Fools Rush Out? The Flawed Logic of Offshore Balancing

Brands, Hal

doi:10.1080/0163660x.2015.1064705

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such claims are widespread. Hal Brands, for example, claims that retrenchment “might tempt [U.S. allies] to acquiesce to, or bandwagon with, a rising China” and ease “China’s ascent to regional hegemony” (Brands 2015, 21-22). Similarly, former National Security Advisor H.R.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Insularity and Expansion: A Theory Note

Schuessler¹,

Shifrinson²,

Blagden³

2021

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between insularity—a state’s separation from other states via large bodies of water—and expansion? The received wisdom, prominent in (though not exclusive to) realist theories, holds that insularity constrains expansion by making conquest difficult. We contend, by contrast, that this received wisdom faces important limits. Focusing on U.S. expansion via means short of conquest, we interrogate the underlying theoretical logics to demonstrate that insular powers enjoy two distinct advantages when it comes to expansion. First, insularity translates into a “freedom to roam”: because insular powers are less threatened at home, they can project more power and influence abroad. Second, insularity “sterilizes” power, which explains why insular powers are seen as attractive security providers and why we do not see more counterbalancing against them. On net, existing scholarship is correct to argue that insularity impedes conquest between great powers. Still, it has missed the ways that insularity abets expansion via spheres of influence abroad. One consequence is an under-appreciation for the role of geography writ large and insularity in particular in shaping contemporary great power behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Insularity and Expansion: A Theory Note

Schuessler¹,

Shifrinson²,

Blagden³

2021

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Док неки виде највише заслуга у уздржавању (restraint) других у ангажовању или у прекоморском уравнотеживању, постоји много идеја о томе како би САД требало да обликују своју велику стратегију у светлу успона Кине (Posen, 2014;Mazarr, 2020;Priebe et al . 2021;Ashford, 2021;Layne, 1997;Brands, 2015a;2015b;Brands et al . 2016;Mearsheimer and Walt, 2016;Craig et al .…”

Section: уводunclassified

(Не)известан Клин: Да Ли Је Селективна Акомодација Русије Још Увек Могућа Након Украјине?

Копања

2023

Српска ревија за европске студије = Serbian Review of European

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…perspective either one would be quite damaging." 37 There is an alternative realist account of the Middle East, namely a "light footprint" version. 38 From this perspective, a heavy footprint incurs too many hazards and costs, and is unnecessary.…”

Section: Divergence: the Clash Of Realismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Desert Shield of the Republic? A Realist Case for Abandoning the Middle East

Blagden

Porter²

2021

Security Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political realists disagree on what America should "do" and "be" in the Middle East. All are skeptical towards extravagant geopolitical projects to transform the region. Yet they differ over whether hegemony in the Gulf and its wider environs is worth the substantial investment of blood and treasure. Hegemonic "primacy realism" finds the commitment effective and affordable, and that Washington should stay to stabilize the region to ensure a favorable concentration of power. There is an alternative "shield of the republic" realism, however, which views the Middle East as an unruly place that entangles and corrupts, involving interests that are either manageable from a remove or only generated by being there in the first place. In this article, we lay out the latter position, arguing that the Gulf is increasingly peripheral to U.S. national interests while imposing high costs. The region is losing its salience grand strategically, entanglement has damaged republican liberties, and the calculus of whether continued hegemony is "worth it" has shifted decisively towards the downside. The time for abandonment has come.

show abstract

Fools Rush Out? The Flawed Logic of Offshore Balancing

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Revisiting Insularity and Expansion: A Theory Note

Revisiting Insularity and Expansion: A Theory Note

(Не)известан Клин: Да Ли Је Селективна Акомодација Русије Још Увек Могућа Након Украјине?

Desert Shield of the Republic? A Realist Case for Abandoning the Middle East

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About