Search

Begin New Search Topic Rivalry Publication Year within 5 Years

131. The State of US-Russia Relations One Year into the Biden Administratio

Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
The Harriman Institute
Abstract:
Join us for a meeting of the New York-Russia Public Policy Series, co-hosted by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and the New York University Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia. Our virtual panel of distinguished academics, practitioners, and commentators will assess the state of US-Russia relations. Following the June presidential summit in Geneva with Vladimir Putin, US President Joe Biden commented that as "powerful and proud countries'' the United States and Russia "share a unique responsibility to manage the relationship" in order to make it "stable and predictable." What is the state of US-Russia relations following the summit and how successful have Washington and Moscow been in realizing this stated goal of more stable and predictable relations? What has been the impact of global events like the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? Does the Russian military build-up near Ukraine augur a period of renewed tension and even conflict? What is the position of each country now towards the domestic political affairs of the other? How successful have the two sides been in finding new areas for possible coordination or cooperation?
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Leadership, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

132. Countering Aggression in the Gray Zone

Author:
Elisabeth Braw
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In recent years, much has been written and said about conflict in the so-called “gray zone,” often described as conflict below the threshold of combat. Gray zone aggression is an attractive option for Western rivals because it exploits the openness of Western societies. The fact that Western countries are characterized by small governments with limited powers to dictate the activities of their populations and businesses makes these countries even more attractive targets for nonkinetic aggression, ranging from hostile business activities, to cyber attacks, to kidnappings, assassinations, and even occupation by unofficial militias aligned with foreign powers. Resourceful adversaries use such actions to force wedges into the fault lines of open societies. With innovative thinking, however, liberal democracies can develop effective gray zone deterrence while staying within the norms of behavior they have set for themselves.
Topic:
National Security, Innovation, Deterrence, Gray Zone, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

133. The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic

Author:
Andrew Small
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Beijing’s handling of the pandemic has changed long-standing European assumptions about its reliability as a crisis actor and its approach to the European project. Europe’s immediate medical-supply needs and dire economic situation will limit the scope of shifts in its China policy – for now. But, on issues ranging from supply chains to ideological competition, European governments have rebalanced their view of what dynamics with China should look like in the aftermath. The crisis is also intensifying demands from European parliaments, media outlets, and citizens for Europe to puts its China policy on a more open, accountable, and values-based footing. Governments’ pursuit of a “business as usual” approach to Beijing is growing harder to sustain.
Topic:
Ideology, Strategic Competition, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
China and Europe

134. Great-power competition and the rising US-China rivalry: Towards a new normal?

Author:
Bart Gaens and Ville Sinkkonen
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The United States and China are posited to be at the epicenter of an emerging and – by most accounts – intensifying rivalry. This report delves into the theoretical underpinnings as well as the geostrategic and geo-economic dynamics driving this great-power competition. It explores future prospects for contestation and engagement in key issue areas, such as arms control, trade and sanctions. The chapters in this volume also examine the Indo-Pacific as the immediate regional frontline of the unfolding great-power contest and explore the role that Europe has to play in this game. As the world is crossing the threshold into a new age of great-power competition, the debate on the US-China rivalry reveals the complex and contested nature of the meanings, causes, policy implications and future prospects of what is set to become the “new normal” in global politics.
Topic:
Hegemony, Geopolitics, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

135. Ports and Politics: UAE-Qatar Competition in the Mediterranean

Author:
Camille Lons
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Once marginal in shaping the geopolitics of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, Gulf power projection and competition have become a central driver of the politics of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria since the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. The political turmoil that engulfed these states created both threats and opportunities for Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the rich and ambitious states of the Arabian Peninsula. Their involvement, which combined economic aid, political support and at times military assistance, was structured around their notion of what is the desired or acceptable role of Islamist movements in Arab politics. On the one hand, Qatar supports Islamist movements and most notably the Muslim Brotherhood as instruments of influence and popular appeal, while the UAE and Saudi Arabia perceive them as a security and ideological threat to their regional influence and domestic stability.
Topic:
Politics, Regional Cooperation, Maritime, Strategic Competition, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Libya, Syria, Egypt, Qatar, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Gulf Nations

136. Space Militarization Race among China-Russia and USA: Implications for South Asia

Author:
Fazal Abbas Awan and Umbreen Javaid
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
The launch of Sputnik demarked the beginning of the space age and also the beginning of the militarization of the outer space. During the Cold War, the two strategic competitors exploited the outer space for their military purposes, which initiated an intense space race, lasted till the end of it. Due to intense competition in space, different satellites for photographic reconnaissance, surveillance, communication and intelligence were launched into the outer space and space became the area of conflict between the arch enemies. The major development in the militarization of space came under the President Reagan‘s period, when Strategic Defence Initiative was announced in 1983. This was the first step towards weaponizing the common heritage of the human being. The power trends in the militarization of outer space have also shown its implication on security of South Asia. China, under the consideration of security dilemma, has contributed its part in the militarization of space. As a result, India in collaboration with U.S is also crawling towards developing its space power, which has serious implications on the security of Pakistan. Therefore, the strategic competition among nations has resulted into their massive investment in the developing their space assets for military purposes and brought a paradigm shift in it. This research paper analyzes that space has become a fourth medium of warfare. The new plans from the major powers to utilize the outer space to dominate and to create their hegemony in the outer space will deteriorate the fragile peace in South Asia, as well as endanger the peace of the world. The design of present research is exploratory and for more empirical analysis, study also based on philosophical assumptions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, Space, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, South Asia, Asia, North America, and United States of America

137. Strategizing Toward Irrelevance in Libya

Author:
Alessia Melcangi
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The Libyan conflict is marred by competing interests, and is where the Mediterranean’s major players all hope to come out on top.
Topic:
Conflict, Strategic Competition, Rivalry, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Africa and Libya

138. The Logic of Geopolitics in American-Russian Relations

Author:
Allen C. Lynch
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
One of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s first requests as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in 1977 was to ask the Pentagon for its plans – including targets – for nuclear war against “Russia”. Brzezinski was outraged when he was presented with the plan for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. He could not believe that the U.S. military had no plans to spe- cifically weaken the Russian core of the Soviet empire. For the Pentagon planners, Russia and the Soviet Union were one and the same.1 I begin with this anecdote because it reflects well an enduring geopolitical logic to American-Russian relations: American policy toward Russia, whether it be in the Tsarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet period, has not been based on opposing a strong Russian state per se. (That state married to communist ideology was something else altogether.) In the after- math of the Russian Civil War, for instance, the United States delayed recognition of Baltic independence until 1922, two years after Soviet Russia had recognized the independence of Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu, on the grounds that Polish and Finnish independence apart nothing should be done to call into question the territorial continuity of the Russian Em- pire.2 Indeed, American officials seldom viewed the Soviet Union as an empire, as the Pen- tagon war plans just cited illustrate. Historically, the logic of geopolitics i.e., the influence of organization in space on international political relationships has often tended to frame American-Russian relations in terms of complementarities of interest. Of course, geopolitics is not the only logic in AmericanRussian relations; ideology, domestic politics, as well as vested institutional interests all play their role in varying degrees under varying circum- stances. But historically, insofar as geopolitical factors have prevailed, American-Russian relations have generally been harmonious, if also remote and indirect in nature. (By indirect I mean that each sees the other mainly in terms of other powers or processes, e.g., the state of the balance of power in Europe and/or Northeast Asia.) Let us recall that Russia, whether it be under Imperial, Soviet, or post-Soviet auspices, is an essentially continental Eurasian power. Its primary state interest for centuries has been to build and consolidate a trans-continental, multi-national and imperial state while also man- aging international power politics with a series of powerful adversaries throughout Asia and Europe. Above all, Russia sought to ensure that no powerful coalition of external (and in Eu- rope technologically superior) powers could unite to challenge the Russian Empire’s territorial or political integrity. Russian diplomats and rulers thus learned to play the European balance of power with considerable finesse (e.g., the Treaty of Nystadt, 1721, under Peter the Great; the Congress of Vienna, 1815, under Alexander I; the Treaty of Rapallo between Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, 1922; the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 1939; the Grand Alliance with the United States and Great Britain, 1941–45; and the Helsinki Final Act, 1975, to name just a few instances). As with Great Britain, maintaining a favorable European balance of power has been central to Russian statecraft.3 The United States, by contrast, is functionally an insular power (albeit on a continental scale) with respect to the rest of the world, surrounded as it is by two great oceans and militarily weak and isolated neighbors (i.e., Canada and Mexico). America’s primary foreign policy concern throughout most of its history has thus been, like Russia’s, to prevent the emergence of a hostile European hegemon that could threaten the country’s expansion in North America and its own hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Once the United States had stabilized its independence from Britain after the War of 1812, U.S. and British geopo- litical interests tended to coincide.4 In this context, American and Russian interests have more often been complementary than antagonistic. It has been primarily the intrusion of ideological elements, reflecting for example Americans’ global democratic aspirations or the Soviet Union’s ultimate objec- tive of the triumph of communism worldwide, that have rendered the bilateral relationship intransigent and even dangerous.5
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, Post Cold War, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Soviet Union, North America, and United States of America

139. Fluctuating Images of Enemies and Friends: Abkhazia, With Turkish Cyprus’ Lens

Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Since1the 2008 Russian-Georgian war over breakaway regions, journalists talk about the undergoing colonization of Abkhazia by Russia through a number of processes: finan- cial and military aid, missiles installation in the region, infrastructure and telecommuni- cations control, Russian business and migration. Although, for various security reasons, welcomed by the Abkhaz elites while building their political entity against Georgians, one cannot but think of parallels with the Northern Cyprus developments over the last 30 years. In a similar process, Turkey sponsored the construction of the Turkish Cyprus de facto state. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, considerable resources were used to ‘prove’ the affinity with Turkey and Turks, to construct the enemy image of Greek Cypriots and, in so doing, to legitimate the separatist cause and friendship with the sponsor-State. However, anthropological studies in the North of the island show how living side by side with settlers from Turkey modified Turkish Cypriots’ self-identification as distinct from their new neighbours. Turkish Cypriots of all political convictions are uncomfortable and count critical stories about “people from Turkey.” They distinguish “us” Cypriots from “them” the settlers and simultaneously the image of former ‘enemy’, the Greek Cypriots, is vested with less hostile shapes. A civic identification develops as collective perceptions change. This, in turn, has implications for political cleavages as new options for (de)constructing the de facto state and new party programs emerge. How this identity transformation oc- curs? What triggers changing policies towards our enemies and friends? The article’s objective is to map and compare the ‘colonization’ process that took place in Northern Cyprus and the one observed in Abkhazia and to detect changes that occur in the image of ‘friends and enemies of the nation’ during this process and in the ethnic versus civic State-building endeavours. How external factors affect these transformations? Following Anthony Smith and George Schöpflin, enemies and friends are constantly redis- covered and re-interpreted, and their (re)construction account for “our” territory, justify col- lective claims and mobilize collective action. These fluctuations adapt to the needs of the moment, to an external threat, and to structural changes. When fluctuations in perceiving the ‘Other’ take place and how do they translate into the political construction of de facto states? Although the Abkhazian case is recent and in the making, establishing parallels with the Turkish Cyprus case may shed light on patterns of fluctuating nation-building processes, and by the same token, in (de facto) state-building.
Topic:
Development, Conflict, Rivalry, and Identity
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Cyprus

140. Price of Aggression: The Impact of Sanctions on the Russian Economy

Author:
Kazimier Dadak
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
In late February of 2014, president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, a staunch ally of Russia, lost power. This event sent into motion a sequence of events that pitched Rus- sia against its neighbour and the West. Faced with the loss of influence, if not control, over Ukraine, Vladimir Putin immediately took steps that, in his mind, were to secure the interests of his country. First, in March 2014, Russia seized and annexed Crimea; soon af- terwards a Russian-inspired rebellion engulfed eastern Ukraine. These measures drastically increased Putin’s popularity at home, but made him a pa- riah abroad. Initially, the West, including the European Union, imposed diplomatic sanc- tions1. They had no effect on Russian behaviour and, in July, the West expanded punitive measures to the economy2. President Putin did not budge, and in September, the United States and the European Union increased the pressure by imposing additional sanctions on the financial sector3. As a result, Russian companies, including large banks, were effec- tively cut off from western financial markets. Past experience, such as the U.S. led sanc- tions on Iran, shows that this type of punishment is very effective and this paper illustrates that they exacted a price on the Russian economy as well.
Topic:
Economics, Sanctions, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe