Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Intervention Publication Year within 25 Years

111. Russian Forces in Syria and the Building of a Sustainable Military Presence: Towards a Restructuring of the Syrian Army?

Author:
Alimar Lazkani
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
The Syrian Army has inherited a few of the norms and customs the French used for running army affairs following the French occupation. These did not include any provisions on regulating the army. After the Baa’th Party came to power, particularly after Hafez Assad had assumed office, the norms and customs guaranteeing minimum rights for army soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers faded gradually, leaving room for cronyism and allegiance to individuals and to the regime as the sole guarantor for the military to gain their rights. Leaders of military units became almost governors of their own units where nothing could take place without their blessings The Russians became fully in charge of the Syrian Army and started to instil rules and regulations that would ensure discipline and transform the army to a professional force capable of actual missions on the ground. Such rules included entrenching among Syrian soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers’ allegiance to Russian military officers and meant to subdue and prevent them from exercising their authority. This has established the Russians as the de facto leaders in the minds of members of the Syrian army. This has mainly shifted the responsibility for all the atrocities committed by the Assad forces under the Russian leadership to the Russians together with the regime’s officers and leaders. Despite their inability to make decisions, they are responsible, in terms of political structure and posturing, for all cases of genocide, chemical attacks, displacement, starvation and other violations. It has therefore become difficult in the Syrian context to separate between the Russian leadership and the Syrian Army, except in terms of differentiating between the leader and the follower, a divide that Russia has been working on consolidating in the media and in its diplomacy as an entity “assisting to achieve peace and combat terrorism”, while it undoubtedly deserves the description of “occupier” with its ability to run a lot of important issues on Syrian soil.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Genocide, Political structure, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Middle East, and Syria

112. The Berlin Pulse 2018 (full issue)

Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
Dear Readers, Welcome to the second edition of THE BERLIN PULSE! At times of turmoil, when the rules-based international order is put into question and traditional alliances become weaker, the majority of Germans still do not favour a more active stance in foreign policy: 55 percent of Germans prefer restraint rather than Germany engaging more strongly in international crises. Apparently, the demands by leading politicians and think tanks for Germany to take on greater international responsibility have not persuaded Germans to change their mind. THE BERLIN PULSE guides policy-makers and experts along the fine line between domestic constraints and international expectations. Political leaders such as the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and the President of Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid express their hopes and expectations for German foreign policy in 2019. Their perspectives meet the attitudes of the German public – sometimes they overlap, sometimes they clash. This year’s issue brings together data, analysis and different perspectives on the most pressing challenges for German foreign policy today and in the years to come – including some trends and outliers that may surprise you. With its new focus topic “The Value of Europe”, Körber Foundation is contributing to the debate on the past, present, and future of the European project and is paying special attention to the question of how a new split along the former “Iron Curtain” can be avoided. We are witnessing a growing internal division in the European Union: 77 percent of Germans believe the cohesion between EU member states has recently weakened. A striking 46 percent of Germans believe the EU’s Eastern enlargement in 2004 was not the right decision. At a time when the transatlantic relationship is going through turbulent times, three out of four Germans describe US-German relations as “somewhat bad” or “very bad” and favour a more independent foreign policy from the US. However, this alienation is not mirrored in the US: even if they consider Germany not a very important partner, 70 percent of Americans believe the relationship between the US and Germany is somewhat good or very good. We thank our transatlantic partners from the Pew Research Center for fielding joint questions on the transatlantic relationship in the US together with us. The results of the representative survey commissioned by Körber Foundation in September 2018 should enrich the conversation about German foreign policy during and beyond the Berlin Foreign Policy Forum, which we are proud to host together with the German Federal Foreign Office. “Talk to each other rather than about each other” – the motto of our founder Kurt A. Körber continues to guide Körber Foundation’s activities today. I hope you enjoy reading. Thomas Paulsen
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Affairs, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

113. Russian Forces in Syria and the Building of a Sustainable Military Presence: What About Iranian-backed Syrian Militias?

Author:
Alimar Lazkani
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
There is constant talk of the “soft conflict” between Iran and Russia in Syria. Most research and media reports focus on the areas of influence and control of each party. Without going into the relationship between Iranian and Russian forces on Syrian soil, in which the Iranian of influence weakened following the entry of Russian troops, it is important to distinguish the nature of these two forces to help identify the characteristics of this conflict, which are not limited to areas of influence. In fact, there is a clear difference between Iranian and Russian interests as well as strategy on two major issues. The first is the relationship with Israel. While Russia sees Israel as a strategic ally in the region, Iran gains its regional legitimacy by emphasizing the continuity of conflict with it. The second is the way each party sees the future of Syria, and its own role in it. Iran is not capable of establishing a centralized state in Syria because of its ideological hostility to the Sunni majority there. Therefore, a state based on sectarian militias will be the cornerstone of Iran’s continued presence on Syrian soil as it has the capacity to manage militias with no national project. Russia, on the other hand, has a vision of a centralized state that is based on the fundamental pillar of a disciplined and dutiful army. Thus, the “soft conflict” involves not only the geographical divvying-up of Syria, but also fundamental matters related to the structure of Syria’s security and military system. This paper is the second part of a broader study of Russia’s policy of establishing a military influence in Syria. It will look at the Syrian militias that Iran has fostered and supported, and Russia’s approach in dealing with them on the ground. However, it does not consider non-Syrian militias on Syrian soil brought by the Iranians, such as Hezbollah, the Fatemiyoun, the Zainabiyoun, and other Shia militias because of their close association with Iranian politics and their temporary posting in specific conflict areas, making them a foreign presence on Syrian soil.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Intervention, Sunni, and Shia
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Middle East, Israel, and Syria

114. Europe Is the Key Player in Syria: An Alternative Template for Transition

Author:
Bassma Kodmani
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
As long as military means prevailed in deciding the fate of Syria, the European Union could not alone induce any decisive change in the dynamics of the conflict, and Assad was vindictively seeking to prove that the European Union’s ability to influence the conflict was nil. Assad’s luck was that Putin was determined to prevent his fall and threw his full weight behind him to maintain his rule. When the guns finally fall silent, should the key countries of Europe and the EU itself simply accept as “a sad reality” the fact that the Syrian regime is back in full control of the country? Will they channel funds for humanitarian, post-emergency and early recovery purposes through the State’s financial system knowing full well that European tax payers’ money might be massively diverted to end in the pockets of Assad’s family and the kleptocracy around him,1 and serve to pursue his sectarian scheme of changing the demographics of Syria along religious and ethnic lines? Framing the discussion in terms of accepting Assad and rehabilitating him or not is disempowering for the EU. It assumes that military force alone is what determines the outcome of the conflict and the political fate of the country. If it follows this rationale, Europe would be annihilating everything it stands for; it would serve as a helping hand in Assad’s strategy to bury the civil society groups it helped organize and silence the democratic forces and all those within the different sectors of society who want a Syria that resembles Europe in terms of its values and its political system on the other side of the Mediterranean. The EU’s declared position that there will be no reconstruction without political transition in Syria is an honorable one, but this position still needs to be operationalized if the EU is to turn it into a policy and use its full clout to shape the resolution of the conflict.
Topic:
Europe Union, Humanitarian Intervention, Military Intervention, and Economic Policy
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, and Syria

115. China Global Security & Taiwan

Author:
Helena Legarda and Meia Nouwens
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Abstract:
The focus of this issue of the China Global Security Tracker is the growing threat that China’s rapid military modernization presents to Taiwan. The People’s Liberation Army has demonstrated its new capabilities through aggressive maneuvers over the last few months, simulating an attack on Taiwan. China’s party and state leader Xi Jinping has left no doubt that he views the reunification with Taiwan as key for China’s future national strength. The China Global Security Tracker is a semi-annual publication. It is part of the China Security Project, a cooperation between the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). In her analysis of events during the first half of 2018, MERICS researcher Helena Legarda tracks China’s growing military expenditures as well as steps taken by the Chinese Communist Party to extend its control over the military.
Topic:
Nationalism, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Africa, United States, China, Taiwan, Beijing, and Asia

116. Exit Strategy: Rule of Law and the U.S. Army

Author:
Shima D. Keene
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Establishing the rule of law is a key goal and end state in counterinsurgency (COIN) operations and is a critical aspect of securing peace and preventing future conflict. However, recent experience in theaters such as Afghanistan has shown that establishing effective rule of law institutions and practices is not a straightforward task. Consequently, considerations as to how and when rule of law institutions can start to be developed and integrated into the stability transition process must not only be planned in advance, but also form part of the U.S. Army’s strategy from the start of any military intervention. The analysis provided in this monograph will assist the U.S. Army, and more broadly the Departments of Defense and State, in better facilitating a seamless rebalancing from military to police functions in post-conflict environments, and to ensure that sustainable and effective rule of law interventions are delivered as part of an exit strategy.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Armed Forces, Military Intervention, Rule of Law, Army, and Nation Building
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

117. Beyond the Buzzword: The Three Meanings of “Grand Strategy”

Author:
Nina Silove
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security Studies
Institution:
Security Studies
Abstract:
The questions of how to define grand strategy and whether it “exists” continue to vex the study of grand strategy, despite the ever-increasing popularity of the term. Scholars broadly agree that grand strategy refers to something that has the characteristics of being long-term in scope, related to the state's highest priorities, and concerned with all spheres of statecraft (military, diplomatic, and economic). The precise entity or phenomenon that manifests these characteristics is less clear, indicating deficiencies in the methods used by scholars—usually implicitly—to define and operationalize concepts. This article traces the intellectual history and contemporary usage of the concept of grand strategy to identify the phenomenon or object to which the concept refers. This analysis demonstrates that there is no single concept of grand strategy. Instead, there are three, which are labelled “grand plans,” “grand principles,” and “grand behavior,” respectively. Each concept provides a distinct, valuable framework for research and policy prescription.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Imperialism, Military Strategy, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
United States and North America

118. Image of USA in Urban Pakistan: An Empirical Assessment

Author:
Muhammad Asif and Ayaz Muhammad
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Image plays an important role while devising a country‘s foreign policy. Therefore, all the nations whether small or big try to portray their positive images for the achievement of desired goals. USA, a dominant political actor in world politics is facing an image problem throughout the globe. Pakistan‘s alliance with the USA during and after the Cold War makes it an ideal nation to evaluate the image of USA. This empirical study designed to investigate the factors affecting, molding and promoting the positive or negative images of USA in Pakistan. Five urban centers selected to evaluate the US image including four provincial capitals namely Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta and the federal capital Islamabad. Survey method used to collect and analyze the data. The image of USA evaluated in five selected areas: violation of Pakistan‘s sovereignty, US policies towards Muslim world, US policies in Afghanistan, mounting Indo-US relations, and US aid to Pakistan. Results of the study show that the factor where the image of USA was extremely negative is violation of Pakistan‘s sovereignty. US policies towards Muslim world, the issue of Afghanistan and rising strategic ties with India especially after the end of cold war are not welcomed by the Pakistani masses and viewed the American image as negative but with less intensity as compared to the factor of violation of Pakistan‘s sovereignty. Public supported the US aid program to Pakistan and viewed it as supportive for country‘s frail and flimsy economy.
Topic:
War, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Aid, Military Affairs, Military Intervention, and 9/11
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, Punjab, and United States of America

119. The Berlin Pulse 2017 (full issue)

Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Körber-Stiftung
Abstract:
Dear Reader, Welcome to The Berlin Pulse! In the past years, calls for greater German international engagement were heard at many occasions. As Germany sets out for a new coalition experiment, the question is whether the new government will assume this responsibility, and how it will address international challenges. To succeed, a Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to reconcile the views of her coalition partners with expectations of Germany’s international partners. How much leeway does a new government have between international expectations and domestic constraints? The idea behind The Berlin Pulse is to guide policy-makers and experts on this fine line. To this end, prominent international authors such as Jens Stoltenberg and Mohammad Javad Zarif formulate their expectations for Germany on 2018’s most pressing issues. A representative survey commissioned by Körber Foundation in October 2017 contrasts their perspectives with German public opinion. We will publish The Berlin Pulse annually on the occasion of the Berlin Foreign Policy Forum, which we host together with the Federal Foreign Office. The contrast of domestic and international perspectives indicates what kind of foreign policy actor Germany can become. For example, while many foreign policy makers demand that Germany punches its weight on the international stage, Germans do not demonstrate the same enthusiasm: 52 percent prefer international restraint over increased engagement, a value similar to past years. As Timothy Garton Ash writes in his contribution on Germany’s role in the world, “there has been no historical caesura since 3 October 1990 large enough to justify talking about a ‘new’ Germany.” And while experts still discuss whether we are in a “post-Atlantic era”, the German population already seems to have reached a conclusion: 56 percent consider the relationship between the US and Germany to be somewhat or very bad, and a striking 88 percent would give a defense partnership with European states priority over the partnership with the US. In an interview for The Berlin Pulse, Condoleezza Rice stresses the importance of increased defense spending for the transatlantic relationship, yet 51 percent of Germans think spending should stay at current levels. Opinion polls are often snapshots. Yet, we have been conducting polls since 2014 and believe that continuity allows distinguishing between outliers and underlying characteristics of German public opinion on foreign policy. We particularly thank the Pew Research Center for fielding six joint questions on the transatlantic relationship in the US. The motto of our founder to “talk to each other rather than about each other” has guided Körber Foundation’s activities from the beginning. The Berlin Pulse shall gather representative voices from within and outside Germany to illustrate and acknowledge the potential and limits of Germany’s role in the world. We believe this is a prerequisite for developing a viable and successful foreign policy. Behind every successful publication, there is a dedicated editor. Thanks to the acumen and persistence of Luise Voget, Program Manager at our International Affairs Department, the idea of a ‘guidebook to German foreign policy’ has been molded into 60 pages of data, analysis and opinion: The Berlin Pulse. I wish you a good read. Thomas Paulsen
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, International Affairs, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

120. Russian Foreign Policy in the Middle East: New Challenge for Western Interests?

Author:
Nikolay Kozhanov
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
This paper is part of CTR's Working Paper Series: "Russia and the West: Reality Check." The current level of Russian presence in the Middle East is unprecedented for the region since the fall of the Soviet Union. Records of diplomatic and political contacts show increased exchange of multilevel delegations between Russia and the main regional countries. After 2012, Moscow has attempted to cultivate deeper involvement in regional issues and to establish contacts with forces in the Middle East which it considers as legitimate. Moreover, on September 30, 2015, Russia launched air strikes against Syrian groupings fighting against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Before that time, Russia had tried to avoid any fully-fledged involvement in the military conflicts in the region. It was also the first time when it adopted an American military strategy by putting the main accent on the use of air power instead of ground forces. Under these circumstances, the turmoil in the Middle East, which poses a political and security challenge to the EU and United States, makes it crucial to know whether Russia could be a reliable partner in helping the West to stabilize the region or whether, on the contrary, Moscow will play the role of a troublemaker.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, United States of America, European Union, and Gulf Cooperation Council