Peace can no longer be imagined without a peaceful sky – without ‘Aeropeace’ – but what does that entail?
Imagine being a part of a government-backed initiative that recruits artists and scientists to envision future threat scenarios. Isn’t that a promising way to overcome organizational biases and group-thinking? In my recent article published in Security Dialogue, I examined the French Red Team project, a recent initiative of the French Ministry of Armed Forces that appears fascinating at first hand and more concerning at a closer look.
The most recent Israeli war of aggression against Lebanon, launched to destroy Hezbollah—and still ongoing despite a ceasefire in November 2024—is part of a routine. It represents the latest escalation in a continuous war that Israel and its Western allies have waged—using political, economic, legal and military means—to destroy the resistance that Hezbollah’s political and military activities pose to internal and external actors seeking to subdue Lebanon.
The concept of security is a complicated, and much contested, one. Does it entail survival, freedom, the absence of fear, a predictable future? Is it a property of states, of individuals, of groups, of collective identities? And how do we go about evaluating – or even attempting to rank – the importance of threats to security when those threats might be as different as climate change, great power war, domestic violence, pandemics, and terrorism?
The term “fake news” has taken root in public discourse, and this does more harm than good.
Generational and social divisions shape elite attitudes toward Moscow’s war, with mid-level security operatives enforcing loyalty to Russian President Vladimir Putin and younger privileged figures largely indifferent to patriotism but obedient to Putin.
Europe is rearming. What are the likely consequences of this strategy?
The failed Russian plan to organize a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Budapest was so significant that any prospect of bringing the war against Ukraine to an end any time soon appeared to disappear.
The Nobel Peace Prize must not motivate or encourage aggression, contrary to the apparent effect of this year’s prize, awarded to Maria Corina Machado.
Moscow commentators were taken aback over U.S. President Donald Trump’s message on resuming nuclear testing “immediately” and also “on an equal basis” with Russia and China.
From Gaza to Sudan to Ukraine, the headlines keep reminding us of a painful truth: children are always among the hardest hit during conflict and war.
While the Norwegian defense budget continues to grow at breakneck speed, the relationship between increased spending and national and societal security remains uncertain – and insufficiently discussed.
With hopes for a personal rapport with Trump fading, Putin has returned to nuclear brinkmanship.
The world is severely off track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with the rise in armed conflicts a major cause.
The intensity of the response to the recent airport shutdowns of Oslo’s and Copenhagen’s main airports was unprecedented.
Putin’s phone call yielded a short-term advantage by prompting Trump to delay a decision on supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
Faith leaders bring unique credentials to peace mediations.
Extraordinary international attention was focused on the Nobel Peace Prize announcement on October 10. Anxiety was palpable in Moscow, where official skepticism had dominated since the award of the 2022 prize to the Memorial Society.
This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is a reminder that the future of democracy rests on those who dare to protest without violence.
U.S. President Donald Trump has presented himself as a global peacemaker-in-chief, citing his role brokering several peace agreements and suggesting he belongs among the laureates.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is shifting from overt nuclear brinkmanship to using Russia’s nuclear energy program as a “peaceful” tool of influence.
According to neuroscientist Rafael Yuste, founding member of NeuroRights Foundation, “We are entering a world, where technologies no longer simply threaten our bodies. They are directly affecting our minds”.
Three years and seven months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, all international initiatives to bring the war to an end have seemingly discontinued.
Some advice on cover letters for submission to academic journals from the Desk Editor of Journal of Peace Research.
Three autocrats that do not make an alliance, but join forces in setting for the apparently disunited West and to US President Donald Trump a set of hard challenges.
In recent weeks, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has “solved” six wars in six months. Siri Aas Rustad comments.
The incursion of at least 19 Russian drones into Polish airspace on September 9–10 produced plenty of shock but hardly any awe.
Can we continue to call Israel a democracy? The answer is no, and paradoxically enough, neither electoral defeat for Netanyahu nor a halt in the Gaza war will change this.
The outcomes of wars of attrition are typically decided by the capacity to mobilize material resources. The Kremlin appears to believe, however, that impressions matter more than real capabilities and the depth of public support.
Research security is a new concept in research policy. Donald Trump introduced it in a National Security Presidential Memorandum in 2021. Other NATO countries soon followed up.
.. and 1317 more tags.