Show Notes
Since the ‘Arab Spring’ uprising of 2011, the United States and a network of European and regional Sunni allies have applied instruments of coercion against Syria that collectively take on the character of ‘hybrid warfare’. In this conflict, Washington and its alliance partners have undertaken a wide range of lethal and non-lethal covert operations, with heavy reliance placed upon those performed by regional Sunni allies. By empowering jihadis as proxies, President Obama has borrowed much from the Reagan administration’s Afghan playbook. As he signaled the launch of this campaign in August 2011, President Obama served notice that the United States would be “pressuring President Assad to step aside”. But one year later, a Defence Intelligence Agency report revealed a hitherto unacknowledged sectarian war goal: the establishment of a “declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria”. It geo-political function would be to break the Shiite crescent. As of today, this hybrid war has produced not just one, but a conglomeration of religiously cleansed Sunni Islamist principalities in northern and eastern Syria. Some are controlled by the Islamic State and al-Qaida, while others are dominated by so-called moderate armies and militias. Among the latter are Washington-backed jihadist formations, such as Jaish al-Fateh and Jaish al-Islam. In all of these principalities, social pluralism has been replaced by Sunni supremacism, impacting not only religious minorities, but also non-Islamist, secular Sunni Muslims. This presentation will demonstrate the relationship between the dynamics of Washington’s hybrid war in Syria and the process of religious cleansing and the dismantling of state structures that support social pluralism.
More from Changing Character of War
Maria de Goeij provides a brilliant introduction to reflexive control theory, a Soviet theory of influence. Listen to learn more and appreciate how it can help us better understand today's world, including strategic decision making in hybrid warfare. Reflexive control theory is a theory of influence that was developed in the 1960s, in Soviet Russia. During this lecture Maria will talk about the cybernetic origins of the theory, what we know about reflexive control, and what we do not know about it. She’ll then talk about why this under-researched theory from Soviet times is important to take into account in the todays world and how it can help us think about strategic decision making in hybrid warfare.
Dr Marnie Howlett presents an engaging and thought-provoking look at the cartographical causes and consequences of the war. She looks at Ukraine's position between East and West and the implications of its long history of shifting borders with Russia. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, much attention within political and military circles has been devoted to examining the origins of the seemingly unexpected war. However, these analyses have primarily explored the foreign policy objectives of Russia and the motivations of its president. This talk will instead consider the cartographical causes and consequences of the conflict. In drawing on cartographical material gathered through ethnographic fieldwork in three Ukrainian regions between 2018-2022, this talk will show how the war is connected to Ukraine’s position between the East and West. In particular, the ways its borderland status has been utilised throughout history by both neighbouring Russia and the European Union will be considered, especially how it has complicated processes of state- and nation-building since the state’s independence in 1991. Finally, the talk will argue for the importance of realising the nuances at the grassroots in Ukraine for understanding both the Russia-Ukraine war and the future direction of the country.
Dr Walter Ladwig III presents on his excellent research project which seeks to explain India's foreign policy orientation by analysing the foreign travel patterns of Indian government leaders. Will a rising India seek to uphold the existing conventions and standards that regulate the international system or is it likely to challenge an international order which is seen to have been constructed by the West in general and the United States in particular? This question has recently taken on increased salience in light of the Indian government’s multiple abstentions on UN votes censuring Russia over its invasion of the Ukraine. This talk—based on a study undertaken with Sumitha Narayanan Kutty—will shed light on India’s foreign policy priorities as well as the country’s orientation towards the international system since the end of the Cold War by assessing the patterns of high-level diplomatic travel undertaken by the Indian Prime Minister, External Affairs Minister and President between 1992-2019. In the face of arguments that India’s foreign policy has lacked coherence over the past three decades, the personal diplomacy undertaken by Indian VIPs indicates consistent drivers of foreign engagement and an identifiable orientation toward the present international system.
Dr Iacovos Kareklas, Visiting Fellow at the Changing Character of War Centre (CCW), presents a strongly argued thesis that there is a legal and moral right to unilateral humanitarian intervention which dates back to the Peloponnesian War. The presented paper adopts a fresh approach on unilateral humanitarian intervention, and purports to demonstrate that, in certain cases, not only is permissible, but also legally and morally imperative. This academic venture is predominantly based on authoritative state practice, which in the view of the author should constitute reliable international legal custom, as well as theoretical groundwork; namely the well-established notion that violation of human rights necessitates intervention for the restoration of moral order, and applicable theories of deterrence (and just retribution) rendering humanitarian military intervention unobjectionable on grounds of the possibility of imminent humanitarian catastrophes.
Dr Hillary Briffa looks at what characterises small states, their challenges, and the strategies they utilise to overcome these. She argues that small states can very successfully protect their autonomy and security, and exert considerable influence. When major powers clash, or grow more competitive, the historical record shows that small states are the first to be buffeted by the actions of their larger counterparts. Small states do not set the international agenda. This means that if the fears of a breakdown of the rules-based order are well-founded, it will have profound implications for their security. Thus, these actors must look within their own armoury – at the tactics and strategies available to them, within certain bounds – and consider how much leverage they can exert within the context in which they operate. Can small states do anything more than move swiftly to avoid being trampled when elephants collide? This talk will examine the strategies pursued by small states to safeguard their autonomy (including ‘strategic hedging’ and ‘seeking shelter’); as well as innovative means of projecting influence (ranging from the harnessing of multilateralism to bind great power behaviour, to serving as ‘smart states’ in the international system). Today, increasing antagonism between great powers is already creating serious dilemmas for smaller international actors, and this is likely to intensify in the near future. However, the ability of small states to strategically navigate risk and influence the behaviour of Great Powers means that they can be expected to adapt to these changes. As small states navigate a fading rules-based order, this talk will argue that they have several time-tested strategies in reserve.