Hard Balancing in the Age of American Unipolarity: The Russian Response to US Ballistic Missile Defense during the Bush Administration (2001–2008)

Bibliography

• ‘The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty at a Glance’, <http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty>.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, Gerard and Keir Lieber, ‘Waiting for Balancing: Why the World is Not Pushing Back’, International Security 30/1 (Summer 2005), 109–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonenko, Oksana, ‘Russia, NATO, and European Security after Kosovo’, Survival 41/4 (Winter 1999–2000), 124–44.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, Richard K., ‘The Three Faces of NATO’, National Interest No. 100 ( March/April 2009), 31–8.
   Google Scholar
• Blank, Stephen, ‘The Chinese Reaction and Asian Impact on Russian Nuclear Policy’, Defense & Security Analysis 28/2 (March 2012), 36–54.
   Google Scholar
• Boese, Wade, ‘News Analysis: BMD Five Years after the ABM Treaty’, Arms Control Today 37/5 ( June 2007), 30–4.
   Google Scholar
• Boese, Wade, ‘Russia Halts Missile Launch Notices’, Arms Control Today 38/2 ( March 2008), 46.
   Google Scholar
• British Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Russia Restarts Cold War Patrols’, 17 Aug. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• British Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Russia to Upgrade Nuclear Systems’, 26 Sept. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, Stephen G. and William C. Wohlforth, World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy (Princeton UP).
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, Stephen G. and William C. Wohlforth, ‘Hard Times for Soft Balancing’, International Security 30/1 (Summer 2005), 72–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchan, Glenn, David M. Matonick, Calvin Shipbaugh, and Richard Mesic, Future Roles of US Nuclear Forces: Implications for US Strategy (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Bush, George W., Statement on New Leadership on National Security, Disarmament Diplomacy No. 46 (May 2000), <www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd46/46bush.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, George W., State of the Union Address, Washington DC, 20 Jan. 2004, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_012004.html>.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, George W., Decision Points (New York: Crown 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Cimbala, Stephen J., ‘Strategic Reassurance in a Proliferation-Permissive World: American and Russian Options’, Defense & Security Analysis 22/3 (2006), 221–39.
   Google Scholar
• Cimbala, Stephen, ‘Minimum Deterrence and Missile Defenses: What’s New, What’s True, What’s Arguable’, Defense & Security Analysis 28/1 (2012), 65–80.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Stephen, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia (New York: W.W. Norton 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Stephen, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives (New York: Columbia UP 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Copeland, Dale, ‘The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review Essay’, International Security 25/2 (Fall 2000), 187–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copeland, Dale, ‘A Realist Critique of the English School’, Review of International Studies 29/3 (July 2003), 427–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, Timothy, ‘Wedge Strategy, Balancing, and the Deviant Case of Spain’, Security Studies 17/1 (2008), 1–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, Timothy, ‘Preventing Enemy Coalitions: How Wedge Strategies Shape Power Politics’, International Security 35/4 (Spring 2011), 155–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, Christopher, ‘Country Survey XV: The Defence Sector in the Economy of a Declining Superpower: Soviet Union and Russia, 1965–2001’, Defence and Peace Economics 13/3 (June 2002), 145–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review (Washington DC 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington DC 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report (Washington DC 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Eckholm, Eric, ‘The World: Missile Wars: What America Calls a Defense, China Calls an Offense’, New York Times 2 July 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Fearon, James D., ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’, International Organization 49/3 (Summer 1995), 379–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, Huiyun and Kai He, ‘If Not Soft Balancing, Then What? Reconsidering Soft Balancing and US Policy Toward China’, Security Studies 17/2 (2008), 363-395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feffer, John, ‘An Arms Race in Asia?’, Asian Perspective 33/4 (2009), 5–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetter, Steve and Charles Glaser, ‘National Missile Defense and the Future of US Nuclear Weapons Policy’, International Security 26/1 (Summer 2001), 40–91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, Peter, ‘Russia Alleges US “Rollback” on Anti-Missile Plan’, Washington Post, 6 Dec. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 3rd ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Garnett, Sherman W., John Edwin Mroz and John E. Tedstrom, Toward the Common Good: Building a New US-Russian Relationship (New York: East West Institute 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Gates, Secretary of Defense Robert, ‘Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in the 21st Century’, Speech at the Carnegie Endownment for International Peace, 28 Oct. 2008. See text of speech at <http://carnegieendowment.org/files/1028_transcrip_gates_checked.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, Bradley, Hit to Kill: The New Battle Over Shielding America from Missile Attack (New York: Public Affairs 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, Charles L., Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy (Princeton UP 1990).
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, Charles L., ‘The Security Dilemma Revisited’, World Politics 50/1 (Oct. 1997), 171–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, Charles L., Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation (Princeton UP 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Godzimirski, Jakub M., ‘Russian National Security Concepts 1997 and 2000: A Comparative Analysis’, European Security 9/4 (Winter 2000), 74–94.
   Google Scholar
• He, Kai, ‘Undermining Adversaries: Unipolarity, Threat Perception, and Negative Balancing Strategies after the Cold War’, Security Studies 21/ 2 (2012), 154–91.
   Google Scholar
• Herz, John, ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’, World Politics 2/2 (Jan. 1950), 157–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynek, Nik and Vit Stritecky, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Site of Ballistic BMD’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 43/2 ( June 2010), 179–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, John G., ‘America’s Imperial Temptation’, Foreign Affairs 81/5 ( Sept./Oct. 2002), 44–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Institute for Strategic Studies, ‘Chapter Five: Russia’, The Military Balance 2012 (London: Routledge for IISS 2012), 183–204.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanov, Sergei, ‘ Russia’s “ABM-for-Europe” Plan: Remarks by Foreign Minister Ivanov’, Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 54 (Feb. 2001), <www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd54/54abm.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, Robert, ‘Cooperation under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics 30/2 (Jan. 1978), 167–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jervis, Robert, ‘Realism, Game Theory and Co-operation’, World Politics 40/3 ( April 1988), 317–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jervis, Robert, ‘Understanding the Bush Doctrine’, Political Science Quarterly 118/3 (Fall 2003), 365–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jervis, Robert, ‘Unipolarity: A Structural Perspective’, World Politics 61/1 (Jan. 2009), 188–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joint Statement by the Presidents of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, 18 July 2000, <www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/missile-defense/history/joint-statement-china-russia.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Khoo, Nicholas, Collateral Damage: Sino-Soviet Rivalry and the Termination of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance (New York: Columbia UP 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Kimball, Daryl and Miles Pomper, ‘A Fresh Start? An Interview with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Russian Ambassador to the United States’, Arms Control Today 38/10 ( Dec. 2008), 6-12.
   Google Scholar
• Kissinger, Henry, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster 1994).
   Google Scholar
• Knopf, Jeffrey W., ‘Varieties of Assurance’, Journal of Strategic Studies 35/3 (June 2012), 375–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krauthammer, Charles, ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs 70/1 (1990/91), 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Krauthammer, Charles, ‘Revisiting the Unipolar Moment’, National Interest 70 (Winter 2002–03), 5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Lantis, Jeffrey S., ‘Correspondence: The Short Shadow of Nuclear Primacy’, International Security 31/3 ( Winter 2006/07), 174–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layne, Christopher, ‘The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security 17/4 (Spring 1993), 5–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layne, Christopher, ‘The War on Terrorism and the Balance of Power: The Paradoxes of American Hegemony’, in T.V. Paul, James Wirtz, and Michael Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford UP 2004), 102–26.
   Google Scholar
• Layne, Christopher, Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Layne, Christopher, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment’, International Security 31/2 (Fall 2006), 7–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Layne, Christopher, ‘This Time it’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana’, International Studies Quarterly 56/1 (March 2012), 203–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Jack S., ‘Balances and Balancing: Concepts, Propositions, and Research Design’, in John A. Vasquez and Colin Elman (eds), Realism and the Balancing of Power: A New Debate (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 2002), 128–53.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, Jeffrey and John Steinbruner, ‘The Unsettled Legacy of the Cold War’, Daedalus 131/4 (Fall 2002), 5–10.
   Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A., War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP 2005).
   Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A., ‘Grasping the Technological Peace: The Offense-Defense Balance and International Security’, International Security 25/1 (2000), 71–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press, ‘The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy’, International Security, 30/4 ( Spring 2006), 7–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press, ‘The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy’, Foreign Affairs 85/2 ( March/April 2006), 42–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press, ‘Correspondence: The Short Shadow of Nuclear Primacy’, International Security 31/3 ( Winter 2006/07), 185–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press, ‘US Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent’, China Security (Winter 2007), 66-89.
   Google Scholar
• Lieber, Keir A. and Daryl G. Press, ‘The New Era of Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence and Conflict’, Strategic Studies Quarterly 7 (Spring 2013), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, James, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking 2004).
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, David S., Nuclear Superiority: The New Triad and the Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Adelphi Papers 46/383 (London: IISS 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, John, Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Menon, Rajan, ‘The Limits of Sino-Russian Partnership’, Survival 51/3 (June-July 2009), 99–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monteiro, Nuno, ‘Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful’, International Security 36/3 ( Winter 2011/12), 9–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, Patrick, Deterrence: A Conceptual Analysis (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications 1983).
   Google Scholar
• Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill 1967).
   Google Scholar
• National Missile Defense Act of 1999, 1st Session, 106th Congress of the United States, <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106s269pcs/pdf/BILLS-106s269pcs.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• National Security Presidential Directive 23, White House, 16 Dec. 2002, <https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-23.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• National Security Concept of the Russian Federation, 1999, <www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Neilan, Terence, ‘Bush Pulls out of ABM Treaty – Putin Calls Move a Mistake’, New York Times, 13 Dec. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Nesirky, Martin, ‘Interview – Russian General Slams US on Missile Plan’, Reuters, 14 Feb. 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Pape, Robert, ‘Soft Balancing Against the US’, International Security 30/1 (Summer 2005), 7–45.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, T.V., ‘The Enduring Axioms of Balance of Power Theory and Their Contemporary Relevance’, in T.V. Paul, James Wirtz, and Michael Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford UP 2004), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, T.V., ‘Soft Balancing in the Age of US Primacy’, International Security 30/1 (Summer 2005), 46–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, Secretary of State Colin, Prepared statement and testimony, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office 2002), <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg81339/html/CHRG-107shrg81339.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (Washington DC: Sept. 2000), 1–90.
   Google Scholar
• Public Broadcasting Service, Frontline interview with Paul Wolfowitz on 12 June 2002, <www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/interviews/wolfowitz.html>.
   Google Scholar
• Putin, Vladimir, ‘ Annual Address to the Federal Assembly’, The Kremlin, 10 May 2006, <http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2006/05/10/1823_type70029type82912_105566.shtml>.
   Google Scholar
• Putin, Vladimir, ‘ Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy’, 12 Feb. 2007, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555_pf.html>.
   Google Scholar
• Rathburn, Brian, ‘Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory’, International Studies Quarterly 51/3 ( Sept. 2007), 533–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogin, Josh, ‘Polish Foreign Minister: We’re not Actually Worried about Iranian Missile Threat’, Foreign Policy, 29 April 2010, <http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/29/polish_foreign_minister_we_re_not_actually_worried_about_iranian_missile_threat>.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, Douglas Alan, ‘Nuclear Weapons and American Grand Strategy: Essential Pillar of Terminal Liability’, International Journal 63/4 (Autumn 2008), 847–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, Mark B., Testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, US House of Representatives, ‘The Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China’, 14 Oct. 2011, <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/../CHRG-112hhrg71449.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Schweller, Randall, ‘Neo-Realism’s Status Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?’, Security Studies 5/3 ( March 1996), 116–19.
   Google Scholar
• Schweller, Randall L. and Xiaoyu Pu, ‘After Unipolarity, China’s Vision of International Order in an Era of US Decline’, International Security 36/1 (Summer 2011), 41–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sechser, Todd S., ‘Goliath’s Curse: Coercive Threats and Asymmetric Power’, International Organization 64/4 (Fall 2010), 627–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sestanovich, Stephen, ‘American Maximalism’, National Interest No. 79 (Spring 2005), 13–23.
   Google Scholar
• Shoumikhin, Andrei, ‘Nuclear Weapons in Russian Strategy and Doctrine’, in Stephen J. Blank (ed.), Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past Present and Future (Carlisle, PA: US Army War College 2011), 99–159.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, Glenn, ‘Mearsheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security’, International Security 27/1 (Summer 2002), 149–73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokov, Nikolai, ‘The Nuclear Debate of Summer 2000’, 1 July 2004, Global Security Newswire, <http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/nuclear-debate-summer-2000/>.
   Google Scholar
• Talbott, Strobe, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb, rev. ed. (Washington DC: Brookings 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Taliaferro, Jeffrey, ‘Seeking Security Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited’, International Security 25/3 (Winter 2000–2001), 128–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, Shiping, ‘The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis’, Security Studies 18/3 (2009), 587–623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utgoff, Victor A., ‘Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions’, Survival 44/2 (Summer 2002), 85–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walt, Stephen, ‘Alliances in a Unipolar World’, World Politics 61/1 (2009), 86-120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill 1979).
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Nuclear Myths and Political Realities’, American Political Science Review 84/3 ( Sept. 1990), 731–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, Kenneth, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18/2 (Fall 1993), 44–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security 25/1 (Summer 2000), 5–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Intimations of Multipolarity’, in Birthe Hansen and Bertel Heurlin (eds), The New World Order: Contrasting Theories (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2000), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlforth, William, ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security 24/2 (Summer 1999), 5–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfowitz, Paul, Prepared Testimony on Ballistic Missile Defense to the Senate Armed Services Committee, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 12 July 2001, <www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=399>.
   Google Scholar
• Woolfe, Amy, US Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues (Washington DC)
   Google Scholar