FALL 2023
|
67
MIKKEL STORM JENSEN
INTRODUCTION
“I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to
interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in
our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must
know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as
you have never seen in your entire history.”
- Vladimir Putin’s speech when Russian forces invaded Ukraine February 24, 2022.
P
utin’s threat to escalate the war in Ukraine in response to external interference
presents a timely reason to reconsider who has the military means to trigger
escalation and perhaps draw allies into the conflict. In 1984, Glenn H. Snyder
wrote an analysis of states’ dilemmas in alliances with this issue at its core that
has demonstrably had excellent explanatory and predictive power.
1
In the Cold War’s
technological strategic context of nuclear and conventional military means, he found
that: “In general, entrapment is a more serious concern for the lesser allies than for the
superpowers […] because the superpowers have a much greater capacity for taking ini-
tiatives (notably nuclear initiatives).”
2
In NATO, the US controls much of the alliance’s conventional military capabilities
and most of its nuclear weapons. Applying Snyder’s analysis, this vests the US with a
sufficient level of control over NATO’s crisis management, to minimize the US’ risk of en-
trapment in conflicts. Emergence of cyberspace
3
as a new venue for military operations
© 2023 Dr. Mikkel Storm Jensen
US Allies Offensive Cyber:
Entrapment Risk or
Entanglement Nuisance
Major Mikkel Storm Jensen, Ph.D.
