Abstract

Since the second half of the 20th century, military alliance ceased to play an essential role in ensuring the security of major powers. Meanwhile, asymmetric alliances, in which a major power remained an incontestable leader surrounded by weak parties, proliferated across international system. The literature explains these relationships in terms of an exchange in dissimilar benefits between states, following the formula “security for autonomy”. This explanation seems generally plausible, but it does not reveal exact benefits for a major power from establishing control over the weak states. This article intends to deepen our theoretical understanding of why states resort to asymmetric alliances and to test the significance of suggested propositions through an in-depth analysis of the Russian record of alliances. Russia built allied relations with several neighbors but does not extend similar mechanisms to partners in other geographic areas. This policy is puzzling, since it comes into dissonance with the foreign policy stance that international security and global order should be built on the principle of the indivisibility of security and inclusive international institutions. In its foreign policy discourse Russia strongly condemns closed formats with limited participation. The study solves two interrelated problems. First, it helps to deepen understanding of Russian foreign policy strategy and the role of various instruments of military-political cooperation in ensuring national interests. Secondly, it allows to test the provisions of the theory of asymmetric alliances, assessing its applicability to a hard case. The article reveals Russia’s sensitivity to direct and opportunity costs as well as to potential risks of binding security commitments. However, it relies on asymmetric alliances with neighboring countries to reap the benefits of increasing power projection opportunities, legitimizing its foreign policy initiatives, limiting freedom of maneuver for its competitors, and stabilizing its strategic surrounding. The Russian experience of building relations with allies differs significantly from the American one, which, due to the scale of the US alliance network, is often presented as a model one. Nevertheless, it is quite consistent with the provisions of the theory of asymmetric alliances.

Highlights

  • From the second half of the 20th century onwards, military alliances have ceased to play an essential role in ensuring the security of major powers; asymmetric alliances, in which a major power remains an incontestable leader surrounded by weak parties, have proliferated across international systems

  • A Russian version of this article is published in the second part of this special issue of International Trends

  • A preliminary version of this study was tested at a research seminar at MGIMO and the Georgia Institute of Technology in March 2020

Read more

Summary

Sphere of influence

Binding allies through arms transfers and exports of military doctrine enhances the effect of security guarantees and simultaneously increases the interoperability of forces It makes the weak country a more reliable and a more useful ally for the major power, facilitating the interaction of its units with the armed forces of the alliance leader. Minsk's regular refusals to deploy Russian military forces on its territory, which has caused disagreements in its relations with Moscow, became an anomaly in this context45 This is further evidence that even in conditions of disparity, heavy reliance does not lead to complete subordination and the major power has to reckon with the policies of its allies. Similar results are presented in [Fomin et al 2019]. Regarding Russia's desire to secure recognition of its leading status in the post-Soviet space, see [Troitskiy 2017]

CSTO member states
ОПЫТ РОССИИ
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call