Lauren Sukin and colleagues show that U.S. restraint in the Russo-Ukrainian reassured allies and partners more than displays of force. Based on novel data from a survey of 27 250 people in 24 countries, the study finds that caution and indirect support boosted trust, challenging assumptions favoring military resolve.
Zuzana Krulichová’s new article in Cooperation and Conflict reviews narrative approaches in IR, distinguishing between agency-centric and structure-centric perspectives. She calls for more focus on their interaction, noting that longitudinal or historical studies could sharpen analysis and theory.
Michal Smetana, Marek Vranka, and Ondřej Rosendorf explore public support for arms control in the third nuclear age, arguing its complexity lowers awareness. People rely on simple heuristics, making opinions elastic and open to “elite cues” from experts and politicians shaping attitudes.
Do rivalries with major powers undermine global arms control? Tobias Risse reveals how power imbalances shape negotiations, discouraging non-major powers from supporting arms control when pitted against stronger rivals. His analysis uncovers a crucial role of power relations in arms control negotiations.
Our researcher Lucie Kadlecová and Viktor Paggio published an article titled Russia’s Weak Spots in Cyber Sovereignty: How the West Can Keep Russian Citizens’ Access to Online Information Free from the Kremlin Interference. It summarizes how Russia pushes its take on cyber sovereignty and which aspects these initiatives lack.
This article from Dr. Rob Geist Pinfold examines Israel’s intelligence failures and successes in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. It distinguishes between occasional (intelligence assessments) and causal factors (structural and political inputs). Critically, it illustrates that Israel’s intelligence agencies deferred to the prevailing, but incorrect, assumptions and short-sighted policy priorities set by the Prime Minister’s Office. The authors also explore the over-reliance on technical intelligence, the lack of structural reform and the militarised nature of Israel’s intelligence cycle.
How do Russians really feel about using nuclear weapons after the invasion of Ukraine? Despite constant threats from the Kremlin and rising global tensions, support for a nuclear strike against NATO has barely shifted. This study from Michal Smetana and Michal Onderčo uncovers why public opinion has stayed so stable.
Our newest study from Michal Onderčo finds that geographic proximity significantly influences public support for aiding friendly nations under attack. Using survey experiments in Japan and Czechia, they show that people are more likely to support military and non-military interventions when the conflict is perceived as nearby. While Japanese respondents strongly supported aid to Taiwan, Czech support declined for distant crises. The study highlights that perceived distance, not just actual geography, shapes public opinion, with important implications for international alliances and crisis response planning.
