Notes:
[1] President Vladmir Putin, National Security of the Russian Federation (Russian Federation, 2021), 3, 17.
[2] President Joseph R Biden Jr, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (The White House, 2021), 6, 8 , 14.
[3] President Donald J. Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (The White House, 2017), 25.
[4] Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History, 2nd edition (Abingdon, UK : New York: Routledge, 2011), 191.
[5] The JP 3-0 uses the conflict continuum to describe the range of military operations from peacetime to wartime activities. The JDN 1-19 reorients the conflict continuum war and peace scale into a world neither at peace nor at war, “the competition continuum describes a world of enduring competition conducted through a mixture of cooperation, competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict.” The Atlantic Council report expands the JDN 1-19 competition continuum concept further by adding specified enemy actions while proposing a U.S. strategy to counter adversary advantages throughout the continuum. DoD, Joint Publication 3-0: Joint Operations (Washington, DC: US GPO, 2018), V–4; DoD, Joint Doctrine Note 1-19: Competition Continuum (Washington, DC: US GPO, 2019); Clementine G. Starling, Tyson Wetzel, and Christian Trottie, “Seizing the Advantage: A Vision for the next US National Defense Strategy” (Atlantic Council, December 22, 2021), 31–46, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/seizing-the-advantage-a-vision-for-the-next-us-national-defense-strategy/.
[6] Colin S. Gray, “Comparative Strategic Culture,” Parameters 14, no. 4 (1984): 27; Ken Booth, “The Concept of Strategic Culture Affirmed,” in Strategic Power: United States of America and the USSR, ed. Carl G Jacobsen (Springer, 1990), 121; John Street, “Political Culture – From Civic Culture to Mass Culture,” British Journal of Political Science 24, no. 1 (1994): 96; Frederick C. Turner, “Reassessing Political Culture,” in Latin America In Comparative Perspective: New Approaches To Methods And Analysis, ed. Peter H. Smith (Boulder: Routledge, 1995), 195; Jeffrey S Lantis, “Strategic Culture: From Clausewitz to Constructivism,” in Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Springer, 2009), 34.
[7] John S. Duffield et al., “Isms and Schisms: Culturalism versus Realism in Security Studies,” International Security 24, no. 1 (1999): 156–80; John S. Duffield, “Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism,” International Organization 53, no. 4 (ed 1999): 768–69; John Glenn, “Realism versus Strategic Culture: Competition and Collaboration?,” International Studies Review 11, no. 3 (2009): 523, 530, 545.
[8] For additional information on the evolution of political and strategic culture, respectively, see Camelia Florela Voinea, “Political Culture Research: Dilemmas and Trends. Prologue to the Special Issue,” Quality & Quantity 54, no. 2 (April 1, 2020): 361–82; Anand V., “Revisiting the Discourse on Strategic Culture: An Assessment of the Conceptual Debates,” Strategic Analysis 44, no. 3 (May 3, 2020): 193–207.
[9] Michael C Desch, “Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies,” International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 150–52; Duffield, “Political Culture and State Behavior,” 773–74; Colin S. Gray, “Out of the Wilderness: Prime-Time for Strategic Culture” (Washington, D.C: U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, July 2006), ii, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA521640; Antulio J. Echevarria, “Strategic Culture: More Problems Than Prospects,” Infinity Journal 3, no. 2 (2013): 41; V., “Revisiting the Discourse on Strategic Culture,” 193; Antulio J. Echevarria, “Colin Gray and The Paradox of Strategic Culture: Critical but Unknowable,” Comparative Strategy 40, no. 2 (March 4, 2021): 174.
[10] Colin S. Gray, “Strategy and Culture,” in Strategy in Asia: The Past, Present, and Future of Regional Security, ed. Thomas G. Mahnken and Dan Blumenthal, 1st edition (Stanford, California: Stanford Security Studies, 2014), 92–93.
[11] Echevarria, “Colin Gray and the Paradox of Strategic Culture,” 175.
[12] Snyder’s strategic culture definition was tailored toward nuclear strategy. However, removing that portion of Snyder’s description does not detract from his assessment of strategic culture’s consistency. Jack L. Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations” (RAND Corporation, January 1, 1977), 8.
[13] Stephen Peter Rosen, Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies (Cornell University Press, 1996), 17.
[14] Andrew Scobell, China’s Use of Military Force: Beyond the Great Wall and the Long March (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 2.
[15] Gray, 22.
[16] Colin Gray, Nuclear Strategy and National Style (Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1986), 35–39; Booth, “The Concept of Strategic Culture Affirmed,” 126; Eric Herring, “Nuclear Totem and Taboo: Or How We Learned to Stop Loving the Bomb and Start Worrying,” 1997, 11.
[17] Colin S. Gray, “Out of the Wilderness: Prime Time for Strategic Culture,” in Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Culturally Based Insights into Comparative National Security Policymaking, ed. Kerry M. Kartchner, Jeannie L. Johnson, and Jeffrey A. Larsen (Springer, 2009), 223–27.
[18] Gray, 227, 231.
[19] Strategic culture is a non-linear ecosystem that typically evolves slowly. However, since each antecedent is modulated by some variable, the significance or impact of that variable could dramatically revise the output of a nation’s strategic culture.
[20] The JP 3-0 uses the conflict continuum to describe the range of military operations from peacetime to wartime activities. The JDN 1-19 reorients the conflict continuum war and peace scale into a world neither at peace nor at war, “the competition continuum describes a world of enduring competition conducted through a mixture of cooperation, competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict.” The Atlantic Council report expands the JDN 1-19 competition continuum concept further by adding specified enemy actions while proposing a U.S. strategy to counter adversary advantages throughout the continuum. DoD, JP 3-0: Joint Operations, V–4; DoD, JDN 1-19: Competition Continuum; Starling, Wetzel, and Trottie, “Seizing the Advantage,” 31–46.
[21] Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.
[22] Clausewitz, 104.
[23] Clausewitz, 119.
[24] The Egyptians did not have a word for “war” or “peace.” Instead, they referred to “war” as “campaign, battle, or army, while “peace” equated to “quietness, satisfaction, or mercy.” Susanne Bickel, “Concepts of Peace in Ancient Egypt,” in Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 48–49, 54–55.
[25] Johannes Bronkhorst, “Thinking about Peace in Ancient India,” in Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 87–88.
[26] Robin D. S. Yates, “Searching for Peace in the Warring States: Philosophical Debates and the Management of Violence in Early China,” in Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 108.
[27] Yates, 112.
[28] Sun Tzu, The Illustrated Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith, The Definitive English Translation by Samuel B. Griffith (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 91.
[29] Kurt A. Raaflaub, “Greek Concepts and Theories of Peace,” in Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 126.
[30] Raaflaub, 130, 142–44.
[31] Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third (JHU Press, 2016), 2.
[32] Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Harvard University Press, 2011), 58.
[33] Clausewitz conceded this point as well, stating “the ultimate outcome of a war is not always to be regarded as final. The defeated state often considers the outcome merely as a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at some later date.” Clausewitz, On War, 80.
[34] Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 257.
[35] Tzu, The Illustrated Art of War, 115; Basil Henry Liddell Hart, Strategy, 2nd rev. ed (New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Meridian, 1991), 5, 324–27.
[36] Liddell Hart, Strategy, 322.
[37] Liddell Hart, 322.
[38] Tzu, The Illustrated Art of War, 115.
[39] Tzu, 106; Liddell Hart, Strategy, 338; Clausewitz, On War, 96.
[40] Liddell Hart, Strategy, 352.
[41] Stephen Possony, “A Century of Conflict: Communist Techniques of World Revolution,” in The Communist Conspiracy: Strategy and Tactics of World Communism, by United States Congress. House Committee on Un-American Activities, vol. 1 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956), 19; Jacob W. Kipp, “The Other Side of the Hill: Soviet Military Foresight and Forecasting,” in Soviet Strategy and The New Military Thinking, ed. Derek Leebaert and Timothy Dickinson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 250–51.
[42] Possony, “A Century of Conflict: Communist Techniques of World Revolution,” 20.
[43] Nathan Leites, The Operational Code of the Politburo (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1951), 31.
[44] Leites, 76.
[45] Ofer Fridman, Russian Hybrid Warfare Resurgence & Policisation, eBook (London, 2018), chap. 2.
[46] Max Boot, War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today (Penguin, 2006), 13–15.
[47] Fridman, Russian Hybrid Warfare Resurgence & Policisation, 64.
[48] Maine, Sir H. J. S. 1888. International Law: A Series of Lectures Delivered before the University of Cambridge. Cambridge, 8; Quoted in: Hans Van Wees, “Broadening the Scope: Thinking about Peace in the Pre-Modern World,” in Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 158.
[49] Michael Howard, The Invention of Peace: Reflections on War and International Order (Yale University Press, 2000), 29–31.
[50] In their landmark The Puzzle of Peace, Goertz et al. analyzed six indicators to construct a framework measuring positive-peace relationships. The number, prominence, and degree to which states handle disputed issues determine placement along the continuum, with “severe rivals” and “security cooperation relationships” serving as the poles. The four interrelated characteristics were: 1) absence of major territorial claims, 2) institutions for conflict management, 3) high levels of functional interdependence, and 4) satisfaction with the status quo. In severe rivalry relationships, each state views the other as an enemy or competitor, leading to an extent threat of war, and driving both to prepare for its occurrence. In contrast to rivalries, negative peace is somewhat of a no-man’s land. Within this category, relationships may take on the appearance of rivalries or friendships. The absence of major territorial claims, the establishment of institutions for conflict management, high levels of functional interdependence, and satisfaction with the status quo characterize the “positive peace zone.” In this relationship, war or the use of military force between members is unthinkable or has a zero probability of occurring. Gary Goertz, Paul F. Diehl, and Alexandru Balas, The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System, 1st edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
[51] President Harry S Truman, Inaugural Address of Harry S. Truman (Washington, D.C.: Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library, 1949), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/truman.asp.
[52] Putin’s Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security (Simon and Schuster, 2018), 43.
[53] Mariya Zheleznova and Nikolay Epple. 2016. “Pens of the Motherland: Why High-Ranking Officials Are Fighting the United States in the Russian Media.” Vedemosti. April 18, 2016. Quoted in: Graeme P. Herd, Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior: Imperial Strategic Culture and Putin’s Operational Code (London: Routledge, 2022), 98.
[54] Biden Jr, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, 6, 11, 13, 16–17, 20; Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 17, 22, 31, 40–41, 46; President Barack H. Obama, National Security Strategy (The White House, 2015), i–ii, 15.
[55] Dexter Perkins, “The Moralistic Interpretation of American Foreign Policy,” in A Reader in American Foreign Policy, by James M. McCormick (Itasca, IL: Peacock, 1986), 21.
[56] James M. McCormick, “Diplomatic History,” in Routledge Handbook of American Foreign Policy, ed. Steven W. Hook and Christopher M. Jones, 1st edition (New York, NY: Routledge, 2013), 22.
[57] Putin, National Security of the Russian Federation, para. 19.
[58] Keir Giles, Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West (Washington, D.C.; London: Brookings Inst. Press/Chatham House, 2019), 109.
[59] Giles, 112.
[60] Ashish Kumar Sen, “Mr. Putin’s Lies Hiding in Plain Sight,” Atlantic Council (blog), May 28, 2015, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/mr-putin-s-lies-hiding-in-plain-sight/.
[61] Christopher Bort, “Why The Kremlin Lies: Understanding Its Loose Relationship With the Truth,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed February 1, 2022, https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/06/why-kremlin-lies-understanding-its-loose-relationship-with-truth-pub-86132.
[62] Nicolai N. Petro, “Russia’s Moral Framework and Why It Matters,” The National Interest (The Center for the National Interest, September 24, 2015), https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia%E2%80%99s-moral-framework-why-it-matters-13923.
[63] Ofer Fridman, “The Russian Mindset and War: Between Westernizing the East and Easternizing the West,” in Special Issue on Strategic Culture, ed. Jeannie Johnson (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University Press, 2022), 31.
[64] “By Enlarging NATO, West ‘Spat Upon’ Russia’s Interests Despite Good Relations, Putin Says,” TASS, June 9, 2021.
[65] U.S. White House, “Fact Sheet: President Bush’s Accomplishments in 2005,” accessed November 2, 2021, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051222-2.html.
[66] Herd, Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior, 58; Miroław Minkina and Malina Kaszuba, “Color Revolutions as a Threat to Security of the Ressian Federation: The Analysis of Russian Perspective,” Torun International Studies 1, no. 14 (2021): 80.
[67] “Putin Warns of ‘quick and Tough’ Response to Any Provocation by the West,” France 24, April 21, 2021, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210421-putin-warns-of-quick-and-tough-response-to-any-provocation-by-the-west.
[68] Oscar Jonsson, The Russian Understanding of War: Blurring the Lines Between War and Peace, 2019, 2.
[69] Volodymyr Yermolenko, “The New Russian Attack on Ukraine: Is It Real?,” Explaining Ukraine, accessed December 15, 2021, https://soundcloud.com/user-579586558/ep-58.
[70] Stalin, Joseph, Sochineniya, Institut Marksa-Engelsa-Lenina pri TsK VKP(b), Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Politicheskoi Literaturi, Moscow, 1948, 167-168. Quoted in: Leites, The Operational Code of the Politburo, 85; Jonsson, The Russian Understanding of War, 41.
[71] Mark Galeotti, “Controlling Chaos: How Russia Manages Its Political War in Europe,” European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR), September 1, 2017, 8–10; Michael Kofman, “A Comparative Guide to Russia’s Use of Force: Measure Twice, Invade Once,” War on the Rocks, February 16, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/a-comparative-guide-to-russias-use-of-force-measure-twice-invade-once/.
[72] Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, 58.
[73] Paul F. Diehl, “Exploring Peace: Looking Beyond War and Negative Peace,” International Studies Quarterly 60, no. 1 (March 1, 2016): 1.
[74] Goertz, Diehl, and Balas, The Puzzle of Peace, 36; Herbert Kelman, “Transforming the Relationship Between Former Enemies: A Social-Psychological Analysis,” in After the Peace: Resistance and Reconciliation, ed. Robert L. Rothstein (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999), 197; Benjamin Miller, “Hot Wars, Cold Peace,” in War in a Changing World, ed. Zeev Maoz and Azar Gat (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 100.
[75] According to the Hobbesian world view, great-power states are the “guardians” or “custodians” of the international order and maintain powerful militaries. Similar to the concept of “suzerainty,” guardian powers limit the external sovereignty of non-incorporated states in their empire or alliance while allowing “almost complete” autonomy in internal matters. In a Hobbesian world, all states are sovereign; some are just more sovereign than others. Additionally, Bull argues that great powers are recognized as such and have the right to help determine the international system’s peace and security issues. Moreover, great powers preserve the international order’s balance by preventing the emergence of a hegemon. In the Hobbesian tradition, states, especially great powers, are unencumbered by moral or legal restrictions while pursing goals and interests. Hedley Bull, Andrew Hurrell, and Stanley Hoffman, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 4th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 17, 24, 97, 195–96, 201; E. Wayne Merry, “The Origins of Russia’s War in Ukraine: The Clash of Russian and European ‘Civilizational Choices’ for Ukraine,” in Roots of Russia’s War in Ukraine, ed. Elizabeth Wood et al. (Washington, D.C; New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press / Columbia University Press, 2015), 28–31.
[76] Hobbes saw humankind’s existence as “poor, nasty, [and] brutish,” people must divest their liberties to a sovereign authority to “prevent Discord and Civil War.” Hobbes viewed the world as being in a perpetual state of war, stating, “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” Thomas Hobbes, Hobbes: Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck, 2nd Revised Student Edition (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 88-89, 125.
[77] David R. Jones, “Soviet Strategic Culture,” in Strategic Power: United States of America and the USSR, ed. Carl G Jacobsen (Springer, 1990), 35.
[78] Marlene Laruelle, Russian Nationalism, Foreign Policy and Identity Debates in Putin’s Russia: New Ideological Patterns after the Orange Revolution (Columbia University Press, 2014), 7–8.
[79] For a more thorough reading on Locke’s views on the social contract, see John Locke, Locke: Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett, Student Edition (Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 271, 287–88, 336, 344, 362, 384–85.
[80] William R. Emerson, “American Concepts of Peace and War,” Naval War College Review 10, no. 9 (1958): 3.
[81] Theo Farrell, “Strategic Culture and American Empire,” The SAIS Review of International Affairs 25, no. 2 (2005): 5, 12; Colin Dueck, “Hegemony on the Cheap: Liberal Internationalism from Wilson to Bush,” World Policy Journal 20, no. 4 (2003): 1–11; Thomas G. Mahnken, “United States Strategic Culture,” in Comparative Strategic Cultures Curriculum Project: Assessing Strategic Culture as a Methodological Approach to Understanding WMD Decision-Making by States and Non-State Actors, ed. Jeffrey A. Larsen (McLean, VA: Science Application International Corporation, 2006), 6–7, 9, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA521640.
[82] Mahnken, “United States Strategic Culture,” 6; Dominic Tierney, “How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires, and the American Way of War – Foreign Policy Research Institute,” November 6, 2010, chap. 1.
[83] Clausewitz, On War, 69, 87; Joseph Caldwell Wylie Jr, Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control (Naval Institute Press, 2014), chap. 7; The Principles of Strategy for An Independent Corps or Army in a Theater of Operations (Ft. Leavenworth, KS: Command and General Staff School Press, 1936).
[84] Emerson, “American Concepts of Peace and War,” 5.
[85] Michael J Boyle and Anthony F Lang Jr, “Remaking the World in America’s Image: Surprise, Strategic Culture, and the American Ways of Intervention,” Foreign Policy Analysis 17, no. 2 (2021): 1.
[86] Boyle and Lang Jr, 1–7.
[87] Farrell, “Strategic Culture and American Empire,” 5.
[88] Reşat Bayer, “Peaceful Transitions and Democracy,” Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 5 (September 1, 2010): 542.
[89] Bayer, 542.
[90] Colin S. Gray, Fighting Talk: Forty Maxims on War, Peace, and Strategy (Washington, D.C: Potomac Books, 2009), 58.
[91] Depending on where a reader pulls Clausewitz’s “continuation of policy” quote from On War, a reader will see “policy by other means” or “policy with other means.” Clausewitz, On War, 69, 87; James R. Holmes, “Everything You Know About Clausewitz Is Wrong,” accessed November 4, 2021, https://thediplomat.com/2014/11/everything-you-know-about-clausewitz-is-wrong/.
[92] Clausewitz, On War, 153.
[93] David Kilcullen, “Strategic Culture,” in The Culture of Military Organizations, ed. Peter R. Mansoor and Williamson Murray (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 51–52.
[94] Hon. William M. Thornberry et al., “The Evolution of Hybrid Warfare and Key Challenges,” Statement before the House Armed Services Committee 22 (2017): 5.
[95] Clausewitz, On War, 75, 184.
[96] Gray, “Out of the Wilderness: Prime Time for Strategic Culture,” 231.
[97] Colin S. Gray, “British and American Strategic Cultures” (Paper prepared for the symposium, Democracies in Partnership: 400 Years of Transatlantic Engagement, Williamsburg, VA, April 18, 2007), 7; Jeannie L. Johnson, The Marines, Counterinsurgency, and Strategic Culture: Lessons Learned and Lost in America’s Wars (Georgetown University Press, 2018), 17.
[98] Gray, “Out of the Wilderness: Prime Time for Strategic Culture,” 231.
[99] Lantis, “Strategic Culture: From Clausewitz to Constructivism,” 44–45; Heiko Biehl, Bastian Giegerich, and Alexandra Jonas, eds., Strategic Cultures in Europe: Security and Defence Policies Across the Continent, vol. 13 (Potsdam, Germany: Springer VS, 2013), 12–13; Gray, “Out of the Wilderness: Prime Time for Strategic Culture,” 232, 236.
[100] In the American case, examples include, but are not limited to: WWI, WW2, the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Restore Hope, September 11th, 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the Russian case, examples include, but are not limited to: WW1, the Bolshevik Revolution, WW2, the Berlin blockade, Cuban Missile Crisis, Afghanistan, fall of the Soviet Union, Chechnyan Wars, Color Revolutions, Russo-Georgia conflict, supporting Assad regime in Syria, Annexation of Crimea, and current Russo-Ukrainian War. Kerry M. Kartchner, Jeannie L. Johnson, and Jeffrey A. Larsen, eds., “Introduction,” in Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Culturally Based Insights into Comparative National Security Policymaking (Springer, 2009), 6.
[101] Lantis, “Strategic Culture: From Clausewitz to Constructivism,” 45.
[102] Johnson, The Marines, Counterinsurgency, and Strategic Culture, 16.
[103] Lloyd J. Austin III, Fact Sheet: 2022 National Defense Strategy (U.S. Department of Defense, 2022), https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/28/2002964702/-1/-1/1/NDS-FACT-SHEET.PDF.
[104] Jeannie L. Johnson, “Conclusion: Toward a Standard Methodolical Approach,” in Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Culturally Based Insights into Comparative National Security Policymaking, ed. Kerry M. Kartchner, Jeannie L. Johnson, and Jeffrey A. Larsen (Springer, 2009), 244.
[105] Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence: With a New Preface and Afterword, Revised edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 23, 35.
