Search

Russia has historically succeeded in using various hostile measures to sow disorder, weaken democratic institutions, and undermine Western alliances. However, it also has a long track record of strategic shortfalls and even ineptitude. Exploring opportunities to deter, prevent, and counter Russian hostile behavior will benefit NATO and other Western powers in the so-called gray zone short of war, as well as in a conventional warfare scenario.

RAND researchers analyzed how political warfare is practiced today and identified ways that the U.S. government, its allies, and its partners can respond to or engage in this type of conflict to achieve U.S. ends and protect U.S. interests.

This report assesses the annexation of Crimea by Russia (February–March 2014) and the early phases of political mobilization and combat operations in Eastern Ukraine (late February–late May 2014). It examines Russia's approach, draws inferences from Moscow's intentions, and evaluates the likelihood of such methods being used again elsewhere. These two distinct campaigns overlap somewhat but offer different lessons for participants and observers. The report finds that Russia's operation to annex Crimea represented a decisive and competent use of military force in pursuit of political ends. Russia's operations in Crimea benefited from highly favorable circumstances — political, historical, geographical, and military — that limit their generalizability. Analysis of the operation underscores that there are many remaining unknowns about Russia's military capabilities, especially in the aftermath of its military reforms and modernization program. The report also finds that the campaign in Eastern Ukraine was an ineffectually implemented — and perhaps ill-conceived — effort to achieve political fragmentation of Ukraine via federalization and retain Russian influence. Russia achieved its primary objectives but at a much higher cost than desired and through a fitful cycle of adaptation. This study thus questions the desirability for Moscow to replicate a course of events similar to the campaign in Eastern Ukraine. Conversely, the operation to annex Crimea was a highly successful employment of select elements within Russia's armed forces, making it an attractive use of military power, but the structural and operation factors contributing to its success raise doubts whether it can be repeated elsewhere.

The present research examines how perceived inclusive and exclusive peer norms for cross-ethnic relations contribute to predicting interest in cross-ethnic friendship among ethnic minority and majority children. Across two survey studies, European American and African American children (Study 1) and European American and Latino American children (Study 2) reported on the extent to which they perceived inclusive and exclusive peer norms for cross-ethnic relations, as well as their own interest in developing cross-ethnic friendships. Results from both studies showed that perceiving inclusive norms for cross-ethnic relations from in-group peers uniquely predicted children's interest in cross-group friendships, beyond what can be accounted for by perceiving exclusive norms from in-group peers and preexisting cross-group friendships. Similar effects were observed for ethnic minority and majority children, and even after controlling for children's prior cross-group friendships. Implications of these findings for future research and efforts to promote inclusion among ethnic minority and majority children are discussed.

Adapting the goal orientation framework from the achievement motivation literature, the present research tests whether learning orientation, as compared to performance orientation, predicts greater comfort and interest in intergroup contact. These links are examined in a cross-sectional survey of European American and African American middle school students (Study 1), and in a longitudinal survey with European American high school students (Study 2). Both studies yielded converging evidence that while performance orientation generally had a negative association with comfort and interest, a stronger orientation toward learning predicted greater comfort and interest in intergroup contact. The links between the learning orientation and comfort and interest in intergroup contact were consistent across both racial groups in Study 1, and in longitudinal analyses in Study 2. Together, these findings point to learning orientation as a potentially important means for promoting positive intergroup contact.

This research tests how perceived school and peer norms predict interethnic experiences among ethnic minority and majority youth. With studies in Chile (654 nonindigenous and 244 Mapuche students, M = 11.20 and 11.31 years) and the United States (468 non-Hispanic White and 126 Latino students, M = 11.66 and 11.68 years), cross-sectional results showed that peer norms predicted greater comfort in intergroup contact, interest in cross-ethnic friendships, and higher contact quality, whereas longitudinal results showed that school norms predicted greater interest in cross-ethnic friendships over time. Distinct effects of school and peer norms were also observed for ethnic minority and majority youth in relation to perceived discrimination, suggesting differences in how they experience cross-ethnic relations within school environments.

This updated report describes the opportunities for supporting school leadership under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA). It discusses the standards of evidence under ESSA; synthesizes the evidence base on school leadership interventions with respect to those standards; and guides federal, state, and district education policymakers on the use of research-based practices.

Issues of tolerance, understanding, solidarity, and social cohesion represent a key foundation for building cultures of peace (United Nations 1999). Tolerance and understanding ensure that perceived differences in group membership, values, or lifestyle do not result in discrimination and violence (Vogt 1997), whereas social cohesion and solidarity connote a sense of enhanced unity, democracy, and civic participation (Moody and White 2003; Putnam 2000). Though often discussed together, there is a potential antagonism involving the societal consequences of tolerance and social cohesion. Specifically, social cohesion is often achieved and strengthened through destructive means, such as by developing an external enemy or creating an internal scapegoat. Attempts to promote social cohesion can therefore result in decreased tolerance for differences within a society and even lead to the exclusion of groups who do not represent the internal standard or who are depicted as the internal enemy. Thus, the main question of this chapter is: How can social cohesion be achieved in a way that it is not exclusive and destructive, but rather inclusive and constructive (see Valsiner, this volume), thereby effectively contributing to a culture of peace? Potential answers to this question will differ depending on the nature of the societal context. Nation-building in postconflict societies and countries divided by civil war is often challenged with economic hardships, security concerns, or power struggles between groups (Winter and Cava 2006). These forms of instability must be addressed as efforts are taken to achieve social cohesion in such societies. For the purpose of the present chapter, we will focus our analysis on tolerance and social cohesion in the context of structural inequality and intergroup relations in more stable societies. From a social-psychological perspective, we propose that the solution for achieving social cohesion in relatively stable societies may lie in shifting processes of social categorization toward the perception of a superordinate identity between members of different groups. At the same time, we propose that tolerance for group differences must also be emphasized to ensure that social cohesion contributes to cultures of peace within societies as well as to global cultures of peace between societies. Chapter 3 Social Cohesion and Tolerance for Group Differences