capacity goals, clear objectives would help to develop the resourcing and targeting of activities. As regards supporting peace and stability, clearer, context-specific objectives would make it possible to monitor the appropriateness and comprehensiveness of activities. However, adopting a comprehensive approach does not mean that Finland should engage in all activities or areas of assistance in the target country; rather, its activities should be targeted to support the overall international aid effort. It is also important to develop Finland’s advocacy and impact efforts in multilateral interventions, in particular in situations in which Finland contributes significant resources. While Finland is in principle a small player, playing an active role in issues such as drawing attention to the possible negative impacts of interventions is consistent with its value-based foreign policy. By collaborating with like-minded actors, Finland has the opportunity to promote its interests through interventions (as far as these interests have been identified). However, sufficient resources are required for effective outcomes: development cooperation funds and inputs from seconded experts will be wasted if the human resources allocated to the comprehensive planning, implementation and monitoring of Finland’s participation are insufficient. The setting and implementation of realistic objectives appropriate to the context require a continuously updated conflict analysis, which in the case of small players such as Finland must also include an analysis of the context of international aid and operations. After interventions, it is also important to effectively put to use the expertise of the people who return to Finland after working in crisis areas so as not to waste the cultural and linguistic knowledge they have acquired. The lessons identified in this research are also relevant for the future of Afghanistan and Afghan people. The international community, including Finland, has been involved in shaping the structures of Afghan society, as well as its conflict dynamics, for nearly 20 years. This means that it also continues to assume its responsibility after withdrawing from the country – all the more so because the decisions to start and terminate the intervention were primarily driven by interests other than those of Afghans themselves. In terms of Finland’s credibility as a foreign policy actor, it is particularly important that it continues to abide by its long-standing commitment to promote the rights of women and girls. In the present difficult circumstances, the cooperation and assistance efforts should be based on placing the needs and priorities of Afghans at the centre. This can be achieved by conducting a careful conflict analysis, listening to and discussing with Afghans, and promoting a strategically coordinated approach to setting the objectives and framework conditions of the cooperation at the level of the international community.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, NATO, Crisis Management, and Stabilization
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, and Finland

339. Reconfiguring NATO: The Case for Burden Shifting

Author:
Rajan Menon
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
This explainer begins by recounting how an American-led NATO, a key element in U.S. global primacy, lived on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat it was meant to deter—and, if necessary, defeat. The next section highlights the implicit bargain that has sustained NATO: U.S. preponderance in Europe, achieved by the American willingness to serve as the continent’s indispensable protector, in exchange for Europeans’ freedom to spend more on butter and less on guns. Next comes a set of proposals to move NATO from burden sharing, a perennial point of contention within the pact, to a more far-reaching change, burden shifting, an idea that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made even more feasible and prudent. The explainer concludes by assaying the prospects for burden shifting and challenging prominent counterarguments.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America

340. 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