Оглавление
Alexander Lanoszka. Military Alliances in the Twenty-First Century
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Illustrations
Guide
Pages
Dedication
Military Alliances in the Twenty-First Century
Copyright Page
Tables and Figure
Acknowledgments
Introduction
The Arguments of this Book
Conventional wisdom #1: States form alliances to balance power and/or to gain influence over other states
Conventional wisdom #2: The alliance dilemma is a fundamental problem shared by all military alliances
Conventional wisdom #3: Members of US alliances must do more to bear their fair share of the common defense burden
Conventional wisdom #4: Military alliances aggregate capabilities and thus allow their members to confront security challenges more effectively
Conventional wisdom #5: Military alliances are only useful for as long as the strategic circumstances that led to their emergence hold
Defining Military Alliances
Plan of the Book
1 Formation
Uncertainty, Violence, and Political Difference
Balancing Threat as a Classic Explanation of Alliance Formation
Concession-Extraction as Another Standard Explanation of Alliance Formation
But Why Have an Alliance Treaty?
Predicting Future Military Alliances
2 Entrapment
What Is Entrapment?
Treaty risks
Systemic risks
Reputational risks
Transnational ideological risks
Entrapment Risks in the Contemporary Era
3 Abandonment
Abandonment: Natural, Rare, but Consequential
What Shapes the Intensity of Abandonment Fears?
Foreign policy interests
The military balance
Forward military deployments
Can reliability be bought?
Complications with Reassurance
Fearing Abandonment in the Early Twenty-First Century
4 Burden-sharing
Burden-sharing in Theory and History
How Advances in Military Technology Shape Burden-sharing
The growing complexity of conventional military power
The paradoxes of nuclear weapons
Burden-sharing Controversies in the Contemporary Era
5 Warfare
What Is War and What Are the Trends in War?
Why Take Part in Multilateral Military Operations?
Why Military Effectiveness Is Hard for Military Alliances to Achieve
Strategic factors
Organizational factors
Technical factors
Coalition Warfare in the Contemporary Era
6 Termination
How to Get Out of an Alliance via the Alliance Treaty Itself
Fulfillment
Military defeat
Downgrading
Unilateral abrogation
Transformation
The Analytical Importance of Understanding Alliance Termination
Conclusion
Conventional wisdom #1: States form alliances to balance power, and/or to gain influence over other states
Conventional wisdom #2: The alliance dilemma is a fundamental problem shared by all military alliances
Conventional wisdom #3: Members of US alliances must do more to bear their fair share of the common defense burden
Conventional wisdom #4: Military alliances aggregate capabilities and thus allow their members to confront security challenges more effectively
Conventional wisdom #5: Military alliances are only useful for as long as the strategic circumstances that led to their emergence hold
Military Alliances and World Order in the Twenty-First Century
References
Index
POLITY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Отрывок из книги
Pour Maximilien, la source de ma joie
Table 4.1 NATO military spending as percentage of GDP in 2019
.....
Put together, in scrutinizing these standard claims and making these critical arguments, this book seeks to impress upon the reader one main point about military alliances: that these organizations defy easy explanations and are often so puzzling that it should be small wonder that US military alliances – or any alliance for that matter – can at times seem very dysfunctional. States write down their political and military commitments in treaties so as both to clarify their intentions and to create ambiguity over the circumstances in which they would act. Leaders fear that their country will be dragged into disputes they do not wish to have due to the reckless behavior of allied states, but precisely because they have such apprehensions, those fears rarely – if ever – become reality. Worrying about abandonment by an ally is natural and rational, but seldom do these concerns intensify to a level that dramatically reshapes a state’s foreign and defense policy. This may just as well be due to skillful alliance management. Though burden-sharing controversies have dominated many intra-alliance debates since the beginning of the Cold War, they are partly the result of those alliances lasting much longer than ever before, thanks, arguably, to nuclear deterrence, which can create disincentives for states to spend on their militaries. Of course, states do ultimately, though unevenly, build up their military capabilities in order to deter in peacetime and to prevail in wartime, but many, if not most, multinational military campaigns do not involve the full membership of an alliance. They oftentimes include non-allies, which may lead some to ask why it is worth even bothering to have a formal alliance at all. The factor that illuminates why states agree to form a military alliance in the first place often sheds little, if any, light on why that alliance comes to an end. Contradictions are pervasive.
Before fleshing out these arguments in greater detail, a crucial question remains: what exactly is a military alliance? This question is deceptively simple, not least because news media often invoke the term to describe a wide variety of security arrangements like NATO, bilateral partnerships that involve the United States and countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, as well as the burgeoning cooperation between China and Russia. And indeed, some scholars would agree that such relationships constitute alliances. Michael Barnett and Jack Levy (1991: 370) define an alliance “in its broadest sense to refer to a formal or informal relationship of security cooperation between two or more states and involving mutual expectations of some degree of policy coordination on security issues under certain conditions in the future.” In his seminal study on alliances, Stephen Walt (1987: 12) similarly defines them as “a formal or informal arrangement for security cooperation between two or more sovereign states.” As such, scholars have counted alliances in all sorts of ways, creating confusion as to the true count, and running the risk of comparing apples to oranges. Mira Rapp-Hooper (2020: 17) writes, for example, that the United States had thirty-seven allies as of 2020, but she includes in her count Israel and Pakistan (which do not have a formal defense agreement with the United States) and omits countries that make up the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, popularly known as the Rio Pact (which notionally does contain one).
.....
