Keywords
conventional strategy
coercive diplomacy
military power
Expected Utility Theory
How to Cite
Abstract
Coercion through the threat or application of force, alongside other hybrid tactics, plays a critical role in shaping adversaries’ decisions and influencing geopolitical dynamics. This paper explores how state actors utilize military intimidation, targeted kinetic actions, and strategic positioning to weaken opponents, deter retaliation, and create favorable conditions for broader hybrid operations. Focusing on the South Caucasus within a broader geopolitical context, the study examines historical and contemporary cases to assess the effectiveness, implications, and countermeasures associated with coercive force in hybrid and conventional warfare. By analyzing these dynamics, the research aims to provide a deeper understanding of how coercion is employed as a strategic tool and the ways in which targeted states respond to such threats. It highlights the strategic calculations, effectiveness, and risks associated with coercion as a tool of statecraft. The findings demonstrate that coercion, whether through threats or direct force, is shaped by factors such as power asymmetry, international response, and the credibility of deterrent measures. By understanding the complexities of coercion, policymakers and scholars can better anticipate the risks and opportunities associated with its use in contemporary international relations.
References
Arendt H. (1970), On Violence, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego–New York–London.
Art R. J., Cronin P. M. (eds.) (2003), The United States and coercive diplomacy, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC.
Bergaust J. C., Sellevåg, S. R. (2023), Improved conceptualising of hybrid interference below the threshold of armed conflict, “European Security”, 33(2), pp. 169–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2023.2267478
Blainey G. (1988), The causes of war, Free Press, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19395-0
Brown J. (2018), An alternative war: The development, impact, and legality of hybrid warfare conducted by the nation state, “Journal of Global Faultlines”, 5(1–2), pp. 58–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/jglobfaul.5.1-2.0058
Byman D., Waxman M. (2002), The dynamics of coercion: American foreign policy and the limits of military might, “Survival”, 44(2), pp. 107–130.
Cantwell D. (2017), Hybrid warfare: Aggression and coercion in the gray zone, “American Society of International Law”, 21(14), available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/21/issue/14/hybrid-warfare-aggression-and-coercion-gray-zone (05.05.2025).
Cornell S. E. (2001), Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus, Curzon Press, Caucasus World, Richmond.
Cornell S. E., Starr S. F. (2006), The Caucasus: A Challenge for Europe, Institute for Security & Development Policy, Stockholm.
de Waal T. (2003), Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, New York University Press, New York, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg51h (12.09.2025).
Fearon J. D. (1995), Rationalist explanations for war, “International Organization”, 49(3), pp. 379–414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033324
George A. L. (1994), The limits of coercive diplomacy, 2nd ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
George A. L. (1992), Forceful persuasion: Coercive diplomacy as an alternative to war, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC.
Harutyunyan H. G. (2025), Integration of Displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh: Chances and Challenges (September 2023–March 2025), Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Armenia, Yerevan, https://www.kas.de/documents/269781/269830/The%2BIntegration%2Bof%2BDisplaced%2BArmenians%2Bfrom%2BNagorno%2BKarabach.pdf/5a7d7fce-8726-2dac-b1b3-87c0f5ccafa4?t=1756122988374&version=1.0 (12.09.2025).
Hasanov A., Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P. (2024), Azerbaijan’s 2023 counterterrorism operation in Karabakh region: Causes and consequences, “Social Development and Security”, 14(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2024.14.3.1
International Crisis Group (2020), Preventing a Bloody Harvest on the Armenia–Azerbaijan State Border, Europe Report No. 259, 24 July, International Crisis Group, Brussels.
Iskandarov K. (2019), The South Caucasus-NATO cooperation, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken.
Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P. (2022), Economic coercion as a means of hybrid warfare: The South Caucasus as a focal point, “Security and Defence Quarterly”, 40(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/151038
Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P. (2020a), Early identification of threats as the means of fighting against hybrid warfare (with a focus on the South Caucasus), “Social Development and Security”, 10(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2020.10.4.9
Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P. (2020b), Hybrid warfare as a new type of war: The evolution of its conceptual construct, in: M. Banasik, P. Gawliczek, A. Rogozinska (eds.), The Russian Federation and international security, Difin Publishing House, Poland, pp. 96–107.
Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P. (2020c), The ‘New Great Game’ in the South Caucasus: Competition for power and influence, “Social Development and Security”, 10(1), pp. 25–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2020.10.1.4
Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P., Soboń A. (2024), Violation of territorial integrity as a tool for waging long-term hybrid warfare (against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region), “Security and Defence Quarterly”, 45(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/174507
Iskandarov K., Simons G., Gawliczek P. (2019), The South Caucasus: Stage for a ‘New Great Game’ between NATO and Russia?, “Connections: The Quarterly Journal”, 18, pp. 7–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11610/Connections.18.3-4.01
Jakobsen P. V. (2011), Pushing the limits of military coercion theory, “International Studies Perspectives”, 12(2), pp. 153–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2011.00425.x
Levy J. S. (2008), Deterrence and coercive diplomacy: The contributions of Alexander George, “Political Psychology”, 29(4), pp. 557–579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00648.x
Lovelace D. (ed.) (2016), SOF support to political warfare, in: Hybrid warfare and the grey zone threat, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 173, https://bit.ly/2mc0Bny (09.05.2025).
Monaghan S. (2020), Countering hybrid warfare: So what for the future joint force?, National Defense University Press, Washington, DC.
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs (2020), Press Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, OSCE, Moscow–Paris–Washington, DC, 24 July.
Piriyev H., Iskandarov K., Gawliczek P., Mrozek J. (2023), The Second Karabakh War: From Causes to Termination, Centre for Eastern Europe Research, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn.
Renz B., Smith H. (eds.) (2016), After “hybrid warfare,” what next? – Understanding and responding to contemporary Russia, Prime Minister’s Office, Publications of the Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities, 44/2016, Lokakuu, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79742/After%20%27hybrid%20warfare%27%2C%20what%20next.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (17.05.2025).
Sadiyev S., Nasirov E., Iskandarov K., Simons G. (2021), South Caucasus and a ‘New Great Game’: The communication of competition in securitised international relations, “Journal of Contemporary European Studies”, 29(2), pp. 282–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2020.1826914
Sechser T. S. (2010), Goliath’s curse: Coercive threats and asymmetric power, “International Organization”, 64(4), pp. 627–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818310000214
Schelling T. (2008), Arms and influence, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Stronski P. (2020), Behind the Flare-Up Along the Armenia-Azerbaijan Border, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/07/behind-the-flare-up-along-armenia-azerbaijan-border?lang=en (12.09.2025).
Syrian American Medical Society (2016), A new normal: Ongoing chemical weapons attacks in Syria, February, https://www.sams-usa.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-New-Normal_Ongoing-Chemical-Weapons-Attacks-in-Syria.compressed.pdf (16.05.2025).
Tanter R., Psarouthakis J. (1999), Coercive diplomacy, in: Balancing in the Balkans, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 67–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780312292829_5
Tasnim News Agency (2025), Pezeshkian affirms Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh in visit to Baku, „Tasnim News Agency”, https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/04/28/3301043/pezeshkian-affirms-azerbaijan-s-sovereignty-over-karabakh-in-visit-to-baku (12.09.2025).
Tilly C. (2003), The politics of collective violence, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819131
United Nations (2020), Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on exchanges of fire along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, 13 July, United Nations, New York, https://press.un.org/en/2020/sgsm20143.doc.htm (12.09.2025).
von Neumann, J., Morgenstern O. (2021), Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Khayal Iskandarov, Piotr Gawliczek
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.