Major power politics and non-violent resistance movements

Abstract

Non-violent movements are rarely confined to the borders of the societies in which they take place. International actors are prone to take a side in the face of such resistance. Yet knowledge is limited on external actors’ effects on outcomes of non-violent protests abroad. Thus, we zero in on the strategic logic behind major powers’ involvement decisions regarding such movements, and the impact those decisions have on campaign outcomes. We find that major powers tend to undermine non-violent movements when target states are strategically important; we find also an indirect link between major power support for movements and security force defections in target states, thus improving success prospects for the protestors. Our research adds a dyadic international dimension to the question of external support during non-violent resistance movements and expands the current knowledge base regarding the identity and direction of support.

Military Defection During the Collapse of the Soviet Union

“…Military personnel are not unified actors, and can engage in different types of defections according to the actor as well as the institutional context under attention (Albrecht & Ohl 2016: 41). A considerable literature has been concerned with observable avenues that incumbent regimes go down in order to prevent the occurrence of defection in times of political stability (Lee 2005;McLauchlin 2010;Pilster & Böhmelt 2011;Pion-Berlin et al 2012;Makara 2013;Nepstad 2013;Geddes et al 2014;Bou Nassif 2015;Johnson 2017;Anisin & Ayan Musil 2021;Kalin, Lounsbery & Pearson 2022). Similarly, civil resistance scholars have emphasised that the strategies waged by civilians have much to do with the conditions under which defection occurs (Sharp 2005;Nepstad 2013;Sutton et al 2014;Degaut 2017;Croissant et al 2018;Anisin 2020).…”