A Revolution Too Far? US Defence Innovation, Europe and NATO’s Military-Technological Gap

Fiott, Daniel

doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1176565

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers ‘increasingly want to know what’s happening to an entire distribution, to the relative winners and losers, as well as to averages’ (Das et al, 2019: 141). We know with certainty that greater or smaller spending trends usually have different effects on outcomes such as military modernisation, procurement, operational capabilities and industrial innovation (Bitzinger, 2011; Fiott, 2017; Solar, 2020; Zysk, 2021). In this case, the relationship of military expenditure, among other material indicators, and military effectiveness (Beckley, 2010) is often discussed and summarized in thoughtful ways but predominately focused on the countries in the upper tail of the expenditure distribution.…”

Section: Thinking Beyond Averagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking beyond averages: Quantile regression modelling and military expenditure

Solar

2022

Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of military spending has been an enduring concern within military sociology and political science. Methodologically, one of the biggest challenges lay in dealing with its heavy-tailed distribution influenced by the growing separation between China and the United States from the rest of the world. In the presence of outliers along the continuum of military expenditure, we should be paying more attention to portions of the distribution that don’t assume the values reported at the conditional mean. The article uses quantile regression modelling (QRM) to analyse the nuanced relationship between military expenditure and its predictors. It argues that classical linear regression produces average estimates that cannot predict values at different subsets of the data’s distribution, meanwhile QRM has relevant results in the search for noncentral values in the study of military expenditure often laying in the lower and the upper tails of the distribution.

show abstract

Section: Thinking Beyond Averagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking beyond averages: Quantile regression modelling and military expenditure

Solar

2022

Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the extension of the CMP concept to the Indo-Pacific would allow the EU to enhance its partnerships with countries such as India, Japan and South Korea, inter alia through joint naval exercises, port calls and greater information sharing (Fiott and Lindstrom 2021, 44; Desmaele et al 2021, 41). It would therefore ‘concretely translate’ the key importance of the Indo-Pacific for the EU’s foreign and security policy (Jourdain 2021) and show the Union’s partners that the EU is committed to contributing to their security.…”

Section: The Eu’s Naval Ambitions In the Indo-pacificmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Coordinated Maritime Presences concept and the EU’s naval ambitions in the Indo-Pacific

Nováky¹

2022

European View

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the launch of the first-ever EU naval operation in 2008, the ongoing Operation Atalanta off the Horn of Africa, EU naval forces have operated primarily in Europe’s vicinity or in regions in which great-power tensions have been low. Yet, the Union has also begun to seek a naval role for itself in more sensitive regions, namely the Indo-Pacific, via the new Coordinated Maritime Presences concept. This article analyses the EU’s plans to play a more visible naval role in the Indo-Pacific, and argues that the extension of this concept to the region would raise the EU’s level of ambition as a naval actor. However, the EU’s ability to be a meaningful maritime security provider in the Indo-Pacific depends on the EU countries coming closer to seeing eye-to-eye on how the Union should approach China, and on their willingness to send vessels to the Indo-Pacific.

show abstract

“…Pledges made at the 2014 NATO summit indicate a gradual augmentation of defence budgets in Europe. This is a welcome move, although probably insufficient to alleviate the concerns about a new NATO Military-Technological Gap between the US and its allies (Fiott, 2017). In particular, technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence, which have major potential battlefield implications (Scharre, 2018), are also cost-intensive and will require significant adjustments in doctrine and military practices (one cannot "buy" AI the way one buys airplanes) which could be out of reach for many allies.…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More allies, weaker missions? How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations

Schmitt

2018

Contemporary Security Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing consensus that multinational military operations are often less militarily effective than the theoretical sum of their constitutive parts. At the strategic level, multiple chains of command and demands of consensus can undermine both integration and responsiveness. At the tactical and operational levels, problems such as sector assignments and liaison teams, restriction on intelligence sharing and capability aggregation problems can reduce integration and fighting skills. However, partners may be necessary to provide legitimacy to an intervention. As such, most studies assume that the most powerful state leading a coalition (usually the United States) has to accept a degree of operational ineffectiveness in order to gain political benefits from the participation of junior partners to a multinational military operation. However, such analysis encompasses all « junior partners » under the same broad category, without taking into account the differentiated contributions those junior partners can bring based on their relative military power and international status. This article explores such variations between the junior partners' contributions to multinational military operations and their impact on coalition political and military dynamics, and teases out the theoretical and policy implications of adopting a fine-grained analysis of junior partners.

show abstract

A Revolution Too Far? US Defence Innovation, Europe and NATO’s Military-Technological Gap

Cited by 18 publications

References 33 publications

Thinking beyond averages: Quantile regression modelling and military expenditure

Thinking beyond averages: Quantile regression modelling and military expenditure

The Coordinated Maritime Presences concept and the EU’s naval ambitions in the Indo-Pacific

More allies, weaker missions? How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About