2. Neorealist theory as a theoretical basis of the study.

2.1 The main features of neorealism.

The first paragraph of the first chapter will focus on neorealist theory as a theoretical basis of the study. It will describe the origins, evolution and the main features of neorealism and its currents.

For a better understanding of the main features of this theory, first of all, it would be necessary to address classical realism, the forerunner of neorealism. In political science the emergence or realism is closely related to the writings of ancient Greek historians and philosophers – sophists; further works of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli also exerted significant influence on the formation of the relist tradition in political science. Thomas Johnson points to the three main theses that later formed the core of realism (forerunner of neorealism):

1) Truth and justice are relative and thus they can’t be universal;

2) “Man is the measure of all things”, at that his nature is seemed predominately negative, selfish and moral (virtuous) only when it is required;

3) Categories of power and strength are the key element for understanding of political processes.

Power in all its manifestations from conviction to enforcement is treated as a continuous, unitary whole.

Former British diplomat Edward Carr made an important preparatory step for formation of points of political realism. He criticized ideas of the idealists-liberals of open diplomacy and global international organization which enshrined in the creation of the concept of collective security under the aegis of League of Nations, because this organization could not prevent the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and Japanese invasion of Manchuria. According to the diplomat, ideas of liberal pacifism eventually contributed to the unleashing of the Second World War. Carr claimed the need to guide by judicious contribution of theory and practice in political science, but not being divorced from reality, that means to be based on “critical analysis of existing facts or available means”. Edward Carr didn’t exclude the right to moral choice in politics, but he believed that critical importance rests with the factor of power.

Consequently, an adequate theory, first, has to study how the power is distributed in the international system. The establishment of the status quo in Europe after the end of the First World War, according to the scientist, was understood as a reflection of the interests of the victorious states, and never as a result of their goodwill, consent of interests or activities of international organizations. Furthermore, power and authority were key concepts in the study of international relations, because "power is a necessary ingredient of every political order." In addition, Carr introduced the concept of "national interest" to referrance the objective pursuit of the states to build up power and influence. Also, the scientist did not separate the economy from politics, in the context of international interaction, and spoke about the primary role of Great Powers in international politics, since they have more power than the others¹³. [6, C.105] However, Carr did not consider the states as the only actors of politics, he also predicted the erosion of the concept of sovereignty, and the emergence of non-traditional players in world politics.

Hans Morgenthau is considered to be the one of the main creators of the theory of realism; he presented a systematic exposition of classical realism in his work “Politics among nations” after the end of the World War II ¹⁴[39, C.31].

Morgenthau formulated six basic principles of political realism. First, building on historical knowledge, the author argued that international politics is subject to objective laws that are based on natural characteristics of social development, and the main characteristic is the drive for power. Therefore, the political process must be based on rationality to reduce the unpredictability ¹⁵[14, C.30].

Secondly, the most important concept to studying international politics is the category of the state's power. All actions, strategies and doctrines of states entirely depend on how much power it has to realize its goals in the struggle with other states. The national interest, which is based on the desire of states to increase the power and strength for survival, is a natural, objective given for all states and their leaders¹⁶ [39, C.32].

Third, international politics is seen as a historical process. Therefore, the methods and forms of the implementation of power, and hence the image of key actors in international relations can be changed depending on the historical context. In the current situation, the state remains the key subject of international relations. But it, like other historical forms of organization of power, can be transformed or replaced by a more perfect form for a particular period of history. Changes of the international system and its actors occur as owing to objective tendencies (globalization) and also as a subjective factors (successful political strategy) ¹⁷[14, C.30].

Fourth, morality (for example, the human rights) does not have independent significance in international politics. States can take into account such principles, but till it comes at the expense of national interests: "moral considerations must be filtered according to circumstances, taking into account the place and time"¹⁸ [14, C.10]. Fifthly, universal moral and ethical principles that are acceptable to the policies of one state, as well as customs and traditions, cannot be equally acceptable to other countries. Defending the human rights or institutions of democracy, the state tries just to give legitimacy to its actions and gain certain advantages. Consequently, "universal" principles serve to protect the national interests of a particular state, and not of the entire international community.

In singling out the sixth principle of realism, Hans Morgenthau claimed that the foreign policy of the state, that is independent of the economic, legal and cultural spheres of public life, has its own basic political concepts: the state as the main actor; sovereignty; Anarchic nature of the international environment, that is, "the war of all against all"; National interest, measured in terms of power.

Morgenthau also formulated four paradoxes of international politics in the era of nuclear weapons: 1) being the most destructive weapon on the planet, nuclear weapons give an undeniable advantage to its holder, but the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike reduces the role of nuclear weapons and the general possibility of using conventional weapons as well; 2) States seek such a policy that can avoid the consequences of nuclear war, therefore a limited nuclear war is not rational because of the unpredictability of its consequences and the lack of information about the strength of the enemy; 3) in the nuclear age, the Powers are striving to achieve a preponderance in military potential, which stimulates the arms race, which the countries want to stop, gained superiority in military power; 4) the nuclear Powers tend to rely on alliances, but the non-nuclear status of other members of the alliance reduces the role of such a coalition.

An important influence on understanding the situation in the world through the prism of realism is provided by the concept of a "security dilemma", the paradoxical essence of which is that both the growth and weakening of the power of the state can pose a threat from other states. In the conflict environment of international relations, the strengthening of the military potential of one state is perceived by others as a threat to national security to other states, stimulating the arms race and increasing tension; The weakening of the power of the state, on the contrary, is seen as a manifestation of weakness and can lead to aggressive actions from the other states ¹⁹[10, C.63].

In addition to the basic principles, we can identify a number of distinctive features of classical realism. First of all, it is the conflictual nature of the international system, where the main task of each state is survival. Conflict is caused both by the divergence of the interests of states and by the absence of an external constraints for the conduct of foreign policy by sovereign states. The struggle of states for national interests, which often takes an extreme form - war, is natural and inevitable. However, anarchy does not imply a constant state of "war of all against all." States enter into alliances to stabilize the international system, this leads to the establishment of a "balance of forces" - a state where the forces of actors or groups of actors are approximately equal, and none of them can gain a decisive advantage²⁰ [15, C.173].

Of course, classical realism has a number of shortcomings. International relations are regarded as equal to the foreign policy of states, and its connection with domestic policy is not taken into account. Also adherents of classical realism do not take into account a lot of internal factors: political elites, pressure groups, traditions, spiritual values. The key concepts of "power" and "force" do not have clear definitions; all the states are understood as monoliths, which, in fact, do not differ in the international environment, and the logic of their behavior is reduced to the expansion of power and influence²¹ [39, C.35].

The greatest contribution to the development of a realistic tradition of studying of international relations was made by Kenneth Waltz, founder of structural realism. According to Waltz's plan, the consistent implementation of the principle of systematic analysis makes it possible to study international policy taking into account its complexity, to separate causes from effects and to single out private and general ones among the reasons. To do this, attention should be paid to the relationship of the three levels: the man, the state and the international system as a whole. If the first two levels describe the forces acting in politics, then without the third it is impossible to assess their importance and predict the result. Theories need to consider the interaction of causes that manifest themselves at different levels ²²[39, C.51].

It is worth starting with the fact that Waltz, developing the ideas of J.-J. Rousseau, clarifies the concept of rationality, which permeates the entire system of social relations. Man, according to the author, is not just aimed at satisfying his interests, but he is aimed also at being a part of community and system, he must measure his needs with long-term consequences for society to survive. In Waltz's theory, the basic forms are the structure and the system of international politics. "The system is a set of interacting units²³ [22, C.39]. At one level, the system consists of a structure that is a component of the system level and makes it possible to study, thereby the units form some set that is different from the simple set. At another level, the system consists of interacting units.” As for the international structure, it "arises from the interaction of states, which simultaneously undermines them from certain actions and stimulates others." For Waltz, the crucial importance is not how the states interact, but how they are organized and streamlined, because the streamlining (that is, the nature of the relationship) describes not the actions of units, but the essence of the whole system²⁴ [21, C.29].

As for the structure of international politics, it has a number of defining attributes: first, the absence of a highest governing body, that is, anarchy, which in this case does not contradict streamlining. The structure is created by a real multidirectional policy of the states, each of which pursues its own interests but cannot control the system alone and has no idea of its development in advance²⁵ [39, C.69]. Secondly, the main function of the state as an element of the international system is to protect its sovereignty. "Sovereignty" here does not contradict "dependence", it means that the state by itself determines the way of solving external and internal problems, also through alliances and a conscious restriction of their freedom. All other functions of the state are secondary, since they are impossible in the absence of sovereignty. The third sign of the international structure is the unequal distribution of power between states. This is not about the power of individual states, but about the distribution that is a feature of the structure. Anarchy and the defense of sovereignty are invariable attributes of the international system, but the distribution of power is constantly changing. This is the only criterion by which the theory can explain the changes in the international system and predict and explain the behavior of states.

It is also important to note that any international system can be viewed as dependent on two variables: the number of great Powers and the distribution of force. Small (weak) states do not have significant influence. This does not mean that structural realism completely ignores them. This only suggests that it’s necessary to study how small states survive during open intervention by the great powers or in conditions of relative freedom. The structure is not static, because it creates "similarities in the functioning of states during the very existence of the structure"²⁶ [21, C.79]. In addition, the structure can be subject to fundamental changes in cases when the principle of ordering the structure (bipolar system) is changing or the main function of the state is transforming, apart from permanent changes in the nature of the interaction of states in the system (the emergence of TNCs).

Kenneth Waltz also singled out the notion of structural force, which is expressed in the influence of the structure on the activities of its elements, where the structure acts as a mechanism linking the actions of states and the emerging phenomena and processes of international politics. Kenneth Walts also distinguished the notion of structural strength, which is expressed in the impact of the structure on the activities of its elements, in which the structure acts as a mechanism linking the actions of states and the emerging phenomena and processes of international politics. At the same time, there is also a process of socialization, when the state is forced either to accept historically established norms of interaction and the current distribution of forces, or to resist them, becoming a kind of an outcast²⁷ [40].

The core of Waltz' neorealism remains the concept of a balance of forces that acquires a richer content. The balance of forces in the system is formed objectively, similarly to microeconomic laws, while the anarchic structure creates conditions for its constant reproduction²⁸ [39, C.67]. This concept is the only way of self-preservation of the international structure that prevents the emergence of a hierarchy and, therefore, this is the most acceptable strategy especially for the great powers, along with the desire for leadership and accession to a stronger state (coalition). Of course, as in classical realism, structural realism sees the state as the main actor of international politics, while agreeing, nevertheless, with increase of influence of non-state actors (TNCs). However, states continue to define and change the "rules of the game" for "supranational" and subnational actors.

The development of the realistic tradition did not end with Waltz's fundamental ideas. New directions emerged, based mainly on the ideas of structural realism, but differing in their own way, as the authors tried to adapt it to global changes in the world structure and to make a forecast for the development of the international system. One of these areas is "defensive realism." Like structural realism, the defensive version of realism confirms Waltz's thesis that in the anarchist structure, the main goal of states is to ensure their own security, which is threatened by other states. However, defensive realism has a number of differences. First, the behavior of states is based on a rational choice, rather than on a multitude of factors at different levels. Second, instead of the balance of force, the concept of "balance of defense and attack" is used as a variable, and under present conditions, technological development and geopolitical circumstances favor a defensive strategy, since even great powers find it difficult to project authority to large territories. Thirdly, combining rationalism and the balance of defense and attack, in which defense is preferable, states will seek to maintain the status quo ²⁹[23, C.20].

The theory of the "balance of threats" of Stephen Walt is the most famous variant in this direction of neorealism, according to which, "in anarchy, states form unions for self-defense, and their behavior is determined by the threats they perceive, and the power of other states is only one of the elements in their calculations "³⁰[23, C.21]. States assess the threat posed by other states, comparing it with their own power; The calculations also include an assessment of intentions, proximity to the borders and a balance of defense-attack. In these conditions, aggressive or revisionist behavior is seen as self-destruction, since the states that preserve the status quo will do their best to restrain the aggressor.

In contrast to defensive realism, offensive realism, the greatest contribution to the development of which John Mearsheimer has made, calls into question the thesis that all states are striving only for an "appropriate / adequate" amount of power, because the environment surrounding the states does not allow them to speak with confidence about developments³¹ [23, C.26]. Therefore, only the build-up of force can guarantee security, and the more it is available, the greater the chances of surviving, but the strength of the system's resistance does not allow actors to claim status greater than regional leadership, since global dominance is possible only if there is an overwhelming advantage in nuclear potentials. Careful timing, "pushing" responsibility for regional security to others and information asymmetry can allow a potential hegemon to succeed, bypassing the dangers of a "security dilemma."

Nevertheless, states are "sophisticated, experienced maximizers of their power", they do not lead a thoughtless aggressive policy, on the contrary, they choose the right moment when to attack, and when to yield, such an actor achieves regional hegemony, using both force and intellect.³² [13, C.35] In the absence of hegemony, states are trying to increase their economic and military power; To expand influence and access to resources, they use military methods, blackmail, confront neighbors with each other, involve opponents in protracted and costly conflicts. However, when opposing expansion, states resort to tactics of alliances and units, transfer responsibility to others, involve third countries in conflicts. Since the theory is more relevant to great powers, Mearsheimer divides them into three types: continental ("dreaming" of becoming regional hegemons) and island powers (providing a balance) and regional hegemons (the most powerful). Since it is the great powers that determine international processes in the structure, the bipolar system is the least controversial, while the multipolar world is always inclined to constant repartitions of spheres of influence³³ [13, C.42].

Another theory that is part of the realistic tradition is "neoclassical realism" of Schweller. The importance of this direction is that it considers how the political and economic situation within the country influences the behavior of states under structural influences and changes. The history shows that for approximately the same challenges of the environment, approximately the same states react differently, this actualizes the study of such factors as: the unity of the political elite, its ability to consensus, the cohesion of society and the viability of the political regime. Also, Schweller points out that a policy of collective deterrence against an aggressor or a revisionist state, that states which are interested in maintaining the status quo prefer to preventive measures, is usually not enough for curbing an aggressively aligned actor, that, for example, led to two World Wars.

The realistic tradition of the theory of international relations, which was reflected in many areas: classical realism, structural realism or neorealism, and further offensive and defensive, neoclassical realism is one of the most applicable and relevant theoretical bases for analyzing international politics in all its manifestations. The next section will focus on how the neo-realists study the nature of modern armed conflicts and wars.