Hello. Today we will talk about evolution of Realist Theory in the 21st century. In particular, after the end of the Cold War, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in conditions of globalization. The thing at these three events and the overall profound transformation of the international system in late 20th, early 21st century, made the fundamental challenge to the previous to the classical Realism, to the Political Realism of Hans Morgenthau and Neorealism Structural Realism of Kenneth Waltz. Neither of them could really either predict or explain these profound transformations of the international system at war at odds with the later development of the IR in the 19th century. However, since the second half of 2000s and especially in 2010s, the relevance of realism started to revive. So let's talk about how realist theory was challenged by these transformations in late twentieth century, and how realism evolved afterwards. So, the end of the Cold War was a fundamental challenge for the Realist Paradigm, for the Realist thinking. The thing that is that Realists, both Classical Realist, Political Realists and Neorealists, could not even foresee or predict or explain the rapid conclusion of the Cold War in 1989. According to the Structural Realists, the Cold War would proceed for indefinite future. Structural Realism claimed that the Cold War was a stabilizing force, a stabilizing factor in the international system. It prevented major wars among great powers and indeed in conditions of the Cold War, there was neither war between direct war, direct military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union nor major clashes among either great powers. And as late as 1988, Kenneth Waltz who is the creator of Structural Realism, argued that the Cold War "Was firmly rooted in the structure of postwar international politics, and will remain as long as the structure endures". However, despite these predictions, and despite the realist assertions that the Cold War made the international system stable, the Cold War ended next year. In 1989, there was a collapse of the Berlin Wall, followed by the US-USSR Summit at Malta. And as a result of the Malta Summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr. declared the Cold War confrontation to be end. And very soon in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed. So, the Traditional Realists, The Classical Realists were completely unprepared for these events, and they could not simply explain that. It was indeed, in late 1980s the Soviet foreign policy started a profound change, which the realist theory could not simply explain. What kind of change? First the Soviet Union allowed a non violent collapse of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, and dismantlement of the Empire that the Soviet Union has been sustaining since 1940s. Usually great powers don't do that. And Realists claimed as back as 1988, that it was unthinkable for the Soviet Union to allow simply a disappearance of its empire without a single shot, but it happened. And Soviet Union, when all the anti communist transformations started in Central and Eastern Europe, Mikhail Gorbachev claimed that it will not intervene. It will not try to somehow stop or prevent these events from the further evolution, and Gorbachev invoked the so-called Sinatra Doctrine. In recordings to the famous song by Frank Sinatra "My Way", he claims that he's doing his way, unlike the previous Soviet governments death. And he allows the Central and Eastern Europeans to follow their way. It was bizarre. It was simply beyond the logic of Political Realism and Neorealism. Moreover, the Soviet Union allowed reunification of Germany on the basis of West Germany and within NATO. Again it was completely impossible to explain it from the realist viewpoint, because what actually happened was that East Germany which was the Soviet satellite, ceased to exist, and joined the West Germany. And this all happened within the NATO alliance. So basically, NATO acts enlarged, NATO extended in the year 1990 when Germany became reunified to the territory of East Germany. Previously, the long term position of the Soviet government was that Germany could be unified only through becoming neutral. It should follow the path of Austria and Finland, if it wants to become a unified. However, Soviet Union allowed unification of Germany within NATO. It was again a profound challenge to the Realist viewpoint upon foreign policy and how the international system should evolve. And finally, in the year 1991, the Soviet Union supported the United States war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq. For the first time in four decades the Soviet Union supported American use of force. And all these events, all these profound transformations and the rapid conclusion of the Cold War which became the consequence of this rapid transformation, rapid transformation became just "Terra incognita", for the realists. They simply could not explain this course of events. Next thing that the realists could not explain was the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself, which followed the end of the Cold War. End of the Cold War happened in 1989. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And this triggered even more criticism towards the Realist approach. And the criticism was that Realism is no longer relevant because it fails to explain the New Political Reality. Indeed, neither Classical Political Realism, nor Structural Realism were able to explain the Soviet retreat and collapse in just three years after Kennet Waltz had claimed that the Cold War and the Soviet Union will survive for very long time, for a long while. No one among them, among the classical realists could explain dissolution of the Soviet Union in conditions of no major war, and in conditions when the Soviet Union remains Military Superpower. Because structurally, Soviet Union was very strong, very powerful in the late 1980s. And there was no profound difference between the position of the USSR in 1988,1989 and before. The Soviet Union remained the nuclear superpower, the Soviet Union possessed the vast military preponderance over NATO in Central Europe. Soviet economy was still one of the largest economies in the world. Soviet Union maintained the vast system of allies. It enjoyed global presence as the United States. And without a major war, it simply disappeared. These events normally do not happen in international relations. And Realism turned out to be completely useless and powerless in terms of explanation. Finally, realists offered false predictions about the post-Cold War development of international relations in many regions, in particularly in Europe, and in particularly in the short term prospect. Realists I said were unprepared for the end of the Cold War. But when the end of the Cold War happened, they considered this a very destabilizing event. Again they assumed that the Cold War was stable, and the end of the Cold War must have resulted in a profound destabilization of the international system. In particular, realists predicted a return of traditional great power confrontation among European countries, such as between Germany and France, France and Britain, Britain and Germany. Realists predicted for instance the revival of German Imperialism after the end of the Cold War and chaos and violence in Eastern Europe, where a power vacuum emerged after the Soviet retreat. For instance, one of the most profound Realist, John Mearsheimer, argued in one of his articles that, "The West has an interest in maintaining the Cold War order, and hence has an interest in maintaining the cold war confrontation, and moreover the West to support the continued existence of the Soviet Union, with substantial military presence in Eastern Europe. Because otherwise the key factor of the Western consolidation, the existence of the Soviet threat would disappear and therefore the disappearance of this threat will lead to a conflict between the Western states". So dissolution of the Soviet Union according to John Mearsheimer must have resulted or was likely to result in reemergence of conflicts, traditional historical conflicts between Western countries. But, nothing like that happened in Europe. Germany stayed peaceful. Germany did not return to its pre-1945 pattern of foreign policy. No kind of great power or contradiction reemerged in Europe between France and Germany, Germany and Britain, Britain and France. And with the exception of former Yugoslavia which really collapsed and turned into bloody chaos and wars, no profound destabilization happened in Central and Eastern Europe. Central and Eastern Europeans very quickly resolved their territorial disputes, and wealth stayed peaceful and integrated quite quickly into the Western Euro Atlantic institutions.
