L’union ou la force ? Les défis des opérations multinationales contemporaines
Contemporary multinational military operations occur in a strategic context characterized by the domination of limited conflicts for Western states.
As such, those interventions are marked by a tension between the military logic of integration as a condition of effectiveness and the political logic of state autonomy. This situation leads to a number of specific dynamics, such as the imposition of restrictions on the use of force (“caveats”), the difficulty to achieve the unity of purpose and the unity of command, and the search for an increase of international legitimacy through the number of participants to the intervention. This article analyses the dynamics of contemporary multinational interventions, and explores potential ways to manage the difficulties related to the dialectic between integration and autonomy.
This content is available in French: L’union ou la force ? Les défis des opérations multinationales contemporaines
Author(s)
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.
Strategic Shift in NATO’s Support for Ukraine. A Study of NSATU and PURL Initiatives
French Forward Deterrence: What Is in It for the Baltic States?
For what may be its most significant stress test since the end of the Cold War, European deterrence is under strain. Russia’s war against Ukraine has demonstrated Moscow’s willingness to use force and its ability to combine conventional operations with nuclear signalling, coercive rhetoric, and hybrid actions. At the same time, the gradual deterioration of transatlantic relations has revived concerns about the reliability of extended deterrence.
Europe at the Crossroads of DefTech: Rethinking the European Defense Innovation Ecosystem
“The way I look at Iron Dome is as the ultimate manifestation of the future of the United States’ role in future conflicts, which is not to be the world police, but to be the world gun store,” said Palmer Luckey in November 2023. Luckey is the founder of Anduril, one of the most prominent DefTech companies. The ambition is clear: to participate in global rearmament by capitalizing on the quality of American innovations and to dominate the arms market—at least in the West—through technological mastery.