Latest Articles

Where the Cold War crises took place in the context of a bilateral international system represented by the Western and Soviet entities, the recent Ukrainian crisis is played out on an international stage where the US remains the world’s unipolar power. This paper discusses the major differences between these contexts with the aim of better understanding the possible outcomes and ramifications of the crisis. Such an understanding seems vital, for if the Ukrainian crisis continues without reaching a political or diplomatic solution, the cost will be higher for Russia and EU countries than it will be for the United States. The paper shows how European countries will pay a higher price for the crisis, compared with others in the region with different foreign policy priorities due to the EU’s current political and economic interests that tie it to Russia.

​If deterrence fails and diplomacy falters, how can small states defend themselves against adversaries that outnumber, outgun and outmatch them? This study seeks to contribute to the ongoing scholarly discourse on how "the few" can achieve a military upset - not just a political or a propaganda one- against "the many." In an era where asymmetric war has become the most anticipated type, understanding the innovative ways of warfare that enable the smaller forces to endure and even prevail is of paramount importance to strategic analysts, military commanders, and policymakers alike. To do so, the study coins a definition for the concept of "Hybrid Defence," contributes a new definition of "Multi-Domain Combined Arms Operations" and examines their correlations with, and impacts on, "Military Effectiveness" and "Combat Effectiveness." It then analyses selected operational arts and tactical adaptations employed by the relatively smaller forces - such as the Ukrainian Military and Security Forces, as well as nonstate forces, exemplified by the Palestinian Resistance Factions in Gaza - for confronting numerically and technologically superior adversaries. The study extracts seven key lessons and concludes with their comparative implications for the defence policies of small states, particularly in the Arab world and beyond.

Ukraine occupies a highly sensitive position between Russia and the Nato-member states because it is currently the main buffer state between them and also occupies more than half the extent of the eastern gateway to Europe, via which threats to Europe have passed throughout history. The continuation of European and Nato actions to incorporate and form partnerships with other states aims to curtail Russian influence in this region and reinforce control over it. Russia, deeply disturbed at the encroachment of Western influence to its wider immediate neighborhood, cannot abandon Ukraine to become part of the West's security and economic order. For, in addition to Russian nationalist feeling for Ukraine, it is part of its "special interest zone" and the final strategic stronghold buffering it from the West and its allies. The global tensions caused by the Ukraine crisis and the threat it poses to relations between two major global actors call for a discussion over the wider context to Ukraine's place in Western and Russian strategic thinking.

The Strategic Studies Unit Conference of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies held a symposium on August 29, 2022, entitled "Ukraine: Conventional and Unconventional Military Developments and Foreign Fighters", attended by three researchers specialising in security and strategic studies, Omar Ashour, director of the Strategic Studies Unit and head of the Critical Security Studies Graduate Programme (MCSS) at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Kacper Edward Rekawe, postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo, and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon are chemical weapons advisers to NGOs working in Syria and Iraq. He is a former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion. It was chaired by Sidahmed Goudjili, Assistant Professor in Critical Security Studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies.

Held by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies on June 2, 2014, this special one-day symposium examines the crisis in the Ukraine caused by Russian annexation of the Crimea, and the repercussions of this crisis on the Arab region.

Held by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies on June 2, 2014, this special one-day symposium examines the crisis in the Ukraine caused by Russian annexation of the Crimea, and the repercussions of this crisis on the Arab region.

This paper discusses international competition in Latin America between the United States, Russia, and China. Whilst the United States aims to maintain its traditional influence in the region based on the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 , which made Latin America a zone of exclusive influence for the US due to its geographic and economic significance. Russia and China instead seek to challenge this influence, on the one hand in the face of American expansionism in their respective vicinities, and on the other to bring about a multipolar global order. Moreover, the region is of economic importance to those states. The study arrives at the basic conclusion that the US still has the greatest military and economic presence in Latin America, but Russia and China have managed to penetrate the region by establishing military relations with anti-US regimes, most prominently Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Moreover, China has become an important trade partner to countries such as Brazil and Argentina, surpassed the US in trade volume with these states.

Despite the great pains made over the years since the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership passed the European Neighborhood Policy to support programs for democratic reform in the phase following the Arab uprisings. The EU's conditional policies to support democratic transformations in the Southern Mediterranean Countries have revealed many structural imbalances. These countries did not gain the desired political and democratic momentum that the Eastern European countries. There was also a growing trend towards European Countries prioritizing security considerations at the expense of supporting democracy, especially after the increased security cooperation to combat terrorist threats and irregular migration. These uprisings thus formed an experiment and a real challenge to the credibility and effectiveness of the EU's conditional democratic policies. To what extent have the European policies associated with democratic conditionality succeeded in supporting the dynamics and interactions of the Arab uprisings? Does maintaining security and stability and combating terrorism void European democratic conditionality at its hard core?

Many American observers agree that the recent Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip represented a major challenge for the administration of President Barack Obama because it aggravated the international crises facing American foreign policy and shed light once again on the subject of the decline of American leadership. This paper discusses the decline in the capabilities of the American presidency under Obama and sheds light on the failure of the United States to deal, as it should have, with the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, which was unprecedented in size, destruction, and duration. The paper gives particular focus on the increasing inability of the United States to confront Israeli intransigence.

This paper monitors the post-2007 trends of US foreign policy towards the Gaza Strip. This paper's discussion first examines the general framework of the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict before discussing the quandary posed by the Gaza Strip to that framework. The paper then focuses on the role played by President George W. Bush's administration in creating the impasse over Gaza, deconstructs the efforts to overthrow Hamas, and tracks the attempts to isolate and marginalize the Gaza Strip. Finally, it analyses the status of the Gaza Strip in the respective administrations of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The paper concludes that the Gaza Strip represents a predicament to both the US and Israel, to a large extent the outcome of flawed and biased US policies as well as symptomatic of the Zionist project in occupied Palestine; an outcome that cannot justify the crushing crisis caused by the official Egyptian blockade on the Gaza Strip.