Dual-track approach reinterpreted, or: How NATO learns to stop worrying and love the dialogue

When evaluated with many ongoing theoretical debates on decreasing convergence within the international system, many recent developments—such as the termination of the INF Treaty, the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, and controversies regarding the future of New START—directly interact with the future of NATO-Russia arms control. This research intends to touch upon the post-INF Treaty arms race, revisiting the two-track approach and a wider arsenal of interaction and norm-building. In the past, consistent interactions with external and internal stakeholders, effective transparency/validation mechanisms, and putting emphasis on shared values worked well for building the Alliance’s normative power. Yet today, an analysis of a post-INF Treaty arms control framework between the Alliance and Russia could not ignore two unprecedented challenges: 1) proliferation of newly developing strategic arms technologies; 2) moving beyond the hard bipolarity of the past, considering international, national, as well as private/civil society actors in the equilibrium. A new dual-track approach is indeed difficult to grasp with all the ambiguities these newly developing capabilities and players bring to the international legal and security landscapes. But for the very same reason, it is essential to discuss "dialogue" once again as a second track along with "deterrence”. With the rapid emergence and increasing availability of weapons technologies, neither NATO nor Russia would gain definitive advantage in strategic competition in the short to medium term. Therefore, it is necessary to ask if guarding the rules of the game, mutually perceiving emerging concepts, and enhancing dialogue and norm-building efforts would ameliorate NATO’s persistence and deterrence.

 

By Ahmet Ceran

The author would like to dedicate this article in memory of his grandfather, General (R) Sabri Yirmibesoglu (1928-2016), who served as Secretary-General of the Turkish National Security Council and was a well-known NATO military officer who firstly served as a Nuclear Officer at SHAPE while he was Colonel and then was stationed as Chief Intelligence Officer at Allied Forces Southern Europe. 

 

The termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as well as other recent developments signals a novel turbulence in the international arms control architecture in which NATO has positioned itself. In chronical order, first, the landmark nonproliferation tool, the INF Treaty, was terminated in August 2019.[i] As the INF Treaty banned testing, production, and possession of land-based ballistic/cruise missiles, as well as their launchers with the capability of reaching a 500 to 5,500 km range, its termination was an obvious setback for the international arms control framework. Then, on 22 May 2020, the US submitted its decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies,[ii] a symbolic, historic arms control and verification apparatus. Finally, controversies regarding the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) began to echo even farther and louder after the foregoing developments.

The New START currently is the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the US and Russia. As this legal arms control tool will expire on 5 February 2021 unless the Contracting Parties come to a conclusion, international public opinion is closely following the Treaty’s fate. The Contracting Parties started the nuclear talks on 22 June 2020 in Vienna after much back and forth, yet the US side’s persistent call for China, another nuclear power, to be involved and China’s persistent rejection point to another sign of turbulence within the negotiations.[iii] In this framework, the abovementioned consecutive cases may point to the divergence in the consensus on the current international arms control framework, a regime that has continuously been a strategic balancing act and has been enforced by various legal frameworks since the Cold War era.

Such signals of diverging convergence also found their place within the 2019 and the 2020 editions of the Munich Security Report as the chosen themes of the Munich Security Conference. Respectively, the theme of the 2019 edition, “the great puzzle”, reflects the current stance of today’s multilateral security environment as a global strategic puzzle with fundamental problems. The latter conference’s theme, “westlessness”, concentrates on internal/external contestations and security challenges the Western bloc faces as well as the loss of the common understanding about being part the West. The continuity in the rhetoric between the two reports is worth some attention. The 2019 Munich Security Report alludes to this divergence by using the phrase, “a great reshuffling of the pieces of the international order.”[iv] Furthermore, it foresees the US, Russia, and China as the main players of the new strategic competition. In addition, the report draws attention to the importance of networks of alliances. The 2020 Munich Security Report goes one step further and underlines the differentiated interest and increasing tension among a wider range of actors in the military theatre. NATO has been discussed as an alliance of states lagging from “lack of consultation and deconfliction among allies”[v] within this deterrence equilibrium. Taking account of the abovementioned turbulent framework, effective dialogue is not only of the utmost importance but also a dire task for the future of intra-NATO and the NATO-Russia arms control interactions.

During the Cold War, when strategic stability between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries was at stake, NATO’s policy to establish effective dialogue and policy pressure at arms control negotiations with the Soviets worked well as a complementary approach to its deterrence policy. But now, the differing interests of actors both within and outside NATO as well as the rapid emergence and increasing availability of strategic weapons technologies to many actors alongside NATO member states and Russia may blur the picture. While commenting on international legal engagement in the 21st century, Harold Hongju Koh, former Legal Adviser for the US Department of State and Yale University Professor, describes the world as a far more fluid and messy place than before. He underlines the transformation of legal instruments and venues of international compliance.[vi] At this point, it is now time to examine if NATO–Russia arms control dialogue is going to be on the frontline of this issue. Or, is it possible to find a way out as in the example of the dual-track approach era?

 

From one dual-track approach to another?

By the second half of the 1970s, the Soviet bloc decided to bring its military modernization plans into action. To this end, the Soviet authorities sought to improve their long-range nuclear capabilities. Such a search was finalized by deploying SS-20 surface-to-surface missile systems, which provided “more accuracy, more mobility, greater range and multiple warheads”[vii] in the Soviet theatre. Yet, the Soviet move was highly dangerous since the SS-20’s main feature, allowing it to carry three nuclear warheads, made the missile system eleven times more destructive than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima.[viii] To counter this escalatory move, NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers gathered for a special meeting on 12 December 1979.

The Foreign and Defence Ministers developed a solution in which two complementary approaches of deterrence and dialogue (i.e., a two-track approach) would be best fitting to secure the arms control equilibrium. First, the Alliance agreed to improve its Long-Range Theatre Nuclear Forces capabilities in Europe by deploying ground-launched, intermediate-range US missile systems across the continent. Second, NATO complemented this deterrence move with political/legal pressure and hard, long disarmament negotiations in order to overcome the arms race with the Soviet Union and its respective allies.

As a consequence of this dual-track engagement, on 8 December 1987, the INF Treaty was signed between the US and the Soviet Union. As Professor John H. Maurer of US Naval War College describes in a commentary for War on the Rocks, by pursuing a well-defined, competitive strategy, the United States created the opportunity to bring the Soviets into an arms control dialogue, then making an arms control agreement possible.[ix] After more than three decades, the NATO-Russia arms control equilibrium is again on the brink of an arms race and has suffered a lack of dialogue. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the possible challenges complicating the equilibrium and search for possible preventive measures.

 

A glance at the current NATO-Russia arms control equilibrium

In the post-INF Treaty strategic environment, Eastern Europe and the Baltics are suitable theatres from which to observe the current and future changes in the deterrence relationship between NATO and Russia. Taking a glance at the current developments around these regions would give a clearer idea about deterrence in the post-INF Treaty arms control relationship. With the rapid emergence of precision-strike technologies, the termination of the INF Treaty let Russia openly produce and deploy theatre-range missile systems of various types on its European borders. Such a situation allows Russia to strengthen its A2/AD (anti-access and area denial) bubbles.[x]

A2/AD, i.e., preventing the deployment of opposing forces into the given theatre and reducing their freedom to maneuver in the same area, is a vital attribute of the Russian deterrence strategy[xi] according to many experts. With the termination of the INF Treaty, Russia gained the opportunity to deploy more advanced ground-based, theatre-range missiles around strategic spots such as Kaliningrad and Crimea, strengthening the A2/AD bubbles and directly endangering Eastern Europe and the Baltics.[xii] In this framework, sustaining missile balance in the region and preventing an escalatory arms race becomes a difficult but existential task for NATO in order to ensure its regional deterrence posture. This below presented map taken from CSIS Missile Defense Project’s interactive tool describes the Russian A2/AD bubbles consisting of air defence and land-based strike capabilities around its European borders.

Figure 1. The presence of Russian A2/AD bubbles:[xiii]

 


From a broader perspective, arms proliferation and imbalance of power in one regional theatre would directly endanger the wider arms control framework. In a destabilized strategic environment, with differentiated considerations of security threats and regional competitions, such a task becomes harder and harder. On the other hand, the Alliance’s military deterrence to balance any escalatory Russian deployments would require a consensual decision-making process[xiv] among NATO member states. In a destabilized strategic environment, external factors therefore have the potential to affect individual state interests and alter the consensual decision-making process, thereby endangering NATO’s deterrence posture. For example, Russia’s newly published Official Nuclear Deterrence Paper, declaring “any INF missile systems or other advanced weapons in non-nuclear states near Russian border as a target of Russian nuclear deterrence,”[xv] would directly affect the behavior of NATO member and partner states neighboring Russia. At this point establishing an efficient dialogue track is a must in order to both complement NATO’s deterrence and sustain the existing arms control architecture.

This paper argues that a timely dialogue track, unlike the previous dual-track approach, must target not only Russia but also intra-NATO actors (member states and partners of NATO) and third parties in order to save the NATO–Russia strategic arms control architecture. Such an endeavor would, alongside its military power, also definitely test NATO’s normative power as the most powerful military alliance in the world.

 

The risks in sight

In the near future, sustaining neither deterrence nor dialogue would be an easy task. Contestation and even termination of international arms control tools by actors from inside and outside of the NATO-Russia dialogue as well as the increasing tendency towards unilateral action might pose an existential risk for the future of NATO’s deterrence posture. Such erosion also damages the bridges of legal interaction, which have the potential to bring strategic stability or even strategic advantage back into any given escalating situation.

The literature on consensual and non-consensual state behaviors discusses that if the salience of the collective action problem is bigger for a state than the protections the consent-based model presents, then the state may seek non-consensual solutions. These non-consensual solutions occur in the form of either unilateral action, through informal institutions with no binding rules, or in multilateral processes with softer legal rules. And if the number of states/parties with similar tendencies multiplies, in the end, this may leave the collective decision-maker with fewer delegated powers.[xvi]

A similar framework might be applied to the above-mentioned NATO-Russia arms control equilibrium. For example, in the case that Russia escalates the situation on its European borders during the post-INF Treaty era, as a collective decision maker, NATO must pay the utmost attention to the concerns of member states around the Russian A2/AD bubbles. The more member states’ interests converge, the more efficient intra-NATO dialogue becomes as is the case of the previous dual-track era.

The 1989 NATO Comprehensive Concept of Arms Control and Disarmament boldly supported legal arms control and nonproliferation processes in its time: i.e., the INF Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), and the Paris Conference on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Such a joint expression of interest and normative standards from member states reaffirmed NATO’s convergence towards an effective international arms control architecture. It also applied increased pressure on the Soviet side. The conditions under which political and legal pressure worked in the past might present some directions also for today.

Throughout the dual-track era, legal and political pressure worked well, especially when effective transparency mechanisms were in place. But, establishing such pressure on other players in the game and having effective transparency mechanisms in place would require a preexisting consensual legal framework such as a treaty or agreement. The famous case of the Soviet Krasnoyarsk radar is well worth the attention here.[xvii]

In 1983, US reconnaissance satellites caught sight of a large radar construction site at Krasnoyarsk, central Siberia. However, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT), a fundamental arms control tool ensuring the missile balance between the Alliance and the Warsaw Pact at that time, had set a geographical limitation (ratione loci) on such radar sites. Regardless of the purpose of this radar site, the US Administration declared the radar at that location as a material violation of the Treaty, bringing up the violation to the Treaty’s Compliance Commission. In response, the Soviet side emphasized that the radar has been constructed for only early-warning purposes and its location was just a technical violation rather than a material violation, which might have paved the way for a withdrawal. After seven years of dialogue, political/legal pressure, and continuous implementation of transparency/verification measures, in 1990 the Soviets agreed to dismantle the radar. The political climate and established mechanisms like ABMT itself went one step further and led to the entry into force of START I.[xviii]

There is a simple, yet clear lesson to take from the abovementioned case: Do not withdraw from already established legal arms control mechanisms. Their transparency and verification measures directly enforce the existing strategic balance. On the other hand, a decline in these frameworks is not only an issue of strategic competition but also a direct threat to international peace and security, with an ever-present threat of vertical escalation to using nuclear weapons.

 

How emerging technologies complicate an already complicated dialogue

When combined with the tendencies to engage in non-consensual decision-making and the decline of verification/transparency, one specific risk factor—i.e., the ambiguities rapidly emerging weapons technologies bring—can create a lasting threat to international peace and security. Unlike the dual-track era, today many advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic technologies, unmanned vehicles, and precision-strike technologies are available not only to two internally coordinated poles but multiple state actors with their own, differentiated interests.[xix]

In certain cases, particular states legally define and interpret emerging weapons technologies differently than others. And this gives rise to further legal ambiguities, especially when the issue in question has potential illegitimate consequences.[xx] On that account, NATO should approach its arms control relationship with Russia not only as an issue of strategic competition with a potential adversary but also as an issue of international peace and security, a global public goods issue. Many of the strategic arms that are discussed in the context of the future NATO-Russia strategic balance such as hypersonics, advanced precision-strike technologies, and unmanned vehicles (especially when combined with autonomous weapons capabilities) have the potential to ease the use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, their potential to cause excessive harm makes such capabilities the subject of a necessary global dialogue that will impose comprehensive regulations.

NATO as an international governance structure and regional security enabler has the opportunity to be part of the comprehensive debates regarding appropriate behaviors to be put in place to prevent excessive harm. This allows NATO to re-engage its allies and partners as well as other global players and to influence these processes. In the past, the international community’s negative attitudes have influenced international convergence towards not only the use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and land mines during armed conflicts but also the existence of an international legal framework.[xxi]

This paper argues that when complemented with the existing legal arms control processes, some policy measures and interactions with fewer mechanisms for consensus and power delegation would also strengthen the current arms control architecture and influence the strategic balance. In this context, Nico Krisch, International Law Professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, emphasizes, “Many forms of institutional influence do not operate through formal legal tools. If authority is detached from ideas of command, delegation, formally binding rules, it may appear in gradations.[xxii] NATO would certainly find room in these various gradations and expand its influence through normative and social/cultural interactions regarding arms control. In this sense, NATO not only has the opportunity to adjust itself against emerging threats but also through effective dialogue, this internal search for convergence on norms and standards would be used to influence internal and external actors with active engagement in processes that seek to define the appropriate use of emerging weapons technologies and to define normative and legitimate limits of the strategic competition.

In this regard, NATO should formally or informally engage more with technical, expert-led international bodies such as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on lethal autonomous weapons systems, or the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) initiatives. A deepened NATO interaction with international civil society, business circles, and academia would play a significant role during the emergence of new norms in regard to weapons technologies. For example, #NATOEngages[xxiii] gatherings have been a promising format for intra-NATO interactions. Similar engagements of a more technical nature with more thought-provoking and diverse discussions should increase. 

 

In lieu of conclusion: Do not love the bomb!

With the rapid emergence and increasing availability of weapons technologies, neither NATO nor Russia would gain definitive advantage in strategic competition in the short to medium term. On the other hand, focusing solely on deterrence and strategic arms proliferation would most likely pave the way for a vertical or horizontal escalation. Therefore, while discussing strategic stability in the future, solely focusing on potential deployments, asymmetric military measures, or the creative application of precision-strike capabilities and other weapons technologies would not carry the achievements of the past one step further. Rather, it could likely turn the international arms control architecture into any of the War Room scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s highly critical Cold War parody, “Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Loved the Bomb” (1964).[xxiv]

On the other hand, NATO has many dialogue tools it can revitalize; some are arguably frozen (NATO-Russia Council or NATO’s many partnership initiatives); some are more effective. On that note, despite many divergent voices echoing from both sides of the Atlantic, the NATO-EU strategic partnership[xxv] has the potential to carry a great extent of normative power and influence over debates regarding both established and also emerging norms of international arms control. Some tools of this dialogue are well worth the attention while thinking of ways how “the dialogue track” could become more consensual, robust, and knowledge-based during a prospective dual-track era.

Since 2016, institutionally NATO and the EU have been deepening their coordination and cooperation in many areas that overlap with the ambiguities and contestations the future NATO-Russia arms control equilibrium would face. Their coordination and cooperation at the institutional level is taking place through joint initiatives, implementing common sets of norms, regular exchange of information, staff-to-staff exchanges, research initiatives as well as cross-participation in events, according to the 2019 Progress Report[xxvi] on the implementation of the common set of proposals endorsed by NATO and the EU. For example the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats[xxvii] was established on 11 April 2017 within the margins of the December 2016 NATO-EU common proposals. Hybrid COE is a knowledge-based, technical initiative with a function of facilitating the dialogue between NATO and the EU as well as influencing the dialogue through research and sharing of best practices against hybrid threats. Establishing such knowledge-based, technical mechanisms[xxviii] not only helps to counter the lack of knowledge, ambiguities, or differentiated understandings of concepts but also enforces established norms among the actors.

There are many creative ways to precipitate legal, political, and social engagement, as discussed above. Therefore, NATO might focus more on dialogue and look at ways to again establish convergence among members and partners, engage in formal and informal international policies and legal debates in the direction of safeguarding the current arms control mechanisms, and reestablish norms in NATO-Russia arms control. As long as the rules of the game are guarded, as long as emerging concepts are mutually perceived, there is always room for effective dialogue.

 

About the Author

Ahmet Ceran is an Istanbul-based independent researcher. Ceran previously worked for Turkey’s EU affairs think tank, IKV, where he focused on the justice/home affairs (JHA) field in his publications. As a researcher at IKV, Ceran carried out a comparative EU-funded research project on the EU and Turkey’s legal frameworks on data protection. In 2018, Ceran volunteered for the #NATOEngages official outreach event for the 2018 NATO Brussels Summit, and in the same year Ceran attended formal and informal consultations of the UN Global Compact on Refugees. During Turkey’s G20 Presidency in 2015, Ceran actively participated in the G20 official civil society engagement group, “C20”’s, policy paper and communiqué drafting processes. Ceran holds a BA degree in International Relations from Istanbul Commerce University and a master’s degree in Law of War and Military Operations from the Turkish War College with a thesis on armed UAVs and the interrelated legal debates. In 2016, Ceran attended the anti-corruption and governance summer school organised by Mykolas Romeris Law School and Transparency International in Vilnius.

 

Notes

[i] “"U.S. Completes INF Treaty Withdrawal | Arms Control Association", Armscontrol.Org, September 2019, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-wit....

[ii] "DOD Statement On Open Skies Treaty Withdrawal", U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 21 May 2020, https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2195239/dod-st....

[iii] Alice Tidey, “US-Russia Nuclear Talks: Washington Condemns 'No-Show' China At Summit", Euronews, 22 June 2020, https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/22/russia-and-us-to-resume-nuclear-disa....

[iv] Munich Security Conference, “The Great Puzzle: Who Will Pick Up The Pieces? Munich Security Report 2019”, 2019, https://securityconference.org/assets/02_Dokumente/01_Publikationen/Muni..., 6.

[v] Munich Security Conference, “Westlessness, Munich Security Report 2020”, 2020, https://securityconference.org/assets/user_upload/MunichSecurityReport20..., 14.

[vi] Harold H. Koh, "Remarks: Twenty-First- Century International Lawmaking", The Georgetown Law Journal, 101 (2013): 745, https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5696&con....

[vii] "Special Meeting Of Foreign And Defence Ministers (The ''Double-Track'' Decision On Theatre Nuclear Forces)", NATO, 1979, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27040.htm.

[viii] Deutsche Welle, "NATO Thwarted The Soviets With Its Cold War Double-Track", DW.COM, 2019, https://www.dw.com/en/nato-thwarted-the-soviets-with-its-cold-war-double....

 

[ix] John Maurer, "The Dual-Track Approach: A Long-Term Strategy For A Post-INF Treaty World", War On The Rocks, April 2019, https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/the-dual-track-approach-a-long-term-st....

[x] Luis Simón and Alexander Lanoszka, "The Post-INF European Missile Balance: Thinking About NATO's Deterrence Strategy”, Texas National Security Review, May 2020, https://tnsr.org/2020/05/the-post-inf-european-missile-balance-thinking-....

[xi] Luis Simón, “ Demystifying the A2/AD Buzz”, War on the Rocks, January 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/demystifying-the-a2ad-buzz/.

[xii] Ian Williams, "The Russia – NATO A2AD Environment," Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3 January 2017, last modified 29 November 2018, https://missilethreat.csis.org/russia-nato-a2ad-environment/.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Following the discussion and consultation phases, NATO decisions are made by consensus. Consensual decision-making is a primary feature for any hard law mechanism with power delegation and enforcement. For more information regarding the consensual decision-making at NATO: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49178.htm#:~:text=Consensus%....

[xv] Dimitri Trenin, “Decoding Russia’s Official Deterrence Paper”, Carnegie Moscow Center, 2020, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/81983.

[xvi] Nico Krisch, "The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age Of Global Public Goods", The American Journal Of International Law 108, no. 1 (2014): 8–9, doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.1.0001.

 

[xvii] Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes, "Compliance Without Enforcement: State Behavior Under Regulatory Treaties", Negotiation Journal, no. 3, 1991, doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1991.tb00625.x.

[xviii] Steven Pifer, "Op-Ed: What Should Obama Do About Russia And The INF Treaty? Channel Reagan", Los Angeles Times, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pifer-russia-missile-test-20...

Steven Pifer, "Don't Scrap The INF Treaty", The National Interest, 2014, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dont-scrap-the-inf-treaty-10622?pag....

[xix] Caitlin Talmadge, “Emerging Technology and Intra-War Escalation Risks: Evidence from the Cold War, Implications for Today”, Journal of Strategic Studies 42, no. 6 (2019): 869–871, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1631811. On that note, Talmadge describes horizontal escalation as ensnaring additional states in a conflict and vertical escalation as an increase of the violence level in a given conflict.

[xx] Ahmet Ceran, “Post-Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Problems: Are Emerging Weapons Technologies and the Legal Ambiguities Intertwined?” An International Law Blog, 15 April 2020, https://internationallaw.blog/2020/04/15/post-intermediate-range-nuclear....

[xxi] Ceran, “Post-INF Treaty Problems.”

[xxii] Krisch, “The Decay of Consent.”

[xxiii] #NATOEngages, https://nato-engages.org/.

[xxiv] Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), IMDB, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/.

[xxv] “Statement on the Implementation of the Joint Declaration Signed by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” NATO, 6 December 2016, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_138829.htm.

[xxvi] “Fourth progress report on the implementation of the common set of proposals endorsed by NATO and EU Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017”, NATO, 17 June 2019, https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/190617-4t....

[xxvii] The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, https://www.hybridcoe.fi/what-is-hybridcoe/.

[xxviii] Michael Zürn, "From Constitutional Rule to Loosely Coupled Spheres of Liquid Authority: A Reflexive Approach", International Theory 9, no. 2 (2017): 274.

Image Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/11/best-film-set-ever-designed...

Previous
Previous

One year post-INF: A moment for NATO evolution

Next
Next

Airspace safety over the Baltics