Page 160 - 《国际安全研究》2023年第2期

Journal of International Security Studies
“whole system” “wide coverage” “quick response” and “strong synergy.” Coupled
with the political influence resulting from the “zero casualty” feature of unmanned
weapons, the weaker side’s resistance abilities based on the “offset and killing”
strategy will suffer qualitative changes, while the original gap between the two sides
will be quantitatively increased. In the event of no effective technological and political
checks and balances, the risk of the vicious evolution of asymmetric security relations
will significantly increase under the two-way paths of technological monopoly and
social transformation. Under the prospect of “marketization warfare,” lower casualty
costs will lead to a lack of constraints in power politics, the low-risk advantages will
encourage politicians to make risky decisions, and the decline of war ethics will distort
the public’s perception of asymmetric wars. The extreme means of survival adopted
by the weaker side may cause “secondary hazards” such as nuclear proliferation.
Against the backdrop of the gradual decline of the West-led arms control cooperation,
China needs to coordinate the research and development of unmanned weapons and
their application in an overall framework. At the same time, enough attention should
be given to the efforts to actively develop countermeasure technologies and play a
leading role in relevant arms control proposals.
[Keywords] network-based autonomy, resistance capacity, asymmetric war,
marketization war, artificial intelligence
[Authors] LIU Zuoli, Ph.D. Candidate, School of International Studies, Renmin
University of China; CUI Shoujun, Professor of School of International Studies and
Associate Dean of School of Global Governance, Renmin University of China
(Beijing, 100872).

49 Waiting in the Wings: Turkish Involvement in the Second Nagorno-

Karabakh Conflict from the Perspective of Windows of Opportunity
ZENG Xianghong and WANG Haoyu

[Abstract] Turkey’s high-profile involvement in the second Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, which broke out in September 2020, epitomizes Turkey’s risky moves in the
South Caucasus. Why did Turkey choose to intervene in the conflict when faced with
multiple risks? Applying the “window of opportunity” framework to the explanation
of this phenomenon, this paper argues that Turkey’s aggressive involvement in the
second Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is inseparable from its awareness and grasp of the
“window of opportunity.” The “window of opportunity” involves factors like
emergence of “crisis events,” changes in the international situation and domestic
political mobilization. The emergence of the crisis event of the Azerbaijan-Armenia
border conflict was the catalyst for Turkey to initiate relevant actions after an overall
consideration of domestic and international factors. The international factors
considered by Turkey at that time included the implications of the game among major
powers in the South Caucasus and the power contrast between Azerbaijan and
Armenia. There were also domestic factors for the Turkish intervention: a series of
changes in its political system and elite alliances, changes in mainstream cultural
trends, and changes in its relations with the countries in conflict. These changes jointly
prompted the Turkish government to launch internal political mobilization, which
further gave legitimacy to the Turkish intervention in the second Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict and facilitated the Turkish government’s actions to seize the opportunity.
Analyzing the processes of Turkey’s waiting in the wings before and after the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can not only rationalize its “reckless” intervention, but
also provide a deeper understanding of the “aggressive” foreign policies implemented
by the Turkish government in recent years.

· 158 ·