University of Virginia Department of Politics plir 4500: nato’s Strategic Challenges Fall 2016 Prof. Erwan Lagadec Class meets
Download 134.24 Kb.
|
| University of Virginia
Department of Politics PLIR 4500: NATO’s Strategic Challenges Fall 2016 Prof. Erwan Lagadec Class meets: Tues. 3:30-6pm, Pavilion VIII 103 Office hours: Tues. 2-3pm or by appointment, office Gibson S187 Email: elagadec@virginia.edu Introduction This class will explore how NATO confronts limited defense budgets; Brexit; upcoming U.S., French, and German elections, and crises in Ukraine and Syria. We will examine how NATO can defend Europe as the U.S. pivots to Asia and Western power declines. This class is a seminar; students will conduct independent research and will be mentored by high-level practitioners as they draft policy memoranda, the best of which will be shared with NATO leaders. Course overview 1. 08/23. General introduction: topic, schedule, grading, and guidelines A. HISTORICAL AND STRATEGIC CONTEXTS 2. 08/30. Indispensable and intolerable nation: the United States in European geopolitics – Assignment of weekly debate leaders 3.09/06. Twilight of the transatlantic Establishment? – Deadline to choose area of specialization (mentor) Debate leader: Benjamin Mobley 4. 09/13. The path to today’s Alliance: NATO’s strategic mutations since 1949 (Pre-test Q&A) – Deadline to meet at office hours Debate leader: Matthew Janus 5. 09/20. NATO diplomacy: stakeholders, processes and outlook. (In-class test: basics of NATO) – Deadline to submit draft of mentor interview strategy (no weekly debate) Guest speaker: Tamir Waser, Political Advisor, U.S. Mission to NATO 6. 09/27. Transatlantic threat perceptions and security doctrines: “with friends like these, who needs enemies”? – First presentations Debate leaders: Austin Chavez, Hannah Waxelbaum 10/04. Reading day – no class 7. 10/11. Testing the mantras: “Gaullism” in France, the “Special Relationship” post-Brexit, Germany’s Euro-Atlantic compact after Snowden, Central Europe’s “Atlanticism” Instructor feedback on participation. Provisional anonymous student feedback Presentations: Peter Dailey, Pascal Hensel Debate leaders: Zachary Naimon, Pascal Hensel 8. 10/18. Contexts of the “2% commitment”: politics of the “transatlantic compact,” the defense-industrial nexus, and “Smart Defence” Presentation: Austin Chavez & Mookie Goodson Debate leader: Mookie Goodson 9. 10/25. NATO and the “end of the Western era” Debate leader: Pranav Jain 10. 11/01. NATO and U.S. strategy: “pivot to Asia”, “leading from behind”, impact of the presidential election. Debate leaders: Peter Dailey, Olivier Weiss B. NATO’S AGENDA AFTER WARSAW 11. 11/08. Afghanistan’s legacy: NATO and “out-of-area” operations Debate leader: Jacob Freed 12. 11/15. NATO’s response to the Russian challenge (Memorandum guidelines) Guest speakers: Johan Raeder, Defense Advisor, Embassy of Sweden; Ltc Olaf Wiedenfeld, ACT Presentations: Natalie Conners; Zachary Naimon Debate leaders: Natalie Conners, Evan Morgan 13. 11/22. Article V vs. so-called “hybrid threats” – Draft due by midnight on Tues. 11/22 Guest speakers: Ltc Hans Andersen, ACT; Volodymyr Shalkivski, Embassy of Ukraine Presentations: Cristina Hatfield; Benjamin Mobley & Hannah Waxelbaum Debate leader: Cristina Hatfield 14. 11/29. Beyond Ukraine: NATO, the Southern “arc of crisis,” and the Arctic. (Writing workshop) Presentations: Ievent Alp, Tara Arikan & Erol Obdan; Jacob Freed; Olivier Weiss Debate leaders: Ievent Alp, Tara Arikan, Erol Obdan 15. 12/06. 21st century Alliance? Decision-making, “Global NATO”, challenging military domains (nuclear weapons, missile defense, sea power, “A2/AD”, cyber, emerging technologies), “comprehensive approach” (NATO-EU partnership) Guest speaker: Dawn Schrepel, Deputy Director of the Secretary General’s Private Office, NATO Presentations: Pranav Jain; Evan Morgan Final memorandum due by midnight, 12/06 * * * Grading system Most students presumably will be used to the conventional correspondence between points and letter grades. This is not the grading system that this class will follow. For instance, getting a "15/20" on your presentation doesn't mean that you're "5 points short of an "A" on the assignment: but 5 points short of a notional "perfect" presentation at professional level. The quid-pro-quo here is that you deserve more details from me as to "how you're doing" than if we followed a standard grading system: which is why I will brief you on your performance by week 7, and whenever asked to do so. 1. Participation: 20% This class is a seminar. We will be examining dynamic issues that have yet to settle into any “received knowledge.” The core of each session will be an open but structured conversation about the topic for that week. It is essential that you take an active role in our discussions. The overall criterion in evaluating your participation will be whether you contributed to shaping the class. ***IT WILL BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to come to class prepared (and to ask questions whenever basic facts are unclear), based on a careful reading of our material, and independent research*** By Sat. before each session, I will post a list of research questions on Collab (in a dedicated forum), inspired by the corresponding readings. There is no “right answer” to these questions; rather, the point is to brainstorm and “murderboard” them. They are meant to: (1) guide your reading of the material for the session; (2) help inform your analysis of the issues; (3) structure our in-class seminar. You will be expected to submit your contributions on Collab by the end of Mon. preceding each session. These contributions should be documented and analytical, rather than impressionistic or derivative. The purpose of this feedback is not merely to show that you’ve “done the readings”: but that you’ve understood the material well enough to critique it. On week 2, students (or groups of students) will be assigned a specific week when they’ll be tasked with leading our debate. Ahead of the corresponding session, debate leaders will be expected to provide initial comments on research questions, and to moderate the ensuing discussion on Collab. During the session itself, they will also take an active role in shaping the resulting conversation. An open forum on Collab will allow students to share and debate additional threads, e.g. reactions to relevant news, feedback on extracurricular events, reviews of further readings, etc. Before each guest lecture by an outside expert, students will submit proposed questions on Collab, which I will utilize to moderate an inclusive in-class discussion with our guest. Lastly, you are encouraged to take independent initiatives, e.g. by attending relevant events (which you can summarize on our open forum), looking into career paths, networking with colleagues of your mentor, organizing student debates outside of class etc. All students will be expected to meet with me at office hours by week 4, in order to discuss your input in the class, outstanding questions, career plans including internships, etc. If necessary, students will be given a provisional evaluation of their in-class participation by week 7 in order to correct course. On week 7, students will also have a chance to submit informal, provisional (and anonymous) feedback on the class’ approach and format. Participation will be assessed based on: (1) In-class input – including questions to our guests (4/20) (2) Frequency of contributions to Collab-based weekly fora (4/20) (3) Quality of the same (4/20) (4) Quality of your work when leading our weekly debate (4/20) (5) Independent leadership (open forum, extracurricular activities, other initiatives) (4/20) 2. Basic test: 20% As mentioned, this class will not focus on rote repetition of basic facts about NATO. Nor will it micromanage your weekly readings and research. It will be your responsibility to ensure that your knowledge base is where it needs to be so you can usefully contribute to our analysis of the issues. Though no conventional, “go-to” textbook exists on our topic (in part due to the fluidity of NATO’s evolution), the Alliance has produced the following compendium of factsheets: NATO Public Diplomacy Division: NATO Encyclopedia 2015 (Dec. 2015), available online at: http://nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20160414_2015-nato-encyclopedia-eng.pdf On Week 5, we will hold an in-class test (30 min; 20 questions i.e. 20 pts/100 in your overall grade) to assess your command of the factsheets that this compendium lists on p. 10 under the heading “Introduction to NATO” (with the exceptions of “Defence Planning Committee”, “Transparency and accountability” and “Public disclosure of NATO information”). NB In addition to the sections that will be the basis for our test, you are encouraged to consult relevant factsheets from the same resource ahead of each session. Each session will start with a brief Q&A that will aim to clarify whatever remains confusing in light of your readings, including NATO’s compendium. These general questions should also be posted on weekly Q&A fora available on Collab. During session 4, we specifically will spend some time preparing for the test to be held the following week. 3. Outline of questions for mentor interview: 20% As they research their presentation and final policy memorandum (see below), students will anchor their work “in the real world” by way of a working relationship with a high-level mentor selected among U.S. and European practitioners. By week 3, students or groups of students will choose a focal point, i.e. an area of specialization and the corresponding mentor, among the following list (to be finalized): 1. NATO Secretary General: Dawn Schrepel, Deputy Director of the Secretary General’s Private Office (confirmed) Jack Freed 2. Allied Command Transformation (ACT): Jeffrey Reynolds, Advisor, Strategic Partnerships (confirmed); Lt. Col. Vlasta Zekulic, Strategic Plans and Policy Branch Matthew Janus 3. U.S. Mission to NATO: Tamir Waser, Political Advisor (confirmed) Evan Morgan 4. British Embassy: David Riley, First Secretary, Europe and Eurasia #2 Peter Dailey 5. French Embassy: Tomas Macek, Counselor in charge of EU & Central European Affairs (confirmed) #2 Natalie Conners 6. French Military Mission in the U.S.: Col. Géraud Laborie, Deputy Defense Attaché (confirmed) 7. German Embassy: Christoph Seemann, First Secretary, U.S.-European affairs (confirmed)
8. Italian Embassy: Gianluca Alberini, Head of the Political Affairs Office (confirmed) Ievent Alp Tara Arikan Erol Obdan 9. Polish Embassy: Maciej Pisarski, Deputy Chief of Mission (confirmed) Olivier Weiss 10. Estonian Embassy: Kristjan Kuurme, Third Secretary, Political Affairs (confirmed) 11. Ukrainian Embassy: Volodymyr Shalkivski, First Secretary (confirmed) #2 Zachary Naimon 12. Swedish Embassy: Johan Raeder, Defense Advisor (confirmed)
13. Kremlin viewpoint: Dr. Eugene Rumer, Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program, 14. U.S. intelligence community: Alison Shearer, Deputy National Intelligence Officer – Europe, National Intelligence Council (confirmed)
15. U.S. Congress: Philip Bednarczyk, Staff Member, House of Representatives Subcommittee on Europe (confirmed) 16. Congressional Research Service: Derek Mix, Europe specialist (confirmed)
17. Think tanks: Leo Michel, Atlantic Council and former Director for NATO policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 18. Private sector: Anthony Aldwell, Europe and the Americas, Global Security Policy, Government Affairs, Lockheed Martin (confirmed)
NB students who happen to share a mentor will produce a joint interview strategy – since this will inform the single conversation that the entire group will have with their common mentor. Joint interview strategies should combine the questions and outlooks or all group members. This plan will include: (1) An analysis of your mentor’s career path, insofar as it arguably shapes their views of NATO (4/20) (2) An analysis of your mentor’s position within their respective institutions (same purpose) (4/20) (3) An “interview strategy” including a list of proposed questions, “devil’s advocate” arguments applicable to the mentor, etc. (4/20) (4) A discussion of the ways in which your interview strategy will fill gaps in your research process (4/20) (4) A factsheet in support of the interview (4/20) 4. Midterm presentation: 20% In light of mentoring partnerships, a series of presentations starting on week 6 will ensure that our class, overall, provides a complete overview of major stakeholders’ outlooks and interests. Students will be free to select a topic of their choice, to be discussed and refined at office hours and over email as appropriate. Groups of students are welcome to join forces, whether they choose to produce a strictly joint presentation, prepare a pro-and-contra debate, or otherwise ensure that their presentations complement one another. These presentations will aim to explain, contextualize, and interpret your topic, based on independent research. While you will be expected to take your mentor’s positions on the subject into account, you will critique rather than paraphrase them. Typical features of successful presentations include: (1) A title that lays out a question or overarching point rather than a fact; as well as opening comments that clarify the proposed thesis and structure of the talk. (4/20) (2) A convincing argumentative strategy, in which each of the presentation’s sections adds a building block to your “intellectual edifice”, by way of seamless and logical transitions. (4/20) (3) Well-prioritized, “digested” (and of course accurate) research that injects facts as required to advance the argument – rather than indulging from the start in an unoriginal and aimless exploration of the “background” (basic data can instead be left to a factsheet and shared ahead of time on Collab). (4/20) (4) An inquisitive approach, in that the speaker does not simply assert facts but tests them with the class, while preserving their “ownership” of the argument. This requires an original format, i.e. one that engages the class from the start rather than artificially juxtaposing a magisterial monologue and subsequent Q&A. Such formats can include tabletop exercises (which speakers should prepare ahead of time e.g. by allocating roles on Collab). (4/20) (5) An authoritative and careful elocution (4/20) Reflecting “real-world” constraints, the time allocated to each presentation will vary, depending e.g. on their format, the number of students scheduled to present, the late addition of guest speakers to our schedule, etc. You should prepare (and rehearse) versions of your talk that will last anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. There will be no correlation between the length of a presentation and its success. Presentations ideally will be scheduled during a session that touches upon a broadly similar topic – with exceptions. When grading your presentations, I will recognize that different students will have had uneven amounts of time to prepare them. 5. Final paper: 20% Students will produce a policy memorandum that will explore (broadly speaking) “NATO’s strategic challenges after the Warsaw summit”. The specific topic is up to you, but should be finalized at office hours. This topic can (but does not have to) be identical to that of your presentation. Consistent with the style and outlook of a policy memorandum, you should ensure that the paper is driven by a personal INTERPRETATION of the facts, rather than simply rehearsing easily accessible data or reciting your mentor’s views. In a nutshell, the purpose of the paper is to convince your reader of an overarching personal argument. Features of a successful paper include the same points 1-3 applicable to your presentation (see above), with the following modifications/additions: (4) An inquisitive approach, which not only asserts arguments whenever possible/necessary, but also highlights open-ended questions, and takes account of counter-arguments) (5) A fluid style and impeccable syntax/spelling (4/20).
Yost, David S. NATO’s Balancing Act, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2014 Hallams, Ellen et al. NATO Beyond 9/11: The Transformation of the Atlantic Alliance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 Fröhlich, Stefan. The New Geopolitics of Transatlantic Relations: Coordinated Responses to Common Dangers, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2012 Hanhimäki, Jussi M et al. Transatlantic Relations Since 1945: An Introduction, London; New York: Routledge, 2012 Lagadec, Erwan. Transatlantic Relations in the 21st Century: Europe, America and the Rise of the Rest, London; New York: Routledge, 2012 Kashmeri, Sarwar. NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete?, Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2011 Aybet, Gülnur, and Rebecca R. Moore (eds), NATO in Search of a Vision, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2010 Hanhimäki, Jussi et al. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Security, London; New York: Routledge, 2010 Sloan, Stanley. Permanent Alliance? NATO and the Transatlantic Bargain from Truman to Obama, London; New York: Continuum, 2010 Lundestad, Geir. The United States and Western Europe Since 1945, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003
NATO: http://www.nato.int/ Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Warsaw Summit: http://www.msz.gov.pl/en/foreign_policy/nato_2016/ Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE): http://www.aco.nato.int/ Allied Command Transformation: http://www.act.nato.int/ Mission of the U.S. to NATO: http://nato.usmission.gov/ Mission of Ukraine to NATO: http://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en Mission of Russia to NATO: http://www.missiontonato.ru/en/ NATO: @NATO, @NATOpress Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg: @jensstoltenberg SHAPE: @SHAPE_NATO U.S. Mission to NATO: @USNATO
Atlantic Council of the United States: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/regions/asia/russia Brookings: http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/nato Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA): http://www.cepa.org/ Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS: http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/ CSIS Europe Program: http://csis.org/program/europe-program German Marshall Fund of the United States: http://www.gmfus.org/topic/russia/ Wilson Center, Global Europe Program: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/program/global-europe-program In Europe: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: http://carnegieendowment.org/programs/russia/ Chatham House: https://www.chathamhouse.org/ European Council on Foreign Relations: http://ecfr.eu/ European Union Institute for Security Studies (EU-ISS): http://www.iss.europa.eu/regions/russia-and-eastern-neighbours/ Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique: http://www.frstrategie.org/ International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS): http://www.iiss.org/en/research/russia-s-and-s-eurasia Royal United Services Institute (RUSI): https://rusi.org Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik: http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/start-en.html * * * CLASS SCHEDULE Note on class readings and syllabus: Scans (cf. * below) will be posted on Blackboard, with the exception of those readings that are easily accessible through a hyperlink or the Gelman Library’s journal database. As a result, not all readings will necessarily be listed on Blackboard. You should always consult our syllabus to find the complete reading list – and do so on a regular basis, as the syllabus will be updated as required by the evolution of events and the literature.
Shapiro, Jeremy, and Nick Witney. “Executive Summary”, in id., Towards a Post-American Europe: A Power Audit of EU-U.S. Relations, European Council on Foreign Relations, 2009, pp. 7-18, available online at: http://ecfr.3cdn.net/05b80f1a80154dfc64_x1m6bgxc2.pdf [12 p.] Lundestad, Geir. “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945-1952”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 23, no. 3 (Sept. 1986): 263-77 [14 p.]
Busby, Joshua W., and Jonathan Monten. “Without Heirs? Assessing the Decline of Establishment Internationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 6, no. 3 (Sept. 2008): 451-472 [21 p.] *Hitchcock, William. “The Ghost of Crises Past: The Troubled Alliance in Perspective”, in Jeffrey Anderson et al. (eds.), The End of the West? Crisis and Change in the Atlantic Order, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. 53-81 [28 p.] *Mead, Walter Russell. “The American Foreign Policy Tradition,” in id., Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World, New York: Knopf, 2001, pp. 3-29 [26 p.] 4. 09/13. The path to today’s Alliance: NATO’s strategic mutations since 1949 (Pre-test Q&A) Deadline to meet at office hours Debate leader: Matthew Janus [81 p.] NATO Public Diplomacy Division. “Introduction to NATO”, in id., NATO Encyclopedia 2015 (Dec. 2015), factsheets listed above, available online at: http://nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20160414_2015-nato-encyclopedia-eng.pdf [81 p.]
Belkin, Paul. “NATO’s Warsaw Summit: In Brief”, Congressional Research Service (June 2016), available online at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44550.pdf [18 p.] Brooke-Holland, Louisa. “NATO Warsaw Summit 2016: A Primer”, House of Commons (July 2016), available online at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7640#fullreport [10 p.] Chollet, Derek et al. “National Priorities for the NATO Warsaw Summit”, GMFUS (July 2016), available online at: http://www.gmfus.org/publications/national-priorities-nato-warsaw-summit [10 p.] Lazarou, Elena, and Lana Peric. “The 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw: Expectations and Priorities”, European Parliamentary Research Service (July 2016), available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586594/EPRS_BRI(2016)586594_EN.pdf [7 p.] NATO. “Warsaw Summit Communiqué” (July 2016), available online at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm [≈ 20p.] 6. 09/27 Transatlantic threat perceptions and security doctrines: “with friends like these, who needs enemies”? First presentations Debate leader: Hannah Waxelbaum [74 p.] *Irondelle, Bastien, and Olivier Schmitt. “France”; Junk, Julian, and Christopher Daase. “Germany”; Cornish, Paul. “United Kingdom”; Biel, Heiko et al. “Conclusion”, in Heiko Biehl et al. (eds), Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Politics Across the Continent, Wiesbaden: Springer, 2013, pp. 125-152, 371-401 [53 p.] *Osterud, O., and Asle Toje. “Strategy, Risk and Threat Perception in NATO”, in Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson (eds), NATO’s European Allies: Military Capability and Political Will, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 71-94 [21 p.] 7. 10/11 Testing the mantras: “Gaullism” in France, the “Special Relationship” post-Brexit, Germany’s Euro-Atlantic compact after Snowden, Central Europe’s “Atlanticism” Instructor feedback on participation. Provisional anonymous student feedback Presentations: Peter Dailey, Pascal Hensel Debate leaders: Zachary Naimon, Pascal Hensel [≈ 76 p.] De Hoop Scheffer, Alexandra et al. “After the Terror Attacks of 2015: A French Activist Foreign Policy Here to Stay?”, GMFUS (Feb. 2016), available online at: http://www.gmfus.org/publications/after-terror-attacks-2015 [23 p.] Oliver, Tim, and Michael John Williams. “Special Relationships in Flux: Brexit and the Future of the U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK Relationships”, International Affairs, vol. 92, no. 3 (May 2016): 547-67 [21 p.] Johnson, Loch K. “Security, Privacy, and the German-American Relationship”, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute of Washington, D.C., no. 57 (Fall 2015): 47-73, available online at: http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bulletin/bu057/bu057_047.pdf [27 p.] Mitchell, A. Wess, and Jan Havranek. “Atlanticism in Retreat”, The American Interest, vol. 9, no. 2 (Oct. 2013), available online at http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/10/10/atlanticism-in-retreat/ [≈ 5 p.] 8. 10/18. Contexts of the “2% commitment”: politics of the “transatlantic compact,” the defense-industrial nexus, and “Smart Defence” Presentation: Austin Chavez & Mookie Goodson Debate leader: Mookie Goodson [78 p.] Lanoszka, Alexander. “Do Allies Really Free-Ride?”, Survival, vol. 57, no. 3 (June-July 2015): 133-52 [20 p.] *Christiansson, Magnus. “Pooling, Sharing and Specializing – NATO and International Defence Cooperation”, in Ellen Hallams et al. NATO Beyond 9/11: The Transformation of the Atlantic Alliance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 178-197 [17 p.] *Kay, S. “No More Free-Riding: The Political Economy of Military Power and the Transatlantic Relationship”, in Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson (eds), NATO’s European Allies: Military Capability and Political Will, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 97-120 [22 p.] Larrabee, F. Stephen et al. “The Broader Strategic Context”, in id., NATO and the Challenge of Austerity, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012, pp. 93-102, available online at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1196.pdf [10 p.] Giegerich, Bastian. “NATO’s Smart Defence: Who’s Buying?”, Survival, vol. 54, no. 3 (June-July 2012): 69-77 [9 p.]
Gressel, Gustav. “Russia’s Quiet Military Revolution, and What it Means for Europe”, ECFR (Oct. 2015), available online at: http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/Russias_Quiet_Military_Revolution.pdf [16 p.] Office of the Secretary of Defense. “Annual Update”, in id., Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016, Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 2016, pp. 1-38 , available online at: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2016%20China%20Military%20Power%20Report.pdf [39 p.]
Chan, Sewell. “Donald Trump’s Remarks Rattle NATO Allies and Stoke Debate on Cost Sharing”, New York Times (21 July 2016), available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/world/europe/donald-trumps-remarks-rattle-nato-allies-and-stoke-debate-on-cost-sharing.html [≈ 2 p.] Michaels, Jeffrey. “America’s Global Defence Predicament – Why the Asia ‘Rebalancing’ Has Little Significance for European Security”, Egmont (Dec. 2014), available online at: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ep72.pdf [41 p.] Michel, Leo, and James Przystup. “The U.S. ‘Rebalance’ and Europe: Convergent Strategies Open Door to Improved Cooperation”, Institute for National Strategic Studies (June 2014), available online at: http://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/inss/StrategicPerspectives-16.pdf [20 p.] Hallams, Ellen, and Benjamin Schreer. “Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing After Libya”, International Affairs, vol. 88, no. 2 (March 2012): 301-12 [12 p.]
Nordenman, Magnus. “NATO Beyond Afghanistan: A U.S. View on the ISAF Mission and the Future of the Alliance”, The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, vol. 23, no. 2 (2014): 13-25 [13 p.] *Ruffa, Chiara. “With or Without You? A comparison of EU, European and US Policies in Afghanistan”; Knutsen, Bjorn Olaf. “Europe, the US, and the Creation of a Multi-Layered NATO: Lessons from Afghanistan”, in Münevver Cebeci (ed.), Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011, pp. 85-131 [36 p.] Nagl, John, and Richard Weitz. “Counterinsurgency and the Future of NATO”, Chicago Council on Global Affairs (Oct. 2010), available online at: http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/Trans-Atlantic%20Papers%201-Nagl%20Weitz_v4.pdf [17 p.] 12. 11/15. NATO’s response to the Russian challenge Guest speakers: Johan Raeder, Defense Advisor, Embassy of Sweden; Ltc Olaf Wiedenfeld, ACT Presentations: Natalie Conners; Zachary Naimon Debate leaders: Natalie Conners, Evan Morgan [83 p.] Brooke-Holland, Lousia. “NATO’s Military Response to Russia”, London: House of Commons (Feb. 2016), available online at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7276#fullreport [21 p.] Kamp, Karl-Heinz. “Russia’s Myths About NATO: Moscow’s Propaganda Ahead of the NATO Summit”, Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik (2016), available online at: https://www.baks.bund.de/sites/baks010/files/working_paper_15_2016.pdf [5 p.] Kroenig, Matthew. “Facing Reality: Getting NATO Ready for a New Cold War”, Survival, vol. 57, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2015): 49-70 [22 p.] Rühle, Michael. “NATO and the Ukraine Crisis”, American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 37, no. 2 (March-April 2015): 80-6, available online from: http://www.natolibguides.info/nato-ukraine (third bullet point in bottom section “Good places to start your research”) [7 p.] Wolff, Andrew T. “The Future of NATO Enlargement After the Ukraine Crisis”, International Affairs, vol. 91, no. 5 (Sept. 2015): 1103-21 [19 p.] Seip, Mark. “Nordic-Baltic Security and the U.S. Role”, Atlantic Council (Sept. 2015), available online at: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Nordic_Baltic_Security_web_0925.pdf [9 p.]
Lanoszka, Alexander. “Russian Hybrid Warfare and Extended Deterrence in Eastern Europe”, International Affairs, vol. 92, no. 1 (Jan. 2016): 175-95, available online at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/ia/INTA92_1_09_Lanoszka.pdf [21 p.] Reisinger, Heidi, and Alexander Golts. “Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: Waging War Below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defence”; and Johnson, Dave. “Russia’s Approach to Conflict: Implications for NATO’s Deterrence and Defence”, in Guillaume Lasconjarias and Jeffrey A. Larsen (eds), NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, Rome: NATO Defence College, 2015, pp. 113-60, available online at: http://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=886 (see “Pdf library” at top right) [48 p.]
Ülgen, Sinan, and Can Kasapoglu. “A Threat-Based Strategy for NATO’s Southern Flank”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (June 2016), available online at: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/NATO_Southern_Flank.pdf [40 p.] Zhukov, Yuri. “NATO’S Mediterranean Mission”, Foreign Affairs (Feb. 21, 2016) [≈ 5 p.] Williams, Joseph. “From Solid to Shaky: The Strained Alliance Between Turkey and NATO”, Oxford Centre for the Study of Law and Public Policy (c. 2015), available online at: http://oxfordpolicycentre.org/research-papers/Draft-WILLIAMS-Turkey-NATO-Oxford%20Copy.pdf [19 p.] Zhilina, Irina. “The Security Aspects in the Arctic: The Potential Role of NATO”, Nordicum-Mediterraneum, no. 8, vol. 1 (2013), available online at: http://skemman.is/en/stream/get/1946/14574/34624/1/security.pdf [25 p.]
Bermant, Azriel. “NATO’s Nuclear Deterrence in the Post-Ukraine Era”, Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies (June 2016), available online at: http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/INSSMemo155.02.1.Bermant%20.ENG.pdf [10 p.] Dickow, Marcel et al. “Germany and NATO Missile Defence: Between Adaptation and Persistence”, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Apr. 2016), available online at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2016C22_dkw_kuk_mro_pau.pdf [7 p.] Duke, Simon, and Sophie Vanhoonacker. “EU-NATO Relations: Top-down Strategic Paralysis, Bottom-Up Cooperation”, UACES Working Paper (Sept. 2015), available online at: http://www.uaces.org/documents/papers/1501/Vanhoonacker.pdf [17 p.] Nordenman, Magnus. “The Naval Alliance: Preparing NATO for a Maritime Century”, Atlantic Council (July 2015), available online at: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/NATOMaritime_finalPDF.pdf [15 p.] Healey, Jason, and Klata Tothova Jordan. “NATO’s Cyber Capabilities: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”, Atlantic Council (Sept. 2014), available online at: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/NATOs_Cyber_Capabilities.pdf [7 p.] *Michel, Leo. “NATO Decision-Making: The ‘Consensus Rule’ Endures Despite Challenges”, in Sebastian Mayer, NATO’s Post-Cold War Politics: The Changing Provision of Security, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 107-123 [17 p.] Schreer, Benjamin. “Beyond Afghanistan: NATO’s Global Partnerships in the Asia-Pacific”, NATO Defence College (Apr. 2012), available online at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/141292/rp_75.pdf [8 p.] Jakobsen, Peter Viggo. “NATO’s Comprehensive Approach After Lisbon: Principal Problem Acknowledged, Solution Elusive”, in Jens Ringsmose and Sten Rynning (eds), NATO’s New Strategic Concept: A Comprehensive Assessment, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (2011), pp. 83-90, available online at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/128345/RP2011-02-NATO_web.pdf [8 p.] Final memorandum due by midnight on Tues. 12/06 Directory: access -> content -> attachment -> 854d76de-2c66-47fa-9177-a8b6551ebf59 -> Syllabus -> 8e4ba14d-980d-41c3-a483-2f2e7d7a45a1 content -> I. the case for change we are living in the middle of the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race content -> Objectives You will have mastered the material in this chapter when you can content -> JForum 6 Grading of Discussions content -> Modern Social & Political Theory c. 1790-1920 Course description content -> Publications and communications content -> Paper 3304 This paper is subscription-led, so may not be available. Please discuss with your tutor content -> Guide to Electoral Reform Download 134.24 Kb. Share with your friends:
|