Hcss report

HCSS REPORT
53
dynamics pose additional challenges for military establishments, including in Europe, 
who already have a hard time rebalancing their defense and security portfolios within 
lower defense budgets even without worrying too much about entanglements in 
possible renewed great power conflict. Various major weapon acquisition programs, 
for instance, appear under a very different light when looked at from the point of view 
of potential great-power conflict rather than from the point of view of stabilization 
operations. 
Equally important for ‘price-takers’ (instead of price-makers) in the international 
security arena: how do we deal with a future in which escalating assertiveness leads 
to an even greater paralysis of an already extremely minimalist and fragile system of 
global (security) governance? Not to speak of the political economic consequences of 
a return to a 19
th
century European balance of power at a truly global level – and this, 
in a period where the world is just starting to crawl back from a painful and prolonged 
socio-economic crisis. Could these dangers possibly even provide more incentives for 
exploring new-style multipolar management mechanisms?
For the time being, the ‘long peace’ soldiers on. Its actual dynamics – and its 
(presumed) robustness – continue to be poorly understood. We observe many 
profound, observable and seemingly incontrovertible trends that suggest brighter 
skies in the future security forecast.
121
These trends are often ignored by the traditional 
security communities. But at the same time, this study – just like the other 
contributions to this year’s HCSS Strategic Monitor – also sees a number of darker 
clouds on the horizon. One of the major challenges for defense (and foreign policy) 
planners is to find the proper balance between Cassandra’s Scylla and Pollyanna’s 
Charybdis. The security community has lost much credibility because of its constant 
Cassandra-like insistence on all the thing that could go wrong and its underappreciation 
of all the things that were demonstrably going ‘right’ – also in the security field. Many 
other foresight communities – like the technological one – may have gone too far 
towards the Pollyana extreme.
We have gone to great lengths – and continues to strive to – maintain some balance 
between these two extremes. We are now alternating between a year in which we try 
to present the HCSS Strategic Monitor ‘big picture’ (including the many strongly 
positive security trends) and a year in which we selectively – in close coordination 
with our government customers – select a number of potential game-changers for a 
more in-depth analysis. We continue to feel that defense and security planners should 
take both into account. The trends described in this study are perceptible. They require 

---

54
STRATEGIC MONITOR 2014
serious attention. But we strongly caution against the temptation to focus too much 
on them alone. It is only through a more dispassionate, impartial assessment that we 
are likely to strike the right balance. We trust that evidence-based analysis can and will 
contribute to that balance. 

---