Research on Strategic Stability and Instability

My first major research trajectory investigates the shifting meaning of strategic stability in an era of multipolarity and technological change. Traditional approaches often assume that adversaries share a common logic of proportionality and escalation; my work demonstrates that this assumption no longer holds. Instead, I argue that escalation is fundamentally interpretive: adversaries ascribe radically different meanings to the same act, producing what I term interpretive divergence. This insight underpins my book manuscript, Seeking (In)Stability in an (In)Stable World: Interpretive Strategy in a Multipolar Age (under review at Georgetown University Press). By reframing strategic stability through interpretive divergence, I seek not only to resolve contemporary nuclear puzzles but also to establish a new analytic paradigm for future research on escalation and deterrence.