Download
Download eBook for Free
Format | File Size | Notes |
---|---|---|
PDF file | 10.6 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Note: Many electronic documents posted prior to 2003 are available as chapter PDFs or HTML files linked from the Contents.
Purchase
Purchase This Item
Format | List Price | Price | |
---|---|---|---|
Add to Cart | paperback225 pages | $50.00 | $40.00 20% Web Discount |
This volume presents case studies of U.S. and Russian peacekeeping and peacemaking operations since the end of the Cold War. The chapters are authored by U.S. and Russian policymakers and/or policy analysts who were neither direct participants in, nor first-hand observers of, the events they describe. Drawing on the evidence presented in the case studies, a concluding chapter compares the political and institutional arrangements and procedures through which the two countries decide whether or not to engage in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations and assesses the implications of the key similarities and differences for combined operations in the future.
Table of Contents
Preface HTML
Introduction HTML
Section One
Russian Cases
Chapter 1
Ossetia-Ingushetia HTML
Chapter 2
Chechnya HTML
Chapter 3
Tadjikistan HTML
Chapter 4
Trans-Dniestria HTML
Chapter 5
Georgia-Abkhazia HTML
Section Two
U.S. Cases
Chapter 6
Lebanon: 1982-1984 HTML
Chapter 7
Africa In the 1990s HTML
Chapter 8
The Caribbean Basin HTML
Chapter 9
Panama and Haiti HTML
Chapter 10
Intervention Decisionmaking in the Bush Administration HTML
Chapter 11
Yugoslavia: 1989-1996 HTML
Header
Conclusion
Chapter 12
Russian and American Intervention Policy in Comparative Perspective HTML
Research conducted by
This report is part of the RAND Corporation conference proceeding series. RAND conference proceedings present a collection of papers delivered at a conference or a summary of the conference.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.