Executive Summary
This paper re-examines the concept of entrapment in international relations, arguing that it is more prevalent than recent scholarship suggests. It introduces "classic entrapment," where a weaker protégé deliberately manipulates a stronger protector into a conflict primarily serving the protégé's interests. The Ottoman Empire's actions leading to the Crimean War are presented as a prime historical example of this strategy.
Why It Matters
This analysis provides critical insights into alliance dynamics and the risks powerful states face from weaker allies, offering a framework to understand how protégés can strategically draw protectors into conflicts against their initial will.
Key Takeaways
- Classic entrapment involves a protégé deliberately placing itself in danger and manipulating the protector's domestic audience costs to force intervention.
- Classic entrapment is most likely to succeed in informal security arrangements where commitment is ambiguous and when the protégé's allegiance offers a strategic advantage to the protector.
- The Ottoman Empire successfully entrapped Great Britain into the Crimean War by leveraging its strategic importance and manipulating British public opinion.
Strategic Relevance
Understanding classic entrapment is crucial for assessing the liabilities of alliances and partnerships, informing grand strategy debates on restraint versus deep engagement, and evaluating the risks of imperial overstretch.