Loyalty, hedging, or exit: How weaker alliance partners respond to the rise of new threats

Abstract

When new threats arise, how do weaker partners allied with great powers choose among loyalty (remaining allied to their great power patrons), hedging (improving political relations with the challenger, or – in the nuclear age – pursuing nuclear weapons), and exit (leaving the alliance by declaring neutrality or defecting to the rising challenger)? We argue that, in general, as protégés come to doubt the ability or willingness of patrons to defend them, they are likely to shift away from loyalty and towards exit. Where they end up on this alliance spectrum, however, depends on additional factors that we identify, including signals of commitment from patrons and the territorial claims of challengers against protégés. We illustrate our argument and these conditions in three cases from interwar and early Cold War Europe and draw implications for U.S. alliances today.