What’s the Difference, if Any?
The 2012 presidential campaign has shown that there is not much daylight between President Obama and Governor Romney when it comes to foreign policy. The difference is more in tone than in substance with Governor Romney attacking the President for being weak and apologetic. The President on the other hand has played his Commander-in-Chief card. In this policy brief ISDP Senior Fellow Roger Svensson argues that regardless of who becomes the next President, American foreign and security policy will be decided by events rather than grand strategy.
Introduction: マドリードNATO首脳会議における結論を踏まえて、7月5日、加盟30ヵ国はスウェーデンとフィンランドの加盟議定書に署名を行った。これで政治的、軍事的、法的に加盟基準が満たされることが認められ、両国のNATO加盟への道が正式に開かれることになった。ウラジーミル・プーチン・ロシア大統領は、ウクライナがNATO加盟を果たすことで西側同盟線が自国に近づくことを嫌って侵略戦争に訴えた筈だが、結果的には両国の加盟によって北欧諸国が全てNATO加盟国となり、その同盟線はバルト海を中心に据える形で自国により接近し、バルチック艦隊を擁する自国領カリーニングラードも包囲されるという思わぬ結果を招くことになった。 You can read the full article (in Japanese) about Sweden and NATO on KaFSA’s website.
Russian Foreign Policy under Putin: What Does it Mean for India?
Abstract: The special and privileged strategic partnership between India and Russia has been under renewed scrutiny since the latter launched an invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. New Delhi has […]
China and International Law: History, Theory, and Practice
Abstract The current contours of China’s economic growth and political influence have given rise to interests in and concerns about China’s global profile as well as its strategies of International […]
China and the EU: “Strategic Partners” No More
China has since March 2019, been labelled as the EU’s “systemic rival” as stipulated in the “EU-China – A Strategic Outlook”, a document which outlines some of achievements and many […]