Commentary
The 1986 incident showed that a nuclear accident anytime is a nuclear accident for all time.
Corey Hinderstein
Book
Great Power Competition and Overseas Bases: Chinese, Russian, and American Force Posture in the Twenty-First Century
This book examines the emerging dynamics of geostrategic competition for overseas military bases and base access.
Published on Aug 27, 2024
What challenges and risks do Chinese and Russian bases pose to the United States’ military strategy? How do the military postures of great powers interact and with what consequences for regional and global security? This book examines the emerging dynamics of geostrategic competition for overseas military bases and base access. The comparative framework adopted in this volume examines how the geopolitical interests of the United States, China, and Russia and their respective underlying force posture interact in different regions including the Indo-Pacific, Europe, sub-Sahara Africa, the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and the Arctic Circle.
By exploring the security, political economic, and domestic political dynamics of specific regions, the contributors to this volume reveal varied motivations for overseas military bases and base access among great powers. With analysis on the particular dynamics of overseas bases in major regional theaters, the book offers a valuable window into the nature and scope of the broader “great power competition” underway in the twenty-first century.
Advance Reviews
"Superb. A timely and thoughtful examination of the drivers and consequences of past and future military basing considerations and decisions that have and will shape the geostrategic landscape. A must read by those who ponder the future of great power competition and military force design."
— Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Former U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations
"The book presents a measured and deeply informed assessment by tremendously talented thinkers from both academic and policy of three different, but potentially effective, approaches to overseas bases and international politics. This is essential reading on an underappreciated subject."
— Jon Caverley, Professor of Strategy, United States Naval War College
About the Authors
Andrew Yeo
Senior fellow and the SK-Korea Foundation Chair, Brookings Institution’s Center for Asia Policy Studies
Andrew Yeo is a senior fellow and the SK-Korea Foundation Chair at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Asia Policy Studies. He is also a professor of politics at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Isaac B. Kardon
Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Isaac B. Kardon is a senior fellow for China studies in the Asia Program.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Chernobyl Is Still a Current Event, Forty Years Later
- There Is No Shortcut for Europe in ArmeniaCommentary
Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.
Thomas de Waal
- From Labor Scarcity to AI Society: Governing Productivity in East AsiaArticle
The debate over AI and work too often centers on displacement. Facing aging populations and shrinking workforces, East Asian policymakers view AI not as a threat, but as a cross-sectoral workforce strategy.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Sophie Zhuang
- Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI CompetitionArticle
In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee
- Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?Commentary
China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.
Michael Pettis
