As a guest user you are not logged in or recognized by your IP address. You have
access to the Front Matter, Abstracts, Author Index, Subject Index and the full
text of Open Access publications.
NATO’s struggle to cohere and leave clear imprints on entrenched modern conflicts suggests that the Alliance is bereft of a strategic purpose. Yet mainstream international relations theory struggles to offer a convincing explanation for NATO’s durability – it turned 60 in 2009 – and its ability to run the ISAF operation in Afghanistan. There is probably no single convincing explanation for NATO’s durability. Understanding the positions in the NATO debate – their theoretical as well as normative foundations – becomes all the more important. To promote this type of understanding I resort to geography. I outline three geopolitical views as a heuristic device to dissect the NATO debate: Continental Geopolitics, Globalization, and Eurasian Geopolitics. I then engage NATO’s strategic direction since 1991 and the International Relations literature making sense of it. The result is not a turn-key research agenda but an overview of the stakes in the debate and a resource for making strong arguments.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.