This is the first integrated analysis of all aspects of security cooperation in western Europe from 1945 to 1991. It provides an accessible yet sophisticated survey of the wider dynamics of security cooperation in each decade throughout this period. It covers all aspects of security cooperation, which range from the political - such as a 'European' voice in arms control, to military - such as a 'European' input into NATO strategy, and economic - involving collaboration in defence technology and production.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.

The development of a European security architecture comprising NATO, the EU, WEU, and the OSCE exemplifies the redefinition of Western values and institutions in the post-Cold War era. The precedents for legitimate intervention in upholding democracy, free markets and human rights in the post-Cold war era are examined from the perspectives of international law and Gramscian-derived concepts of legitimacy focusing on the acceptance of military power by civil society.

NATO's decision to open itself to new members and new missions is one of the most contentious and least understood issues of the post-Cold War world. This book, an unusual and intriguing blend of memoirs and scholarship, takes us back to the decade when those momentous decisions were made. Former senior officials from the United States, Russia, Western and Eastern Europe who were directly involved in the decisions of that time describe their considerations, concerns, and pressures. They are joined by scholars who have been able to draw on newly declassified archival sources to revisit NATO's evolving role in the 1990s.

Europe has undergone quite profound changes since the end of the Cold War. Having been a highly militarised, conflict-ridden and war-ridden region, the core of Europe today constitutes a security community where armed conflicts among the constituent states has become inconceivable. This comprehensive book offers a theoretically founded and thoroughly documented analysis of European security, with a special emphasis on the role played by the United Nations and the various regional and sub-regional organisations, especially the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe and the European Union. When it comes to explaining peace in Europe opinions differ widely. Some argue that it was only because the West refused to give in to Soviet threats that the latter eventually gave up; or that the 'long peace' in Europe was due to the combination of a bipolar alliance structure, pitting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) against the Warsaw Pact, with the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides. Others point instead to the extraordinarily dense network of international institutions and organisations in Europe, offering a wide panoply of fora in which to handle disputes peacefully; or to the web of interdependence in economic and other affairs, tying together all states in Europe in relations which militate strongly against war. Still others believe that the external peace between the states in Europe is simply a reflection of a convergence of cultures, democracies with marked economies that are open towards the world market. These questions are the focal point of this book, which concentrates on security, albeit not in the sense of being a treatise on military matters, but security obtainable by much more indirect and non-military means. It will be required reading for all students and scholars of European security and the organisations which underpin it.

The optimistic vision of a “Europe whole and free” after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has given way to disillusionment, bitterness, and renewed hostility between Russia and the West. In No Place for Russia, William H. Hill traces the development of the post–Cold War European security order to explain today’s tensions, showing how attempts to integrate Russia into a unified Euro-Atlantic security order were gradually overshadowed by the domination of NATO and the EU—at Russia’s expense. Hill argues that the redivision of Europe has been largely unintended and not the result of any single decision or action. Instead, the current situation is the cumulative result of many decisions—reasonably made at the time—that gradually produced the current security architecture and led to mutual mistrust. Hill analyzes the United States’ decision to remain in Europe after the Cold War, the emergence of Germany as a major power on the continent, and the transformation of Russia into a nation-state, placing major weight on NATO’s evolution from an alliance dedicated primarily to static collective territorial defense into a security organization with global ambitions and capabilities. Closing with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and war in eastern Ukraine, No Place for Russia argues that the post–Cold War security order in Europe has been irrevocably shattered, to be replaced by a new and as-yet-undefined order.

Contemporary European Security explores the complex European security architecture and introduces students to the empirical, theoretical and conceptual approaches to studying the subject. Written by experts in each subfield, it addresses key topics within the wider strategic context of international security. Presenting traditional and critical debates to illuminate this ever-changing field it addresses specifically: European security since 2000 and the end of the Cold War. The evolution of International Relations theories in understanding security in Europe. The role of NATO in the post-war period and its strategy, impact and enlargement. The institutionalisation of the CSCE and the political tensions within the OSCE. The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy and recent policy initiatives in defence. Feminist conceptions of European security. European military innovation. Security challenges in the post-Soviet space and the growing instability in the Middle East and North Africa. The emergence of human security. Internal and societal security. This essential textbook will be of key interests to students and scholars of European Security, Security and Military studies, Strategic Studies, European Politics and International Relations.