|
Andrew Latham__Business 2 Community |

Using ‘axis’ to describe a grouping of countries tends to link them to a sordid past – but not always.

The term refers to a power whose military capabilities are approaching that of the dominant power. But for the US, seeing China this way comes with...

Over the summer, the United States deployed warships to the Caribbean – ostensibly to menace drug traffickers but also as a none-too-subtle warning...

From 19th century British navy to US destroyers in the Caribbean, diplomacy at seas has been accompanied by military might.


India is considering a proposal to co-develop Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank. The deal has an obvious logic for both sides.


Great powers rely on military, diplomatic and economic dominance. But in a multipolar world, power has been duluted.

All 3 nations have sunk costs and made promises that make it harder to find an off-ramp from conflict.

From Athens to the British Empire and on to the US – dominant powers have used might and consent to exert influence.

How a foreign policy pivot redefined the global map.

The term can be traced back to the 1920s, but it only began to gain currency in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Projecting strength on the global stage doesn’t always require tanks and guns.


Is a US-China war inevitable? Perhaps that isn’t the lesson leaders should be taking from the ‘History of the Peloponnesian War.’

Dissecting a loaded term in international affairs, and what it means for a country to disrupt the prevailing US-led order that is itself now changing.


The ‘liberal international order’ emerged out of the devastation of World War II − is it still relevant today?

Rather than clarifying American foreign policy, the term has long been used to tar critics or obfuscate legitimate international affairs questions.
