| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173806
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
When and why might a rising China challenge the power and security of a relatively declining United States? Conventional wisdom argues that China – like other rising states – is apt to adopt an increasingly ambitious strategy that imperils US interests as its relative power grows. Drawing on balance of power theory, I instead argue that the threat of Chinese predation is overstated. Rising in a crowded geopolitical neighbourhood, China faces incentives to avoid preying on the United States, and may even have reason to cooperate with the United States over the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
163388
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the grand scheme of power shifts, concerns over China’s rise are overblown. China is far from issuing an outright challenge to the United States and is likely to continue avoiding one for some time. U.S. strategists need to recognize that an overly assertive response to China’s rise is counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
189039
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Whether spheres of influence stabilize or disrupt international security and how the United States should respond to efforts by other actors to establish spheres is at the forefront of contemporary grand strategy debates. For many in Washington, the answer is clear: spheres of influence are dangerous and destabilizing relics of centuries past which have no place in the modern world. In this rendering, spheres contradict American values, threaten to upend the liberal international order, promote great power competition, and ultimately destabilize international politics writ large. And at a time when many in Washington claim that Moscow and Beijing are crafting their own spheres in Eastern Europe and Asia, the policy implications of this position are clear: if a choice must be made between opposing or acknowledging these efforts, the United States must actively resist their creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
154094
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After two decades focused on the Middle East and Asia, American policymakers are again paying significant attention to European security. Russian bellicosity has seemingly given new life to the transatlantic alliance, leaving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) appearing more relevant and resilient than ever. Indeed, despite pre-election rhetoric that painted NATO as “obsolete,” the Trump administration has moved in its early days to underscore the United States' continued “commitment to NATO,” to praise “the importance of the alliance in troubled times,” and even to consider bringing additional members into the alliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|