Security Forces and the Loyalty Threshold: The Mechanics of Institutional Cohesion and Collapse in Revolutionary Crises

Full report

On this page

Introduction

The study of revolutionary outcomes, authoritarian regime survival, and state collapse invariably converges on a single, foundational variable: the comportment and cohesion of the state's coercive apparatus. Historical evidence and comparative political theory consistently demonstrate that so long as a regime's military, police, intelligence services, and paramilitaries remain unified and willing to deploy lethal force, revolutionary movements rarely succeed1. Observers of revolutionary crises have long noted that no mass revolution can triumph without the active or passive assistance of a portion of the armed forces that previously sustained the old regime1. Conversely, when these security institutions fragment, declare neutrality, suffer mass desertion, or actively join the opposition, regime collapse becomes almost inevitable, often without the need for the opposition to achieve an outright military victory on the battlefield1. Predicting precisely when and why a heavily armed, seemingly robust coercive apparatus will suddenly disintegrate remains one of the most complex challenges in comparative political science. The historical record is replete with paradoxes. Some regimes possess massive, technologically advanced militaries that evaporate overnight, as witnessed in Afghanistan in 2021 or Nicaragua in 19795. Other states endure years of devastating civil war, economic ruin, and international isolation, yet maintain cohesive security forces that fight to the bitter end, as demonstrated by Syria post-20115. This report systematically examines the historical relationship between revolutionary outcomes and the cohesion of coercive institutions. By disaggregating the security state and analyzing variables such as institutional professionalism, sectarian composition, patronage networks, morale, battlefield exhaustion, and dependence on foreign assistance, this analysis investigates the tipping points of military loyalty. Through a comparative historical examination spanning Russia in 1917, Cuba in 1958–59, Nicaragua in 1979, Iran in 1979, China in 1989, Afghanistan in 1992 and 2021, the Arab Spring, and colonial conflicts, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a crucial proposition. Revolutionary movements rarely need to defeat the entire state security apparatus. Instead, political collapse generally precedes military disintegration, and victory is achieved when the coercive apparatus simply ceases to act as a unified, regime-defending institution.

Theoretical Frameworks: Structural Constraints and the Calculus of Defection

To understand why armies fight or fracture, it is necessary to integrate macro-level structural conditions with micro-level decision-making dynamics. The decision of a soldier, officer, or entire military unit to fire upon citizens, return to the barracks, or defect to the opposition is governed by a complex calculus of risk, institutional identity, and expected political outcomes.

The Structuralist Paradigm and State Breakdown

The structuralist school of historical sociology emphasizes that state institutions are constrained by objective material, administrative, and geopolitical conditions. Theda Skocpol’s seminal framework posits that social revolutions are not merely "made" by ideologically driven actors or spontaneous mass mobilization; rather, they emerge when the administrative and military power of a state breaks down3. This breakdown is typically catalyzed by the dual pressures of international conflict (which drains fiscal resources and exhausts the military) and domestic agrarian or class unrest3. In this structuralist view, a regime's fiscal health and its entanglement in international conflicts determine its capacity to maintain an effective military3. When a state faces overwhelming external pressure—such as military defeat, imperial overstretch, or severe macroeconomic crisis—the central administrative machinery weakens, rendering the state vulnerable to assaults from below3. In these scenarios, the disintegration of the military is often a symptom of broader state failure rather than a primary cause, creating a permissive structural environment for revolutionary success8.

The Micro-Foundations of Loyalty: Coordination Games and Preference Falsification

While structuralism explains the underlying vulnerabilities of a state, it often fails to explain the sudden, unanticipated nature of many revolutions and the rapid cascades of military defection. Theories of collective action and preference falsification provide a critical mechanism for understanding how seemingly robust regimes collapse abruptly10. Citizens who privately oppose a regime often mask their true preferences due to the fear of repression, creating an illusion of regime invulnerability10. However, this public compliance is fragile. A minor triggering event—a "spark"—can expose hidden discontent, altering the perceived cost-benefit analysis of joining a protest and sparking a "prairie fire" of mobilization10. This cascade effect applies equally to the coercive apparatus. Military officers and rank-and-file soldiers engage in a complex coordination game, akin to a Tullock contest or a prisoner's dilemma, where the optimal strategy depends entirely on the expected actions of their peers and the perceived probability of regime survival13. If an officer believes the regime will survive, loyalty is the safest choice to avoid severe punishment or execution15. If the officer believes the regime is doomed, defection becomes imperative to secure a position in the post-revolutionary order, or at least to avoid prosecution by the incoming government15. Consequently, the loyalty of the armed forces is highly sensitive to informational signals. When mass protests reach a critical threshold, they signal a high probability of regime failure, prompting a sudden, collective shift in expectations within the military. This dynamic explains why mass protests can induce security-elite members to coordinate on passive defection—such as refusing to leave the barracks—even without an active coup d'état14. The threshold of loyalty is breached not when the military is physically destroyed, but when the collective expectation of regime survival drops below a critical point.

Disaggregating the Coercive Apparatus: Institutional Topographies

A critical error in early civil-military relations theory was treating "the military" or "the coercive apparatus" as a monolithic entity. During periods of severe domestic unrest, autocrats do not rely on the military as a single institution, but rather on a diverse set of actors wielding coercive power17. Analyzing the distinct interests, recruitment patterns, and organizational cultures of these agents is essential for explaining patterns of exit, resistance, and loyalty17.

Horizontal Divisions: The Military versus Internal Security

Authoritarian regimes typically maintain parallel security structures, deliberately dividing the coercive apparatus between the regular armed forces (the military) and internal security agencies (police, intelligence services, paramilitary units, and elite presidential guards)19. This horizontal division is largely a product of "coup-proofing"—strategies designed to prevent the regular military from seizing power by creating counterbalancing forces directly loyal to the executive19. These distinct institutions develop divergent interests and values. Internal security forces, intelligence agencies, and paramilitaries are heavily enmeshed in the daily maintenance of the regime. They are deeply implicated in domestic repression, human rights abuses, and are often heavily integrated into the regime's corrupt economic patronage networks19. Their institutional survival, and often the physical survival of their leadership, is intrinsically linked to the survival of the dictator. The regular army, however, is theoretically oriented toward external defense. If the military is subjected to intense coup-proofing, marginalized from political power, monitored by secret police, and starved of resources in favor of internal security forces, deep institutional grievances emerge7. When mass protests erupt, the regular army may view the crisis as an opportunity to rid itself of a competing internal security apparatus and a regime that hindered its professional development. In such configurations, the military's defection or declaration of neutrality is highly probable, while the internal security forces will predictably fight to the death19.

Vertical Cohesion: Institutionalization versus Patrimonialism

The propensity of the military to defect or remain loyal is fundamentally shaped by its degree of institutionalization versus patrimonialism7. An institutionalized military operates governed by bureaucratic rules, predictable promotion systems based on merit, and a professional identity distinct from the political regime7. Because its organizational integrity does not depend on the survival of a specific dictator, it is highly sensitive to actions that might fracture the military or destroy its public legitimacy. When ordered to massacre civilians, an institutionalized military is likely to calculate that defending an embattled autocrat will ultimately destroy the institution itself, prompting the officer corps to withdraw support7. Conversely, a patrimonial or personalist military fuses the military hierarchy with the political leadership through informal ties of blood, ethnicity, sect, or regional origin7. The officer corps is selected for personal loyalty rather than professional competence, and the military is heavily dependent on the regime for patronage and economic privileges7. In a patrimonial system, the military correctly perceives that the fall of the regime equates to the loss of their own lives, liberty, or wealth. Consequently, they view mass uprisings as existential threats and remain highly cohesive, fighting tenaciously to preserve the status quo7.

The Preeminence of Political Collapse over Military Defeat

A central question in the study of revolutions is whether military defeat produces political collapse, or whether political collapse usually precedes military disintegration. The historical record heavily supports the latter. Revolutionary movements rarely destroy the state's military apparatus in pitched, conventional combat. More often, political collapse, the withdrawal of international legitimacy, or the drying up of patronage networks precedes and triggers the sudden disintegration of the military apparatus.

The Russian Empire (1917): Battlefield Exhaustion and the Annihilation of Command

The Russian Revolution of 1917 provides an archetypal case of structural breakdown, where severe military strain intersected with complete political delegitimization, leading to the collapse of the coercive apparatus from the bottom up. By early 1917, the Russian Empire was buckling under the catastrophic mismanagement of the First World War3. The Tsar's decision to assume personal command of the military in 1915 tied the legitimacy of the autocracy directly to the continuous military failures, massive casualties, and logistical incompetence at the front24. The critical tipping point occurred during the February Revolution in Petrograd. When bread riots and strikes escalated, the government ordered the Petrograd garrison to crush the demonstrations25. However, the garrison was no longer a professional, cohesive force; it was largely composed of poorly trained conscripts with low morale, while the loyal, battle-hardened troops were stationed at the front27. When ordered to fire on the crowds, the garrison mutinied, joining the protesters, seizing the arsenal, and distributing weapons25. This sudden fragmentation of the security apparatus stripped Tsar Nicholas II of his coercive shield, forcing his abdication on March 2, 191725. Crucially, the military collapse was formalized and institutionalized by the Petrograd Soviet's issuance of Order No. 1 on March 1, 191725. This decree directed soldiers to form committees and obey only the orders of the Soviet, explicitly bypassing the traditional officer hierarchy and placing arms under committee control25. Order No. 1 effectively destroyed the chain of command, leading to plummeting discipline and mass desertions across the entire Russian Army25. The absolute paralysis of the military was cemented during the Kornilov Affair in August 1917\. General Lavr Kornilov’s attempt to march on Petrograd and restore military authority collapsed without a battle. His soldiers refused to obey orders, succumbed to revolutionary propaganda, and abandoned the advance, prompting his field commander, General Krymov, to commit suicide29. In Russia, the military was not defeated by a revolutionary army; rather, the political disintegration of the state and the exhaustion of the rank-and-file eroded the military's internal cohesion until it simply ceased to function as a coercive instrument.

Cuba (1958–1959): Regime Delegitimization and the Evaporation of Will

The Cuban Revolution illustrates how a relatively small insurgent force can achieve total victory if the state's military suffers a psychological and political collapse. Fulgencio Batista’s regime was characterized by extreme corruption, reliance on mafia ties for casino revenues, and brutal urban repression by secret police, which alienated large segments of the Cuban population, including the middle class, professionals, and business elites31. Despite possessing a regular army equipped with modern weaponry and air support, Batista's forces proved increasingly ineffective against Fidel Castro’s small 26th of July Movement guerrilla bands in the Sierra Maestra31. The turning point was not a massive military encirclement, but a political one. In March 1958, citing Batista’s human rights abuses and endemic corruption, the United States imposed an arms embargo on the Cuban government33. This action signaled a withdrawal of legitimacy by the regime's primary international patron, demoralizing the officer corps and drastically altering their expectations of regime survival34. When Batista launched his major counter-insurgency offensive (Operation Verano) in mid-1958, it failed largely due to the army's lack of motivation, poor leadership, and increasing fragmentation31. Following a tactical defeat at the Battle of Las Mercedes, the military's will to fight evaporated31. As rebel columns led by Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos advanced on Santa Clara in late 1958, local military commanders simply refused to fight, actively negotiating surrenders or ordering their troops to stand down31. Recognizing that his political support had vanished and the army would no longer defend him, Batista panicked and fled the country on December 31, 195831. The Cuban military collapsed psychologically and politically long before it was militarily destroyed by the insurgents.

Nicaragua (1979): The Disintegration of a Patrimonial Shield

The fall of the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua further underscores how the withdrawal of external legitimacy and the structural nature of the military dictate regime collapse. The Nicaraguan National Guard was a quintessential patrimonial institution—it functioned as the personal army of the Somoza family, deeply entrenched in corruption, extortion, and the country's economic monopolies6. Because the Guard's survival and privileges were entirely dependent on Anastasio Somoza, it fought fiercely against the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN)6. However, the regime's extreme brutality alienated the international community. In a historically unprecedented move, the Organization of American States (OAS) passed a resolution on June 23, 1979, calling for the "definitive replacement" of the Somoza regime, effectively stripping the government of its international legitimacy and signaling to the National Guard that the regime had no future6. Isolated diplomatically, deprived of U.S. support, and facing a massive popular insurrection, Somoza fled on July 17, 19796. The transition plan, intended to preserve the National Guard under a new interim president, Francisco Urcuyo, immediately collapsed when Urcuyo attempted to retain power35. Despite remaining a heavily armed and organized force, the National Guard disintegrated literally overnight following Somoza's departure6. Without the central patron to direct them and disburse resources, the officer corps fled into exile, and the rank-and-file either surrendered or scattered6. The FSLN marched into Managua not because they had annihilated the Guard in a conventional battle, but because the political collapse of the regime caused its patrimonial military to instantaneously evaporate6.

Afghanistan (1992 and 2021): Patronage Withdrawal and the Cascade of Surrender

The twin collapses of the Afghan state in 1992 and 2021 provide stark evidence of how highly dependent security forces disintegrate when external patronage is abruptly withdrawn. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, President Mohammad Najibullah managed to maintain the cohesion of his armed forces and successfully fought off mujahideen offensives5. His survival was predicated on continued financial and material assistance from Moscow, which he used to buy the loyalty of powerful local militias, most notably the ethnic Uzbek forces commanded by General Abdul Rashid Dostum5. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russian aid to Kabul ceased in early 1992, Najibullah lost the resources required to maintain his patronage network. Recognizing the shifting power dynamics and the inevitability of political collapse, General Dostum mutinied, defecting to the opposition5. The sudden loss of this critical coercive pillar led directly to the collapse of the communist government38. A strikingly similar dynamic occurred in 2021 with the collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). The ANDSF did not collapse primarily due to a lack of tactical capacity, manpower, or weaponry; they collapsed because decades of structural problems—endemic corruption, ghost soldiers, poor leadership, and total reliance on U.S. logistics and air support—had never been resolved5. When the United States announced a definitive military withdrawal, it triggered a psychological cascade among Afghan political and military leaders. Local commanders, perceiving that the central government was doomed without U.S. backing, began negotiating surrender agreements with the Taliban to ensure their own survival5. As in 1992, the perception of inevitable political collapse preceded and caused the military disintegration, resulting in a rapid capitulation rather than a prolonged battlefield defeat5.

Revolutionary Thresholds and Non-Insurgent Mobilization

The threshold for military defection is not solely crossed during armed insurgencies. In many historical instances, mass, predominantly non-violent mobilization has proven highly effective at neutralizing modernized, well-equipped security apparatuses by imposing insurmountable political and moral costs on the act of repression.

Iran (1979): Neutrality and the Paralysis of a Modernized Military

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 serves as a premier example of a non-insurgent comparison where mass mobilization neutralized a formidable coercive apparatus. The Shah of Iran had built one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the Middle East, lavishly funded by oil revenues and heavily supported by the United States39. The regime also possessed a feared internal intelligence service, SAVAK, to monitor and suppress dissent. Yet, this vast security architecture proved incapable of saving the regime. As millions of Iranians took to the streets in late 1978 and early 1979, the military was caught in an impossible position. The sheer scale, geographic spread, and cross-sectional nature of the protests made lethal repression logistically difficult and morally devastating to military cohesion. Rank-and-file soldiers, primarily conscripts who shared the socio-economic grievances of the protesters, began to fraternize with the crowds and desert their posts. The critical threshold was crossed on February 11, 1979\. Recognizing that continued attempts to violently suppress the revolution would fracture the military completely and result in a bloodbath, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, under the leadership of General Abbas Gharabaghi, formally revoked their allegiance to the Shah and declared the military's neutrality in the political conflict39. By stepping back and refusing to act as the regime's shield, the military facilitated the final collapse of the monarchy and the triumph of the revolution. This demonstrated that an army need not be defeated by an insurgent force if its leadership opts for institutional preservation through neutrality39.

Colonial Conflicts and Imperial Overstretch

Colonial conflicts present a unique dynamic regarding the cohesion of security forces. In colonial settings, the coercive apparatus is often divided between metropolitan forces (soldiers from the imperial core) and locally recruited auxiliary forces. The loyalty threshold in these conflicts is deeply tied to the political will of the metropole. During the Algerian War of Independence, the French military faced severe strain. The military had become deeply politicized, viewing the retention of Algeria as an existential necessity for French prestige, especially following the defeat in Indochina. When the political leadership in Paris, under Charles de Gaulle, signaled an intention to negotiate with the Algerian nationalists and accept self-determination, it triggered a crisis of loyalty within the military. This culminated in the "Algiers putsch" of 1961, where segments of the French Army mutinied against the civilian government to prevent the abandonment of the colony40. The putsch ultimately failed because the bulk of the conscript army remained loyal to the constitutional government in Paris. However, the case illustrates that in colonial conflicts, the coercive apparatus fractures when the political center decides to withdraw its commitment. The military is not necessarily defeated by the anti-colonial insurgency; rather, the political decision to abandon the colony precipitates a crisis of cohesion within the security forces40.

Failed Rebellions and the Anatomy of Cohesion

While state collapse and military defection characterize successful revolutions, a comprehensive analysis must account for regimes that survive intense popular uprisings. In these cases, the coercive apparatus remains highly cohesive, overcoming internal doubts and external pressures to execute extreme levels of violence against the population. The survival of these regimes highlights the importance of elite confidence, sectarian composition, and dependence on foreign assistance.

China (1989): Elite Resolve and the Containment of Defection

The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests posed an existential threat to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), revealing deep internal divisions regarding the use of force41. The crisis highlighted that even in highly disciplined regimes, the coercive apparatus is not immune to hesitation and the threat of defection. When the decision was made to impose martial law in Beijing, Major General Xu Qinxian, commander of the elite 38th Group Army, refused to execute the order41. Xu believed that the protests were a political issue involving the masses that required a political, rather than military, solution43. During his subsequent secret court-martial, he argued that martial law tasks differed from combat, refusing to treat the citizens as enemies42. His defection raised immediate alarms within the CCP leadership, who feared a cascading effect—that other units might similarly refuse orders, leading to the collapse of the regime42. However, the Chinese military did not fragment. The CCP's success in maintaining cohesion was due to several critical factors. First, the political leadership, spearheaded by Deng Xiaoping, maintained a unified resolve to prioritize regime survival over avoiding bloodshed, calculating that failure to act would result in the overthrow of the Communist Party42. Second, the CCP contained the threat of defection by isolating Xu immediately, relieving him of command, and preventing his disobedience from sparking a broader mutiny41. Third, the leadership deployed overwhelming force, bringing in multiple army groups—estimated at 200,000 to 300,000 troops—heavily equipped with armor, anti-aircraft machine guns, and motorized transport42. By utilizing massive redundancy, the regime ensured that no single unit's hesitation could derail the operation. The Tiananmen case demonstrates that while individual military leaders may waver or defect, the coercive apparatus will remain cohesive if the civilian leadership is absolutely resolute, maintains redundant security forces, and successfully controls the flow of information to prevent contagion42.

Syria and Bahrain (2011): Sectarian Survival and Foreign Intervention

The Arab Spring of 2011 provided a real-time laboratory for testing theories of military cohesion, showcasing divergent outcomes based on the structural characteristics of the regimes' coercive apparatuses46. While the institutionalized militaries of Egypt and Tunisia defected to preserve their corporate identities, the regimes in Syria and Bahrain survived (or violently protracted the conflict) because their coercive apparatuses were deeply patrimonial, sect-based, and heavily reliant on foreign assistance7. In Syria, the military and intelligence services were heavily dominated by the Alawite minority, closely tied to the Assad family through patronage, intermarriage, and fear. The regime successfully framed the uprising as an existential, sectarian threat7. Recognizing that the fall of Assad would likely mean their own physical annihilation or total disenfranchisement by a Sunni majority, the Syrian security forces remained cohesive7. The core elite units, serving as praetorian guards, unleashed devastating violence against the population, calculating that their survival was indistinguishable from the regime's survival7. Similarly, in Bahrain, the Sunni monarchy faced an overwhelming uprising by the Shi'a majority. The regime's security forces were explicitly structured to prevent defection; they were heavily populated by Sunni foreign nationals serving as mercenaries, who were granted citizenship in exchange for their service48. Because these forces shared no ethnic, sectarian, or social ties with the protesters, and were entirely dependent on the monarchy for their livelihood and citizenship, they possessed no incentive to defect48. Furthermore, Bahrain benefited from direct foreign military intervention. When the protests threatened to overwhelm local forces, the Saudi-led Peninsula Shield force deployed to Bahrain, providing a vital external backstop to regime cohesion and demonstrating how absolute dependence on foreign assistance can insulate a regime from domestic collapse48.

Evaluating the Determinants of Defection: Nonviolent versus Violent Campaigns

The strategic character of the opposition movement profoundly influences the calculus of the security forces. Extensive empirical research, notably the Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes (NAVCO) dataset developed by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, provides quantitative evidence that nonviolent campaigns are historically more successful than armed insurgencies49. A primary mechanism for this success is the differential impact on security force defection. Nonviolent campaigns, particularly those with massive, diverse, and cross-class participation, impose immense moral and political costs on security forces ordered to use lethal repression46. High levels of visible participation—particularly by women and the elderly—encourage security forces to shift their loyalties away from the regime52. Mass nonviolent mobilization maximizes the likelihood of fraternization between protesters and soldiers, triggering "soft" forms of disloyalty51. Research indicates that nonviolent strategies significantly increase the likelihood of shirking, vocal support for opposition campaigns, and the withdrawal of regime support by military leadership51. By lowering the physical threat to the security forces, nonviolent movements make it psychologically and institutionally easier for the military to step aside. By contrast, violent insurgencies tend to trigger an "in-group" cohesion among state security forces. When facing lethal threats, soldiers are more likely to fight for their own survival, thereby reinforcing the regime's coercive capacity51. While large violent movements can occasionally cause defection by directly challenging regime security pillars, the empirical data suggests that desertion and active side-switching (hard defection) during violent campaigns are often localized and driven by battlefield exhaustion rather than the systemic, institutional shifts in loyalty provoked by mass nonviolent action51.

Conclusion

An exhaustive review of the historical relationship between revolutionary outcomes and the cohesion of state coercive institutions reveals a consistent structural pattern: military defeat is rarely the proximate cause of revolutionary success. The conventional paradigm of warfare—in which an insurgent force must systematically destroy the state's military apparatus in pitched combat—does not adequately explain the sudden collapse of regimes in Russia in 1917, Cuba in 1958, Nicaragua in 1979, Iran in 1979, or the rapid dissolution of the Afghan state in 2021\. Instead, the evidence robustly supports the proposition that revolutionary movements rarely need to defeat the entire state security apparatus if that apparatus ceases acting as a unified institution1. Regimes fall when the loyalty threshold of the security forces is breached. This breach is generally precipitated by a combination of structural vulnerabilities—such as the loss of foreign patronage, fiscal collapse, or deep institutional grievances—and the psychological shock of mass mobilization3. When an army is highly institutionalized, mass protests force it to choose between saving a specific political leader and preserving its own organizational integrity and public legitimacy; historically, it chooses the latter, opting for neutrality or defection. When an army is patrimonial or highly sectarian, it will fight tenaciously, as seen in Syria and Bahrain, but even these forces are highly susceptible to sudden psychological collapse if their external life-support is severed, as demonstrated in Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Ultimately, political collapse almost universally precedes, rather than follows, military disintegration. A state's coercive shield is only as strong as the political belief, patronage, and institutional cohesion that sustains it; once those elements evaporate, even the most heavily armed apparatus will rapidly dissolve.

Works cited

1. Explaining Military Responses to Revolutions, https://www.dohainstitute.org/en/ResearchAndStudies/Pages/Explaining\_Military\_Responses\_to\_Revolutions.aspx

2. Armies and the art of revolution (Beacon... book by Katharine Chorley \- ThriftBooks, https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/armies-and-the-art-of-revolution-beacon-bp-463\_katharine-chorley/1234346/

3. States and Social Revolutions \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States\_and\_Social\_Revolutions

4. Rebellion, Revolution, and Armed Force: A Comparative Study of Fifteen Countries with Special Emphasis on Cuba and South Africa \- Russell, D. E. H.: 9781483248936 \- AbeBooks, https://www.abebooks.com/9781483248936/Rebellion-Revolution-Armed-Force-Comparative-1483248933/plp

5. Lost in a Sandstorm: The U.S. attempt to win the war in Afghanistan \- Harvard DASH, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/b0418be7-75c9-428e-b8e7-613376ddea27/download

6. THE SANDINISTA MILITARY BUILD-UP | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov), https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88b00831r000100210055-0

7. Civil-Military Linkages and Authoritarian Regime Survival During the Arab Spring: Understanding Different Outcomes of the Revolutions \- Inquiries Journal, http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1953/civil-military-linkages-and-authoritarian-regime-survival-during-the-arab-spring-understanding-different-outcomes-of-the-revolutions

8. Revolutions & Regime Change — Explain revolutions and... \- Varsity Tutors, https://www.varsitytutors.com/practice/subjects/college-political-science/lessons/revolutions-and-regime-change

9. Coercive Institutions and State Violence under Authoritarianism \- SciSpace, https://scispace.com/pdf/coercive-institutions-and-state-violence-under-3hw3967v9c.pdf

10. Sparks And Prairie Fires: A Theory Of Unanticipated Political Revolution \- SciSpace, https://scispace.com/papers/sparks-and-prairie-fires-a-theory-of-unanticipated-political-6visn9dkhw

11. Sparks and prairie fires: A theory of unanticipated political revolution \- IDEAS/RePEc, https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v61y1989i1p41-74.html

12. Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring, https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download\&did=82305\&kod=JMM705

13. EXPLANATORY POWER OF THE TULLOCK CONTEST AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF GAME THEORY IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING SPENDINGS \- Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, https://yujor.fon.bg.ac.rs/index.php/yujor/article/download/946/931/918

14. Mass protests, security-elite defection, and revolution \- IDEAS/RePEc, https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcecon/v50y2022i4p981-996.html

15. Dilemma and Cascades in the Armed Forces \- The Tunisian Revolution \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329280435\_Dilemma\_and\_Cascades\_in\_the\_Armed\_Forces\_-\_The\_Tunisian\_Revolution

16. The Political Economics of Non-democracy \- Kellogg School of Management, https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/egorov/docs/PoliticalEconomicsNondemocracy.pdf

17. Exit, Resistance, Loyalty: Military Behavior during Unrest in Authoritarian Regimes | Perspectives on Politics \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/exit-resistance-loyalty-military-behavior-during-unrest-in-authoritarian-regimes/20164E4AD6AE05B35C0AFEC027507148

18. Mass protests, security-elite defection, and revolution | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362164392\_Mass\_protests\_security-elite\_defection\_and\_revolution

19. Honorable Mention \- Disaggregating The Coercive Apparatus: The Competing Calculi Of Parallel Security Institutions In Egypt And Tunisia \- The Yale Review Of International Studies, https://yris.yira.org/essays/honorable-mention-disaggregating-the-coercive-apparatus-the-competing-calculi-of-parallel-security-institutions-in-egypt-and-tunisia/

20. Coups, Coup-Proofing, and Military Politics in Endgames (Chapter 1\) \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/endgames/coups-coupproofing-and-military-politics-in-endgames/F538066CA1C97A561892B21828F42D92

21. A MILITARY BESIEGED: THE ARMED FORCES, THE POLICE, AND THE PARTY IN BIN ʿALI'S TUNISIA, 1987–2011 | International Journal of Middle East Studies, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/military-besieged-the-armed-forces-the-police-and-the-party-in-bin-alis-tunisia-19872011/633090F2E158EBE62534DFCAE78E0BF2

22. Authoritarian Regimes and Civil-Military Relations: Explaining Counterbalancing in Autocracies \- e-Repositori UPF, https://repositori.upf.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9386666c-d36b-4481-a737-9c13c91f5bf9/content

23. What was the February Revolution (1917)? \- Boot Camp & Military Fitness Institute, https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/2021/03/01/what-was-the-february-revolution-1917/

24. Russian Revolution | Definition, Causes, Summary, History, & Facts \- Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

25. Causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917 \- World History Encyclopedia, https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2773/causes-of-the-russian-revolution-of-1917/

26. Russian Revolution \- The February Revolution | Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution/The-February-Revolution

27. February Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February\_Revolution

28. The Russian Revolutions | CAPE History \- Caribbean AI, https://caribbeans.ai/cape/history/unit-2/module-2/global-conflicts-and-totalitarianism/the-russian-revolutions

29. Outline of the February Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline\_of\_the\_February\_Revolution

30. How the Kornilov Affair fractured the fragile Russian Revolution \- History Skills, https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/modern-history/kornilov-affair/

31. Conflict Across Latin America | World History \- Lumen Learning, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/conflict-across-latin-america/

32. The Batista-Lansky Alliance | Cigar Aficionado, https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/the-batista-lansky-alliance-7197

33. Cuban Revolution | Summary, Facts, Causes, Effects, & Significance \- Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-Revolution

34. COLD WAR CUBA: BATISTA, THE REVOLUTIONARIES AND THE US ARMS EMBARGO, https://coldwarstudies.com/2013/12/17/cold-war-cuba-batista-the-revolutionaries-and-the-us-arms-embargo/

35. Nicaragua 1981 \- Introduction, https://cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Nica81eng/intro.htm

36. The FSLN-OAS relationship: From the fall of Somoza to the new Ortega tyranny, https://confidencial.digital/english/the-fsln-oas-relationship-from-the-fall-of-somoza-to-the-new-ortega-tyranny/

37. Exit Somoza, Enter the Sandinistas \- Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training, https://adst.org/2015/04/exit-somoza-enter-the-sandinistas/

38. REPUBLIC OF TURKEY ISTANBUL GILISIM UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDENTS THE PEACE PROCESS IN AFGHANISTAN (1992-2021) Maste, https://acikerisim.gelisim.edu.tr/bitstreams/fbae22a9-2293-42fb-8364-14e5ffd27288/download

39. Iranian Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian\_Revolution

40. What if Georges Boulanger had launched a successful coup in France in 1889? \- Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-if-Georges-Boulanger-had-launched-a-successful-coup-in-France-in-1889

41. Xu Qinxian \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu\_Qinxian

42. Shocking Historic Leak: 10 Revelations from the Secret Trial of the PLA General Who Defied Tiananmen Martial Law | JAPAN Forward, https://japan-forward.com/shocking-historic-leak-10-revelations-from-the-secret-trial-of-the-pla-general-who-defied-tiananmen-martial-law/

43. Obedience, Ambiguity, and Punishment: The Chinese Military at Tiananmen Revisited, https://warontherocks.com/obedience-ambiguity-and-punishment-the-chinese-military-at-tiananmen-revisited/

44. "It's the people's blood\!" \- Gen. Xu Qinxian opposed Tiananman massacre \[article\], https://en.gariwo.net/magazine/totalitarianism/it-s-the-people-s-blood-11089.html

45. Interview: Former PLA Military Driver Recalls 38th Army Commander's Massacre Rebellion, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/pla-driver-02222018115611.html

46. Volume 44, Number 2, January 2012 \- The Journal of Comparative Politics, https://jcp.gc.cuny.edu/2012/01/01/volume-44-number-2-january-2012/

47. Reconsidering the Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233518796\_Reconsidering\_the\_Robustness\_of\_Authoritarianism\_in\_the\_Middle\_East\_Lessons\_from\_the\_Arab\_Spring

48. Bahrain (07/08/11) \- State.gov, https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/bahrain/180812.htm

49. Unpacking nonviolent campaigns | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258155489\_Unpacking\_nonviolent\_campaigns

50. Map shows how nonviolent uprisings succeed \- Harvard Gazette, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/map-shows-how-nonviolent-uprisings-succeed/

51. Disaggregating Defection: Dissent Campaign Strategies and Security Force Disloyalty, https://www.prio.org/publications/14688

52. Women's Participation and the Fate of Nonviolent Campaigns, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Womens\_Participation\_Nonviolent\_Campaigns\_OEF\_English\_resource.pdf

53. Updating nonviolent campaigns: Introducing NAVCO 2.1 | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364552259\_Updating\_nonviolent\_campaigns\_Introducing\_NAVCO\_21

54. (PDF) Unravelling the complex nature of security force defection \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341738004\_Unravelling\_the\_complex\_nature\_of\_security\_force\_defection