走出阴影:乌克兰和非混合战争的冲击

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Global Security Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-14 DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogad014
P. Porter
{"title":"走出阴影:乌克兰和非混合战争的冲击","authors":"P. Porter","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogad014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n For two decades, a large body of security practitioners and scholars axiomatically expected “future war” to be ambiguous and hybrid, based on recent cases. The scale and overt form of the Russia–Ukraine war, which begun on February 22, 2022, demonstrates the limits of this orthodoxy. This article asks why informed opinion fell prey to such false expectations. It argues that as well as the pathologies of fashion in military-academic circles, there was an intellectual failure. Those who confidently expected war to remain in the shadows did not take seriously enough war’s political nature, and the possibility that it will intensify as political stakes rise. Either they assumed apolitically that war’s form was determined by the tools of globalization, or that the politics would be of the status quo, whereby the stability of the unipolar era would endure. Paying lip service to Carl von Clausewitz, in fact, they were unwittingly channeling Francis Fukuyama. To demonstrate this failure, I examine three representative texts of the genre and unpack their assumptions, by David Richards, Antoine Bousquet, and Sean McFate.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Out of the Shadows: Ukraine and the Shock of Non-Hybrid War\",\"authors\":\"P. Porter\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jogss/ogad014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n For two decades, a large body of security practitioners and scholars axiomatically expected “future war” to be ambiguous and hybrid, based on recent cases. The scale and overt form of the Russia–Ukraine war, which begun on February 22, 2022, demonstrates the limits of this orthodoxy. This article asks why informed opinion fell prey to such false expectations. It argues that as well as the pathologies of fashion in military-academic circles, there was an intellectual failure. Those who confidently expected war to remain in the shadows did not take seriously enough war’s political nature, and the possibility that it will intensify as political stakes rise. Either they assumed apolitically that war’s form was determined by the tools of globalization, or that the politics would be of the status quo, whereby the stability of the unipolar era would endure. Paying lip service to Carl von Clausewitz, in fact, they were unwittingly channeling Francis Fukuyama. To demonstrate this failure, I examine three representative texts of the genre and unpack their assumptions, by David Richards, Antoine Bousquet, and Sean McFate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogad014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogad014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二十年来,根据最近的案例,大量安全从业者和学者理所当然地认为“未来战争”是模糊和混合的。始于2022年2月22日的俄乌战争的规模和公开形式,证明了这种正统观念的局限性。这篇文章要问的是,为什么见多识广的意见会成为这种错误期望的牺牲品。它认为,除了军事学术界的时尚病态之外,还有一种智力上的失败。那些自信地认为战争将继续隐藏在阴影中的人,没有足够重视战争的政治性质,也没有足够重视战争随着政治风险上升而加剧的可能性。他们要么在政治上假定战争的形式是由全球化的工具决定的,要么在政治上假定维持现状,从而维持单极时代的稳定。他们口头上支持卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨,实际上,他们无意中在引导弗朗西斯·福山。为了证明这种失败,我研究了大卫·理查兹(David Richards)、安托万·鲍斯凯(Antoine Bousquet)和肖恩·麦克法特(Sean McFate)所著的三种具有代表性的文本,并分析了它们的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Out of the Shadows: Ukraine and the Shock of Non-Hybrid War
For two decades, a large body of security practitioners and scholars axiomatically expected “future war” to be ambiguous and hybrid, based on recent cases. The scale and overt form of the Russia–Ukraine war, which begun on February 22, 2022, demonstrates the limits of this orthodoxy. This article asks why informed opinion fell prey to such false expectations. It argues that as well as the pathologies of fashion in military-academic circles, there was an intellectual failure. Those who confidently expected war to remain in the shadows did not take seriously enough war’s political nature, and the possibility that it will intensify as political stakes rise. Either they assumed apolitically that war’s form was determined by the tools of globalization, or that the politics would be of the status quo, whereby the stability of the unipolar era would endure. Paying lip service to Carl von Clausewitz, in fact, they were unwittingly channeling Francis Fukuyama. To demonstrate this failure, I examine three representative texts of the genre and unpack their assumptions, by David Richards, Antoine Bousquet, and Sean McFate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Global Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Multilateral Maritime Exercises, Grand Strategy, and Strategic Change: The American Case and Beyond Trust at Risk: The Effect of Proximity to Cyberattacks Do States Really Sink Costs to Signal Resolve? Geopolitics and Genocide: Patron Interests, Client Crises, and Realpolitik Digital Rights and the State of Exception. Internet Shutdowns from the Perspective of Just Securitization Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1