Search results
Brodie explicitly links war and the threat of war with national policy objectives – lending the analysis of decision making to ends–means calculation. Brodie makes much of the concept of “limited war,” arguing that an explicit linkage between political aims and military tactics forces decision-makers to conduct a cost–benefit analysis.
This chapter develops the argument that a critical characteristic of war aims—the degree to which attaining them requires target compliance—determines whether relative war-fighting capacity or resolve has a greater impact on a war's outcome.
Aug 13, 2024 · In this report, the authors analyze Russia's official public narrative regarding its war aims in Ukraine in the first year of its full-scale invasion. They begin by investigating Russian strategic writings and pre-2022 Russian practice of objective-setting when using force abroad.
- Ebook
Reasons for going to war and war aims hang together but they are not always identical: the reasons for going to war might have directly related aims – the restitution of stolen goods or territory – but other war aims might emerge, especially if a war drags on.
Each step taken—from a territorial dispute to rivalry (i.e., recurring militarized disputes) to alliance-building to armament building—therefore increases the probability that war will occur. Existing empirical evidence supports the steps-to-war theory’s predictions in numerous ways.
- 0.1115(0.2347)
- 0.3253(0.3988)
- 0.3916 **(0.1725)
- 0.6991 ***(0.2079)
Oct 15, 2018 · Assuming a situation of an unrestrained polity, I present two ideal types of war and opposing poles: the policy-driven war and the politicised (politically determined) war. In policy-driven war, the political logic of war is instrumental, systematic and mechanical.
People also ask
Does a critical characteristic of war aims affect a war's outcome?
Is policy a guiding principle for the logic of war?
How do political objectives affect armed conflict outcomes?
Can a strong state pursue a coercive war aim?
uncover systematic relationships between war aims and war outcomes. The empirical results challenge both existing theories and conventional wisdom about the impact of factors such as military strength, resolve, troop commitment levels, and war-fighting strategies on asymmetric war outcomes. Major power states have failed to attain their
