| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174234
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
“Great power competition” has, at least on paper, become the orienting principle for American strategy. That competition is usually defined as being between the United States and China as well as between the United States and the Russian Federation. Or it lumps them together in the vague category of “great powers,” without much additional context. But a critical and underexamined factor in the current global geopolitical landscape is the relationship between Beijing and Moscow and how their ties affect US strategy toward each of them individually and together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
168071
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
083712
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Common wisdom is that NATO's future hinges solely on the outcome of the International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan. While the state of Afghanistan will impact the future of the Alliance for better or for worse, it will not be the sole or even primary factor to influence the future of NATO. In many ways, Afghanistan has become an excuse for the Alliance to ignore some of the in-built problems of the organisation. The allies' inability to define clearly the nature of the Alliance and its core missions, a lack of capability and poor funding, topped off by exceedingly weak and troubled relations with other international organisations, particularly the European Union, all pose significant challenges that the alliance must address to remain relevant, coherent, and equipped to engage effectually in future operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
083398
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
152659
|
|
|