Realism After the Cold War: NATO Expansion
Realism After the Cold War: Debates on NATO Expansion and U.S. Role
When the Cold War vanished, was realism still relevant? Almost all realistic explanations posited that the Cold War was easy to analyze. The end of the Cold War unsettled everything. In 1990, the communist bloc dissolved, and in 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared. Reflections on the international system emerged. Did we go from a bipolar to a unipolar or multipolar system? What is the best system?
John Mearsheimer:
Study 1: Outreach; 2: The U.S. and International Relations Institutions (IRIB). This convinced him that developing the IRIB can direct structural interaction. Bipolar systems are the most perfect. Why?
- Actors have the potential for war.
- Actors have the possibility of agreements.
They follow each other, which minimizes risks of miscalculation. Just set a limit, and the rival will follow. The bipolar system explains the 40 years of peace in Europe. It was the guarantor of peace. The end of the Cold War umbrella and the withdrawal of protection had shielded Europe. This leads to the recurrence of a multipolar order, which is more hazardous.
Conclusion:
Realists say that the order of the Cold War should be kept, even though it is finished. Somehow, though, the USSR no longer exists.
How does the EU fit into this plan? The EU is a distortion factor, always realistic. Two streams of the realist current debate are: Should NATO expand eastward after the fall of the USSR, yes or no?
Currently, almost all Eastern European countries are members. When the USSR disappeared, the question arose whether NATO should also disappear. NATO reaffirmed its status in 1991-92. The U.S. reiterated its determination to stay in Europe. Afterward, the U.S. reduced its presence, but it still remains. Why does it remain? Europe is a strategically key space. The U.S. engagement assures that no counterforce will emerge in Europe.
Realists support expansion into this: If any element is opposed to liberalization, it is Russia. Russia must be limited. Expansion serves as an incentive for Eastern European countries to westernize. It gives Russia the message that its time has passed and that it has no chance to regain influence. The EU cannot guarantee that Russia will not return; the U.S. influence can. It is an opportunity that must be used. There are problems with two countries: Ukraine (with a significant Russian population that Russia protects; they will not tolerate it joining NATO) and Georgia.
Realism explains the context of the Cold War, but with the demise of the USSR, new trends are emerging:
Defensive Realism (Barry Buzan)
It starts from a paradox that a perception of a threat can lead to conflict; the desire to be protected causes insecurity for the neighbor (if the machinery of war is set in motion, it is the cause). This three-part vision of international politics perceptions (later, offensive realism arises in response to this):
- States adopt defensive policies only when threatened. Conclusion: if they do not feel threatened, they will be peaceful.
- When a country is threatened, it uses its full potential; this mobilization is addressed only to defend its vital interests: territorial integrity and political independence. For other states not to conflict, they thus mobilize.
- Once a conflict has developed, the prevailing party will negotiate with the loser to formalize a profit and re-establish security.
Within the vision, there is an important element: the perception of threat. A personal variable enters (the ability of leaders to perceive threats).
Offensive Realism
Concerned about two topics:
- NATO expansion into Eastern Europe
- The character of U.S. hegemony
Should NATO incorporate the East? Here, the scenario presented is important for ensuring peace in Europe and Western hegemony. Those who support expansion see it as an opportunity that should not be missed. These countries want to avoid relying on Moscow. The U.S. reassures them. They are quite pro-US. Others wondered why, if the Warsaw Pact disappeared, NATO did not also disappear. Two factors explain why NATO did not disappear:
- Countries showed their interest in NATO to ensure peace.
- The USA wishes to stay in Europe.
Around 1992, U.S. industry believed that the objectives of the Cold War had been successfully achieved. The U.S. identified key priorities and potential competitors that could challenge its power. They want to identify potential future threats. NATO is a good way to show the limits that Russia cannot cross. In addition, it prevents unwanted coalitions within the Eastern temptation to seek them.