Search

Begin New Search Topic Strategic Interests Political Geography Europe

71. The Importance of Middle East in Russian Foreign Policy

Author:
Sansz Rostamjabri, Seyed Javad EmamJomehzadeh, and Mahnaz Goodarzi
Publication Date:
01-2021
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:
The Soviet Union emerged as a superpower in the Cold War, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new Russia was formed. To achieve the hegemony of power, Russia's security document was given priority. In the first term, Vladimir Putin focused on pragmatism and emphasized the power of domestic politics and the revival of the Russian economy. In his second term, Putin focused on the politics of realism to gain power on the international stage and return to what Moscow is interested in. In his second term, Putin pursued a political (power expansion), security (avoiding differences), and economic (strengthening Russia) view Middle East. Therefore, in this study, Russian foreign policy in the Middle East and its importance The question for this study is: what factors in Russian foreign policy made the Middle East region important for Russia? And the hypothesis for this question: Russia's concern about Islamic fundamentalism (security), economic and political reasons are among the most important factors in directing its foreign policy to the Middle East.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Middle East

72. The Sino-Russian Geopolitics in Eurasia and China-USA Disputes: Asia Pacific Great Eurasia vs Indo-Pacific

Author:
Lucas Gualberto do Nascimento and Marcos Cordeiro Pires
Publication Date:
07-2021
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 aims to analyze the main elements and processes underway in Eurasia, involving three essential actors: the United States, Russia, and China. At first, it is emphasized the importance of Eurasia as a space that has historically influenced the hegemonic disputes between Great Powers. Then, Eurasia is analyzed as a space for development cooperation, presenting the intersections of the Chinese BRI and the Russian EAEU. Last, the US approach to China is addressed, specifically the Indo-Pacific strategy. We conclude that despite the intense pressure to contain the rise of China and Russia in Eurasia, rivaling both powers is not feasible. In the current path, it will boost the cooperation between two giants, China and Russia.
Topic:
Hegemony, Geopolitics, Conflict, Space, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

73. Azerbaijan’s Pathways After the Second Karabakh War

Author:
Laurence Broers
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
n the aftermath of the Second Karabakh War, Azerbaijan stands at a critical moment in its history. The war has re­solved many of the issues driving Azerbaijani grievances over the last three decades. Yet it leaves others both unresolved and entangled within a new regional configura­tion that more than ever hinges on the interactions of external great powers and the fractured local politics of the South Caucasus. The regionalization of the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict— meaning its transition to a Russian‑Turkish condominium— ultimately links the conflict to the vagaries of what Pavel Baev and Kemal Kirişci call the “serpentine” relations between Moscow and Ankara in the era of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin. The conflict is now one link in a string of conflict theatres where Russia and Turkey are involved, and across which Moscow and Ankara may negotiate trade‑offs that have little to do with the in­terests of local parties. To be sure, Azerbaijan’s closeness to Turkey assuages concerns over Russian in­fluence for now. And the strategic, rather than tactical, outlook on Azerbaijani‑Turkish partnership means that few in Azerbaijan be­lieve that Turkey would ever engage in trade‑offs that cross Azerbaijani red lines. This belief is reflected in the experience of the Turkish‑ Armenian “football diplomacy” normalization initiative that took place in in 2008‑2009. Nevertheless, while the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict is now seen by many in Azerbaijan as resolved, it has in fact been re­packaged and embedded in a new, highly complex, and unpredict­able web of linkages.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Conflict, Peace, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, and Azerbaijan

74. Trilateral Cooperation Between Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia

Author:
Dr. Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
Since the breakup of the So­viet Union, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia have achieved unprecedented levels of economic and security collabo­ration. Through this expanding cooperation, the three countries have established themselves as a collective hub of Eurasian energy extraction and multi‑model trans­portation. Their growing ties have accelerated since the opening of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline in 2006 to extend to the construction of additional pipe­lines, the launching in 2017 of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Kars (BTK) railway, the holding of regular trilateral mil­itary exercises, and the convening of frequent high‑level leadership meetings. The South Caucasus remains one of the world’s most complex geopolitical regions, with several external powers competing for regional influ­ence.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Asia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North America, and United States of America

75. Ukraine’s Strategic Relations with the South Caucasus With References to Turkey and Russia

Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
kraine’s relations with the three Southern Caucasian states of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia have been varied during the three decades since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has paid greater attention to pro‑Western Georgia and multivectoral Azerbaijan, and the least attention to pro‑Russian Armenia. In Soviet times, the Ukrainian and Georgian dissident and nation­alist movements maintained close ties, and this influenced the devel­opment of friendly relations be­tween Ukraine and Georgia in the post‑Soviet era. From the late 1990s onwards, Ukraine and Georgia made joining both NATO and the EU priority goals, which also played a role in bringing Kyiv and Tbilisi together. Azerbaijan pur­sued a multi‑vector foreign policy of integration without membership in these two institutions, managing to be cautiously pro‑Western but at the same time not anti‑Russian. Armenia, on the other hand, has been a member of all Russian‑led regional integration projects since the early 1990s, and therefore Kyiv has had few common interests with Yerevan. Relations with Armenia have de­teriorated since 2014 because of Armenia’s support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the presence of Armenian merce­naries fighting against Ukraine in the ranks of Russia’s proxies in the Donbas. During the Second Karabakh War, the Ukrainian media, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and all political parties (except one pro‑Russian one) en­thusiastically supported Azerbaijan.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Regionalism, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Turkey, and Ukraine

76. The US in NATO: adapting the Alliance to new strategic priorities

Author:
Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Martin Quencez
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
At the June 2021 NATO Summit, Allies agreed that “[we] will engage China with a view to de- fending the security interests of the Alliance”, as “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based inter- national order and to areas relevant to Alliance securi- ty”. For Washington, it was a win to have NATO, the cornerstone of the United States’ network of alliances, acknowledge the challenge posed by China and expand the Alliance’s predominantly transatlantic focus. During his visit to Europe in Spring 2021, President Biden signalled that “America was back” with a clear vision for NATO and that he was seeking European partners’ support. The US President’s recommitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is premised on the expectation that NATO address the country’s current and future strategic concerns, in a security and geopolitical environment that has dramatically changed these last twenty years. China, technological competi- tion, climate change, and hybrid threats and their desta- bilizing effects on NATO member states’ political co- hesion, are now at the core of the US strategic agenda. These priorities redefine NATO’s purpose. In this con- text, NATO’s new Strategic Concept, to be presented in 2022, aims at addressing these very changes, espe- cially as the Alliance enters the post-Afghanistan era. The US objectives vis-à-vis NATO are threefold. In the short term, the Biden administration seeks to re- engage with NATO as part of a larger effort to work with Allies around the world. US public opinion is clearly supportive of the Alliance across political affiliations, despite the politicization of the debate under the Trump administration. In the longer term, NATO will remain relevant to the US, only if it contributes to the strategic competition against China. This can take different forms and re- quire moving beyond two decades of out-of-area oper- ations to tackle challenges of a broad nature, especially in the cyber and techno- logical realms. Finally, the US aims to continue work on struc- tural issues within the Alliance, such as bur- den-sharing and political cohesion, whilst devel- oping a new partnership agenda that better fits its priorities. To sum up, NATO will remain a “global alliance” shaped by the US global strategic priorities, and will continue to strengthen its engagement with “global partners” as the increasingly complex security environment requires transregional approaches.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

77. Partners Across the Globe and NATO’s Strategic Concept

Author:
Gorana Grgic
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
NATO’s history is one of continuous adapta- tion in the aftermath of critical junctures both 1 during and after the Cold War. The most recent push to transform the Alliance is embodied in laying out the groundworks towards the new Strategic Concept and the institutional campaign “NATO 2030” which calls for the Alliance to become more political- ly active and global in reach, along with strengthening its military power.2 Among the issues this effort has spotlighted are NATO’s global partnerships which at the moment include Afghanistan, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan, i.e. NATO’s Partners Across the Globe (PAG). This Policy Brief assesses the value of NATO’s Part- ners Across the Globe in light of the new security challenges and argues that preserving the status quo vis-à-vis global partnerships is not advisable since it is incompatible with the changing strategic goals. In pro- viding the recommendations moving forward, it argues the Alliance has two options. First, the Alliance could overhaul the PAG grouping and distinguish between the types of partners with whom it can establish deeper cooperation. Namely, this would involve elevating the Asia-Pacific Four into an institutionalised grouping, rather than having it remain an informal platform for cooperation. Alternatively, NATO could do away with the existing PAG nomenclature and keep the partner- ships flexible and issue specific. It could thus follow the “NATO 30+n” model, which would include working with a set group of partners on different issues.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

78. European allies and the forthcoming NATO strategic concept

Author:
Barbara Kunz
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The forthcoming NATO Strategic Concept will primarily serve the purpose of adapting the definition of the Alliance’s core tasks to 21st century realities. This includes an updated threat analysis, as well as a widening of priorities to include matters and domains such as cybersecurity and soci- etal resilience. It will, in many ways, also reflect the considerable changes European security underwent since the publication of its preceding Strategic Con- cept in 2010. It will therefore be the first post-Crimea Strategic Concept, and mark the end of a cooperative security approach to Russia. The new text will also be the first post-Trump administration document, one elaborated after a period of profound doubts over US commitment to the Alliance. Finally, the new Strate- gic Concept will be adopted after years of sometimes heated debates on European security, particularly on the notion of European strategic autonomy. While a consensus on this concept and its implications for the Atlantic Alliance has thus far proved elusive, it seems clear that Europeans increasingly understand the need for a stronger, and in many ways more independent Europe. To some, recent events in Afghanistan may also have been a wake-up call. In reality, however, most of these developments are structural in nature, and have persisted for some time.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

79. The EU’s Strategic Compass for security and defence: Squaring ambition with reality

Author:
Dick Zandee, Adaja Stoetman, and Bob Deen
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
The European Union (EU) is developing a Strategic Compass for security and defence, to be ready by March 2022. The first semester of 2021 is the phase of the ‘strategic dialogue’ with the member states and institutions of the EU, including the involvement of think tanks and other stakeholders. Commissioned by the Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Clingendael Institute delivers its contribution to the strategic dialogue on the Strategic Compass by focussing on defining more precisely the military level of ambition of the EU and what it implies for capability development and the relationship with NATO. The EU faces a wider set of challenges and threats than ever before. In the global power rivalry between China, Russia and the United States, it is ‘Europe’ that runs the danger of becoming irrelevant and the object of great power actions rather than being a global actor. The arc of instability around Europe is unlikely to turn into an arc of stability. The challenges posed by state and non-state actors – the latter in particular in the southern neighbourhood – require the EU to respond to external conflicts and crises, to support partners to provide security for their own population and to protect the Union and its citizens – the three strategic priorities for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as defined five years ago in the Implementation Plan on Security and Defence. While the EU has made progress in many areas – trade policies, partnerships, civilian crisis management – its military tools have remained weak as a result of a lack of political will and the absence of adequate military means. The Strategic Compass offers the opportunity to close the gap between ‘too much rhetoric’ and ‘too little action’ that have characterised the EU’s security and defence efforts so far. In recent years, new instruments have been created to improve European defence cooperation – such as the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) – but these are what they are: without strategic direction instruments tend to become bureaucratic tools rather than the rails on which the train travels to its destination. In the Strategic Compass the EU has to define more precisely its military level of ambition and what it implies for capability development and partnerships. In short, the report tries to answer two questions: (1) what should the EU be able to do, and (2) what is needed to get there? The relationship with NATO has to be taken into account in answering these key questions.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, European Union, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe

80. Mediterranean trends 2030/2050. A prospective approach to the Southern neighbourhood

Author:
Itxaso Dominguez de Olazabal and Alfonso Casani
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
Launched a quarter of a century ago, the Barcelona Process began a process of reflection and unification regarding Spanish and European Union (EU) policies towards the Mediterranean. However, this has not always translated into coherent, prudent, and timely policies given the changing structural conditions that occurred in the region, such as the 2010/2011 anti-authoritarian revolts. A more anticipatory approach needs to be applied to policy-making, re-examining both the vision and policies. This document undertakes an in-depth foresight analysis of the Southern Neighbourhood, with a view to the medium- and long-term horizons of 2030 and 2050 respectively. Consequently, it aims to contribute towards developing long-term, proactive strategies both nationally and within Europe, which commit to developing coherent and responsible policies that could help the region’s societies develop inclusively, sustainably, and democratically. As such, this exercise aspires to identify the paths, realities, and phenomena that can lead to somewhat sustainable and friendly scenarios for the affected populations in the future. The work identifies of these scenarios. This involves reporting six megatrends in the nine dynamics. Based on available data and knowledge gleaned from interviews, they can define the evolution and range of possible directions in which the Southern Neighbourhood countries are heading. This document profiles and compares two of them: one positive, characterised by the appeasement of social conflicts, the adoption of good governance practices, and greater regional stability; and a second scenario that will bear witness to a worsening of political, social, and economic issues and conflicts, within a context marked by the stiffening of authoritarian trends and a deepening of social inequalities. The difference between each scenario resides in the will of Southern Neighbourhood countries to adopt measures aimed at better governance and the adoption of more multilateral action frameworks that favour cooperation. Both scenarios offer a set of opportunities, applicable mainly to the Southern Neighbourhood countries, with Spain and the EU eventually joining them on the process. These opportunities point to areas of particular importance in order to achieve a sustainable future for the region’s societies.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, European Union, Strategic Stability, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, and Mediterranean