ThinkTankWeekly

The Curse of Middle-Sized Wars

Foreign Affairs | 2026-03-11 | defense

Visit original source

ThinkTankWeekly provides a curated entry and summary only. Full text and PDF remain on the publisher's website.

English Summary

The article posits that democratic nations are structurally optimized for two extremes of conflict: small, professional 'little wars' or massive, total wars requiring full societal mobilization. The core finding is that democracies face a unique strategic vulnerability when confronted with 'middle-sized wars.' These conflicts are sufficiently destructive to cause immense bloodshed but are too limited to necessitate the full commitment of the home front, creating a profound dilemma. This structural mismatch suggests that modern democracies may be poorly equipped to manage conflicts that fall between the spectrum of limited and total warfare, impacting strategic planning and military readiness.

中文摘要

本文提出,民主國家在結構上僅針對兩種極端的衝突類型進行優化:即小型、專業化的「小規模戰爭」,或是需要全面社會動員的大規模「全面戰爭」。核心發現指出,當民主國家面對「中等規模戰爭」時,會面臨一種獨特的戰略弱點。這類衝突的破壞力足以造成巨大傷亡,但其範圍又過於有限,無法觸發動員整個後方的必要性,從而產生了深刻的兩難困境。這種結構性不匹配暗示,現代民主國家可能難以應對介於有限戰爭與全面戰爭之間的衝突,這將對戰略規劃和軍事準備狀態產生影響。

Related Entries

  1. 1.
    2026-11-07 | defense | 2026-W45 | Topics: Indo-Pacific, Middle East, United States

    The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.

    Read at Foreign Affairs

  2. 2.
    2026-11-07 | middle_east | 2026-W45 | Topics: China, Middle East, Nuclear, Russia, Taiwan, Trade, Ukraine, United States

    The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.

    Read at Foreign Affairs

  3. 3.
    2026-11-07 | economy | 2026-W45 | Topics: China, Europe, Trade

    China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.

    Read at Foreign Affairs

  4. 4.

    The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.

    Read at Foreign Affairs

  5. 5.
    2026-10-30 | defense | 2026-W44 | Topics: Europe, NATO, Nuclear, Russia, Ukraine, United States

    The article argues that the Nordic model of deep, regional military cooperation (minilateralism) provides a crucial blueprint for sustaining NATO's collective defense against escalating Russian threats. This success is evidenced by the Nordic states' transition from cost-saving measures to a unified security imperative, establishing integrated command structures and specialized regional roles. Policy-wise, the report urges NATO to replicate this regionalization approach in other frontline areas, such as the Baltic and Black Seas. Establishing these subregional 'deterrence clusters' would enhance local response capabilities, strengthen the alliance's overall posture, and provide a vital hedge against potential paralysis of the main NATO structure.

    Read at Foreign Affairs