Weisler developed a bond with his targets. They didn’t even know of his existence and certainly would not feel the same about him if they knew whom he truly was or what he did for a living, but he cares for them regardless. It doesn’t matter that the bond was entirely one-sided, Weisler still cares for them simply because they are good people. This sort of instance is one the communist system could never tolerate. If everyone started acknowledging that they shouldn’t prosecute people for having morals, then those people are liable to start doing crazy things such as leaving their oppressive lives and seeking freedom. Weisler’s transformation is a brilliant way to develop his character in the film and it displays that even cruel Strasi …show more content…
Neorealism argues that power is the most important factor in international relations and whoever controls the most power during an international conflict controls the outcome of that conflict. It’s no wonder that this theory came from the Cold War era as it is based off American-Soviet relations. Neorealism dictates that a country will build up its military to appear powerful in order to survive foreign conflict and pursue its other goals. This notion divides neorealism into two subcategories: defensive and offensive. Defensive neorealism, originally proposed by Kenneth Waltz, states that every country’s goal is to merely survive, which wont be long if the military is inferior, which is why it is necessary to build a military force. Offensive neorealism, however, proposed by John Mearsheimer, argues that building a military force improves the county’s relative power because it is not a certainty of how much power will be necessary for the future so improvements must be made constantly. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were armed with nuclear weapons, the parity actually acted as a nuclear deterrent, so the military force from the theory is replaced by privileged information. Each country needed constant insight into what the other was doing as to avoid a nuclear war. One could argue that economic events also determine the relative power of a state, which is another field …show more content…
Just as the two super-powers were fighting for information on each other, internal surveillance teams were fighting for information to keep the country itself free of rebels. The Soviets had to keep an attentive eye out for rebellions which they feared would be inevitable if one of their satellite countries made contact with the west or the citizens of that country no longer respected the ruling elite. Neorealism argues that the perception of power is just as effective as actually using said power. The fear itself is enough to establish superiority. That is why intelligence was so sought after and the sole reason surveillance teams
It is significant to understand what the KGB was and what it did, since this book is centered around the actions of this organization. The KGB was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its collapse in 1991. The KGB was also considered to have been a military service and was governed by army laws and regulations. Its main focuses included foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State Boarder of the USSR and the leadership of the Soviet Government, organization and ensuring of government communications as well as fighting off nationalism and anti-Soviet activities. The KGB failed to rebuild most of its U.S. illegal resident networks, and the last major illegal resident was betrayed by his own assistant in 1957. Recruitment then put emphasis on mercenary agents. This approach was successful in espionage that was specifically scientific...
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
Throughout the years most country's governments have established some sort of secret police. No matter what the government called it, whether it is the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or her Majesty's secret service (MI6), whatever name the government used, the international term of "secret police" could always be applied. Many agencies of secret police have had their success and failures, some more than others. The KGB, which in English means "the Committee of Public Safety," has had their share of both successes and failures. Most secret police agencies have been used primarily to obtain information from other countries. This was also a primary goal for the KGB, but one of their other goals, which was just as important, was to keep unwanted outside information from the Russian people. This was only one out of many the KGB's objectives. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to prove that the actions of the KGB were, all in all, a success.
...ower game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identifies and interests. In this case, it led to more hostility and created the conflict because the states were antithetical in nature to each other. This drove the conflict, not material matters.
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior.
Both states have certain tools that they prefer to wield and one of these is secrecy. On the American side, spies, observation flights, and suppressed journalism were used to achieve American goals, and the Soviet Union paralleled this. The Soviet Union continuously denied placing offensive weapons in Cuba, then resorted to attempting to prevent evidence from being revealed (though unsuccessfully). Secrecy is used by both states to coerce the other into certain actions by putting them in unfavourable positions. This tool is in line with neorealism’s ideas. Neorealism believes that the anarchic system in place “makes it impossible for governments to fully trust each other.” Within both the film and the theory, such a sentiment translates into secrecy. There can be no cooperation between the two on matters of international interest and all actions that are taken must be done without the other’s knowledge. Neorealism advocates the use of secrecy as a tool of international relations and this tool is depicted within the film.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .