Abstract
From the conflict in Ukraine, to the global pandemic, and the rise of violent extremism, crises can generate uncertainty, trauma, and insecurity. Strong and intense emotions often accompany such events. Sometimes these emotions can cloud strategic vision, compelling swift action at the cost of long-term strategy, whereas at others they can help to mobilise society and generate shared feelings and connections that contribute to resilience and help societies to withstand shocks. For leaders and strategists there is an imperative to manage these emotions and harness them successfully to guide citizens and military forces alike through the crisis. Despite the prominent image of strong leaders at such times, growing evidence points to the power of care. From Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand during the pandemic, to President Vlodomyr Zelensky in Ukraine during Russia's war in the country, leaders are finding value in demonstrating consideration for how their people feel. Yet it is not without problems. Depending on its focus, and its expression, care can be perceived as weakness or a form of excessive control, undermining long-term policy efforts. A tension exists that is deserving of further study. This paper explores the concept of care by examining its psychological, social, and strategic function during times of crisis. Care is considered to encapsulate ideas of empathy, compassion, and consideration of others, reflecting an approach that puts people first. It argues that different crises require different forms of care, and that it has to be situated within a broader context of the political environment, policy efforts by government, and other qualities and characteristics of leaders. Critically, given the growing discourse around its value, this paper analyses the potential limits of care and the challenges it presents to security, politics, and strategy.