North Atlantic Treaty Organization After the Cold War Report (Assessment)

Introduction

International politics is a challenging field that describes versatile relations among numerous states. It is believed that any actions and decisions within the area of international politics are responses to the current situation in the world. For example, it refers to NATO that was created to establish peace after World War II. That is why one of the primary goals of this organization was to restrict the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, even after the USSR collapsed, NATO did not reduce its efforts and continued to enlarge. This state of affairs evokes a discussion that some actions are not always responses, and two different approaches can be used to understand this situation in detail. They are defensive realism and offensive realism which are based on almost opposite concepts. Thus, detailed analysis is necessary to determine which of the two approaches above is the most suitable to explain NATO enlargement after the end of the Cold War.

Theoretical Approaches

To begin with, one should realize the general principles of political realism. According to Walt, political realism is a dominant theory of international politics that is based on the concept of security.¹ As has been stated previously, there are two different variations of this theory. On the one hand, defensive realism says that countries and international organizations are not aggressive by their nature. Furthermore, when they face a threat, they try to maximize their security and preserve the existing distribution of powers in the world.² In other words, the approach stipulates that states start increasing their powers only if they have to deal with external danger. Defensive realists believe that aggression is destroying because it leads to the creation of various counterbalancing alliances, which will violate the existing distribution of powers.³ Moreover, this concept proves that even if a single state tries to improve its security, it will endanger the safety of others.⁴ Thus, supporters of this approach are considered honest political players that only show their powers in reaction to the actions of others.

On the other hand, offensive realism represents the opposite strategy. It is said that simple security is annoying for supporters of this approach. Lobell mentions that offensive realists inherently try to maximize their power and influence on the world.⁵ These states do not need any external conditions to expand their military might. The central concept of this approach is that more powerful countries are said to control a state of affairs in the world. In addition to that, offensive realists feel confident that states should expand to increase their impact, and conquest is the most useful way to achieve it.⁶ The information above means that this political theory justifies wars and other manifestations of aggression because they help countries become more influential. Thus, offensive realism is suitable for those states that want to become the hegemon in the world.

NATO Enlargement after the Cold War

The principal goals of NATO included preventing the Soviet Union expansion and uniting European states to avoid future hostilities. They were achieved in the late 1980s–early 1990s when Germany was reunified, and the Soviet Union collapsed. The disappearance of the main enemy meant that NATO needed to implement some changes. In 1999, NATO defined new security threats, including terrorism, ethnic conflict, political instability, and the distribution of various kinds of weapons.⁷ That fact allowed them to have an impact on different world countries. Even though NATO and Russia started their partnership on mutually respective terms, their relationship worsened because of NATO enlargement. According to Wallander, the reasons for that enlargement was to use NATO’s experience to bring peace and stability to Central and Eastern Europe.⁸ However, it had a different result, and Russia considered NATO’s presence in Europe a significant security threat.

Case Analysis

Both defensive and offensive realism can be used to explain the case outlined above. From a defensive point of view, the enlargement of NATO is a response of the organization to many threats that appeared in the world. For example, various ethnic conflicts and political revolutions make NATO establish its military bases across Europe. Thus, this international alliance is said to do its best to develop and support security in the whole world. At the same time, offensive realism explains that the enlargement of NATO is nothing but the desire of the organization to become the hegemon. It is believed that there are no real threats for NATO and world security to have this numerous representation in Europe and other continents. Thus, NATO’s primary goal is to maximize its powers and increase its influence on the whole world.

Even though each theory above has some value in understanding the case, offensive realism seems to be superior from the two because of a few reasons. Firstly, NATO has always been expanding its military might irrespective of a current political situation. It means that this alliance desires to be the most influential organization in the world. Secondly, NATO has fought against a few threats, and it took a while for the body to replace them. It is said that the existence of severe enemies justifies NATO expansion and its intervention in the domestic affairs of various states. Finally, the alliance does not seem to benefit from world security because the absence of a severe threat would mean that NATO is not necessary at a particular moment.

Conclusion

After the end of the Cold War, NATO enlarged significantly rather than disappeared or minimized its influence. Two different theories, defensive realism and offensive realism, can be used to explain the reasons for that state of affairs. Even though the two approaches present suitable information, offensive realism is said to be a driven force of the enlargement of NATO. It is proved that this alliance does its best to become the most powerful and influential organization in the world. This fact explains the presence of numerous NATO military bases across the globe. If this situation keeps escalating, international politics can face a regular crisis that will increase political, economic, and military tensions among numerous states.

Bibliography

Belkin, Paul. Assessing NATO’s Value.Congressional Research Service Report R45652, 2019. Web.

Lobell, Steven E. “Structural Realism/Offensive and Defensive Realism.” In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (2010): 1–26. Web.

Wallander, Celeste A. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War.” International Organization 54, no. 4 (2000): 705–735. Web.

Walt, Stephen M. “Realism and Security.” In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (2010): 1–27. Web.

Footnotes

1. Stephen M. Walt, “Realism and Security,” in The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (2010), 1, Web.
2. Steven E. Lobell, “Structural Realism/Offensive and Defensive Realism,” in The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (2010), 10, Web.
3. Lobell, “Structural Realism,” 11.
4. Lobell, “Structural Realism,” 12.
5. Lobell, “Structural Realism,” 3.
6. Lobell, “Structural Realism,” 6.
7. Paul Belkin, Assessing NATO’s Value, Congressional Research Service Report R45652, 2019, 3, Web.
8. Celeste A. Wallander, “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War,” International Organization 54, no. 4 (2000): 720, Web.