Number of results to display per page
Search Results
62. Rising Anti-China Sentiment in South Korea Offers Opportunities To Strengthen US-ROK Relations
- Author:
- Haneul Lee, Alan Yu, and Tobias Harris
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The Yoon administration’s posture toward China has important implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance and America’s strategic approach in the region
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
63. Stronger Together: US force posture in Australia’s north—a US perspective on Australia’s strategic geography
- Author:
- Todd C. Hanks
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
- Abstract:
- Stronger together: US force posture in Australia’s north—a US perspective on Australia’s strategic geography This report argues why, and analyses how, Australia’s defence force capabilities and strategic geography can enable US force posture initiatives in the Indo-Pacific to promote greater regional cooperation in ways that advance US and Australian national interests. Lieutenant Colonel Hanks writes that there are ‘practical and tangible areas for US-Australia cooperation and growth which include: 1) expanding the Australian defence industrial base while securing and hardening supply chains; 2) increasing US Army force posture in northern Australia; 3) increasing multinational training opportunities; and 4) in conjunction with Australia, expanding the defence partnership with Indonesia.’ ‘The US now relies on increased cooperation from partners and allies to regain the initiative from the PRC in the Indo-Pacific. Australia’s defence strategy and policies are better aligned with US defence strategy and policies today, than ever before.’ The report argues that military modernization alone will not effectively expand the competitive space and disrupt PRC grey-zone decision cycles. Thinking asymmetrically, Australia can use its strategic geography and defence capabilities to enable US force posture initiatives in the Indo-Pacific to promote greater regional cooperation and, through greater deterrent posture and capability, reduce the risk of conflict.
- Topic:
- National Security, Military Affairs, Geography, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Australia and United States of America
64. Transatlantic relations and European strategic autonomy in the Biden era: Neglect, primacy or reform?
- Author:
- Ville Sinkkonen and Garret Martin
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
- Abstract:
- The relief in Europe following Joe Biden’s election has been tempered by uncertainty as to how the new administration might approach transatlantic relations. This paper lays out three paths that the US could take. The benign neglect model assumes that Washington will be consumed by domestic challenges and competition with Beijing, de facto downgrading Europe as a priority. In the primacy model, the US sees its leadership as indispensable for sustaining the international order and battling authoritarianism. The US would expect Europe to follow its lead, while old reservations about European strategic autonomy would resurface. The major reform model would see a humbler US foreign policy, understanding that it cannot repair the fragile international liberal order alone. Supporting European strategic autonomy would be key in devising a new transatlantic division of labor. Domestic challenges and ingrained policy habits mean that the US will likely gravitate toward neglect or primacy in its dealings with Europe. A major reform of the transatlantic relationship, while desirable, would require significant political will and investment on both sides of the Atlantic.
- Topic:
- Security, International Cooperation, Leadership, Transatlantic Relations, Autonomy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
65. How 2400 Pages of Tech Industrial Policy will change Transatlantic Relations
- Author:
- Tobias Gehrke
- Publication Date:
- 07-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The currently 2400-page long ‘US Innovation and Competition Act’ making its way through Congress is about one thing only: China. But it also signals a much broader shift in American geoeconomic strategy towards tech industrial policy which matters just as much for Europe. To avoid major rifts, tech industrial diplomacy will need to become a staple of transatlantic affairs.
- Topic:
- Industrial Policy, Science and Technology, Transatlantic Relations, Industry, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
66. Engaging Russia over Syria: Managing Peripheral Conflict and Narrowing Interests
- Author:
- Aaron Stein
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
- Abstract:
- The United States is examining how to narrow core objectives in the Middle East to focus on improving military readiness and increasing the number of low-density, high-demand assets available for deployment in Asia and Europe. To free up more forces and to help improve readiness, Washington should explore selective engagement with Moscow about securing a formal ceasefire in Syria’s northwest and reaching agreement on a “no-foreign forces zone” in Syria’s south. This policy would not alter the status quo in Syria, but seek to use diplomatic tools to allow for the reallocation of certain resources now tasked with protecting U.S. ground forces. This engagement with the Russian Federation would elevate a key U.S. interest and use counter-terrorism capabilities based in Jordan to disrupt plots against the homeland. It would also seek to use diplomatic tools to create conditions to remove forces that do not directly support this counter-terrorism effort. This approach would retain U.S. forces in the Middle East, but in a way that allows for certain assets to be repositioned in either the United States, Indo-Pacific, or Europe.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America
67. When Less Is More: Rethinking U.S. Military Strategy and Posture in the Middle East
- Author:
- Ilan Goldenberg, Becca Wasser, Elisa Catalano Ewers, and Lilly Blumenthal
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- For the past 20 years, the U.S. military has invested heavily in the Middle East. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both attempted to shift assets out of the region and put a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, but both were drawn back into the Middle East. Now, President Joe Biden again has put an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has emphasized the importance of China as the Department of Defense’s “pacing challenge.” Effectively realizing the new administration’s shift in priority—and avoiding the cycle of drawing forces out of the Middle East only to have new crises pull them back in—requires an assessment of how the United States can continue to protect its core interests in the Middle East with a smaller and smarter footprint. This paper is the beginning of an effort to answer this question. It methodically outlines what key U.S. interests and objectives should be in the Middle East to develop the appropriate U.S. force posture to meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow. It then describes the key military activities necessary to protect those interests and achieve those objectives, in some cases breaking old assumptions and identifying areas where the United States can afford to accept more risk. Finally, it begins to outline the associated military assets necessary to pursue those activities and ends by identifying areas where the United States can look to alter its presence and activities in the region. The conclusion of this analysis is that the United States still has vital interests in the Middle East that require a level of military investment in the region. However, those interests are more limited, and the United States must be willing to accept more risk in the Middle East while also prioritizing non-military tools. Given challenges and strategic interests elsewhere in the world and at home, it is time to consider how the United States might approach force posture in the region differently than in the past.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, National Security, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and United States of America
68. Navigating the Deepening Russia-China Partnership
- Author:
- Andrea Kendall-Taylor and David Shullman
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- Ties between China and Russia have grown. In virtually every dimension of their relationship—from the diplomatic to defense and economic to informational realms—cooperation between Beijing and Moscow has increased. Political observers in Washington and beyond have noted their alignment, yet they remain divided over what these growing ties portend. Perhaps the most concerning—and least understood—aspect of the Russia-China partnership is the synergy their actions will generate. Analysts understand well the challenges that Russia and China each pose to the United States. But little thought has been given to how their actions will combine, amplifying the impact of both actors. As this report highlights, the impact of Russia-China alignment is likely to be far greater than the sum of its parts, putting U.S. interests at risk globally. The synergy between Russia and China will be most problematic in the way that it increases the challenge that China poses to the United States. Already, Beijing is working with Moscow to fill gaps in its military capabilities, accelerate its technological innovation, and complement its efforts to undermine U.S. global leadership. Simply put, Russia is amplifying America’s China challenge.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Partnerships, Economy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Eurasia, Asia, and United States of America
69. Engaging with Africa Strategically
- Author:
- J. Peter Pham
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Ambassadors Review
- Institution:
- Council of American Ambassadors
- Abstract:
- Like many of my contemporaries, both in the U.S. Foreign Service and in the wider international affairs community, who have worked on issues related to Africa since the end of the Cold War, I have seen Washington’s attentiveness to the states and peoples of the continent wax and wane over the years. For example, the probable nadir was in 1995, when the United States Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa published that year actually declared that America had “very little traditional strategic interest in Africa,” and the hitherto apogee was in 2014, when the first-ever U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit brought leaders from 50 of Africa’s 54 countries, including 37 heads of state, to our nation’s capital. While emphases and resources shifted from time to time and certainly between U.S. Presidents, there has largely been continuity of policy across Democratic and Republican Administrations, even including the last one. Notwithstanding unfortunate remarks attributed to President Donald Trump, I would argue that the Trump Administration’s Africa strategy achieved some significant advances in America’s approach to the continent, which the Biden Administration can harness to achieve some of its top priorities, including geopolitical competition and its ambitious climate-change agenda.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Climate Change, International Cooperation, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Africa, North America, and United States of America
70. The US Strategy for Short-Term Military Artificial Intelligence Development (2020-2030)
- Author:
- Daniel Barreiros and Italo Barreto Poty
- 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:
- This article analyses the US Department of Defense initiative formalized in the Summary of the 2018 Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The conclusion is that the US emphasis on the use of artificial intelligence to expand C4ISR capabilities (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance) and the denunciation of “ethical risks’’ involving Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are narrative strategies aimed at dealing in the short term with the inability of the US technology agencies to master autonomous military platform technologies and with the Russian resolve on the development of these lethal autonomous military platforms.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Development, Military Strategy, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America