2.2 Neorealism and modern concepts of defense and security

The second paragraph of the first chapter is devoted to current studies of representatives of the realistic tradition in the theory of international relations. Certain provisions of "peripheral" and neoclassical realism, as well as modern approaches of the neo-realists to studying the nature of armed conflicts and building national security will be considered here.

After the end of the cold war and the end to the global confrontation between the USSR and the US, many neo-realists brought to their attention to the Third World and the developing countries, which had previously been a zone of economic, information-ideological, and sometimes military confrontation of superpowers. Despite the great strategic interest in such countries, the theory has traditionally bypassed the study of dependent actors, focusing on the great powers. The causes of internal conflicts in underdeveloped countries were reduced to external reasons in the form of interference by stronger states. Increased interest in developing countries can be explained by several reasons: 1) after the main opponent disappeared from the struggle, the US aimed for fostering its domination in various regions of the world; 2) in recent years the role of regional powers has increased; 3) peripheral, underdeveloped and developing states can easily go into a state of chaos, becoming a source of external threats to the US and its allies.

Applying neo-realism to peripheral states, it could be argued, that many fundamental provisions of the theory require reviewing and refining. The anarchy of the world system in relation to the underdeveloped countries takes the form of a hierarchy in which they are dependent on the will of the great powers; in addition, domestic policy also depends on the external hierarchy. The principle of rational choice is also not always a regulator of decision-making in such countries. Many third world countries have received disputed borders from their colonial past that do not correspond to cultural, religious and ethnic realities. Such countries do not have the attributes on which neo-realism relies: developed effective institutions of power, recognized borders, monopoly on domestic violence ³⁴[66].

The principle of sovereignty also plays a lesser role, since traditionally great powers have intervened in the affairs of smaller actors, who to this day remain economic, political and military-technical dependence on strong powers. Consequently, in the third world the concept of "state" plays a lesser role than "civilization", "culture", "religion", "party", "movement" or "political force", and political relations between non-state actors are more important than interstate relations. The end of bipolar confrontation had deprived peripheral countries of aid from superpowers in the fight against internal and external threats; nowadays the great powers have no interest in the internal problems of such countries that have become more vulnerable to stronger regional players³⁵ [66].

In view of the instability of the state formations of the third world, as well as the powerful influence of non-state forces and factors, peripheral countries are becoming sources of a new type of conflicts - internal wars that replaced local wars of the cold-war-era. The features of the new armed conflicts include weak controllability and the absence of constraints in the form of the ethics of warfare, morality, the proportionality of the use of force or the observance of agreements, and also the involvement of two or more great powers, which contributed to both fueling the war and stabilizing the situation in order to prevent expansion of confrontation. Moreover, in such wars there may be no explicit political goals, and unconventional, "amorphous" actors take part, who do not seek broad support from the population, so political consequences are extremely unpredictable. It’s impossible to explain the reasons for such wars only on the basis of the traditional postulates of neorealism; It is necessary to consider various internal political factors such as ideology, religion, the interests of individual political groups and leaders, and it is also important to take into account the specific historical development of such countries and regions in general³⁶ [66].

Argentine scientist and politician Carlos Escude proposed his variant of adaptation of structural realism to the realities of peripheral countries - "peripheral realism", the main difference of which is "a specific view from the position of a weak state on the periphery of the international system", using the terminology and methodology of neo-Marxism³⁷ [46] . The international system is characterized by anarchy, which is understood as an objectively established given, rather than an abstract law of structure development, while orderliness in the world prevails over chaos.

Among the states, according to the Escude, it is necessary to allocate great powers creating a hierarchy for the rest and peripheral states. The latter, in turn, are represented as "submissive" countries whom are the majority, and "rebels" or "outcast states" who "strive to live by the rules of anarchy, like great powers." But in view of the relative weakness and lack of resources, such players are not able to create norms in the international hierarchy, but they do not obey the rules of the system and are forced to sacrifice their citizens' interests for the sake of achieving foreign policy goals³⁸ [66]. As we can see, the basis of analysis in the concept of the Escude is not the structure, but the state; The idea that foreign policy is relatively independent of the domestic one is questioned.

The foreign policy of the peripheral state is based on the interests of its own economy and internal political processes, which, through the influence of the external environment, of course, drive the policy of the state at the international level. Due to weak development of democratic institutions or domination of local culture (for example, Islamic fundamentalism), states can neglect the demands and interests of the population. In addition, Carlos Escude also broadens the vision of the foreign policy objectives of the states. In addition to the traditional achievement of power and security in the international system, he singled out such goals as: consolidating of power in the country; increase in the well-being of citizens; realization of ideological or religious messages; the fluctuation between goals, or the absence of specific goals. According to the author, "states are not the same units, as Waltz argued; They play differentiated roles in the world system, in which, due to historical circumstances, some dictate norms and rules, while others are compelled to obey them "³⁹[46]. Conflicts between states can be caused by both structural causes and internal political considerations (the need for the consolidation of society); Domestic conflicts are mainly caused by the weakness of the peripheral state in the face of external threats and internal instability.

Another neo-realism trend, whose authors seek to rethink Kenneth Waltz's fundamental tenets, is "neoclassical realism." The term "neoclassical realism" was introduced by Gideon Rose in 1998 in a consolidated review of five English-language monographs, which traced a new approach to the study of international relations with the introduction of methodology of neoinstitutionalism and constructivism to neo-realism. Randall Schweller, in 2006, suggested calling neoclassical realism the theory of errors. It is designed to explain why systemic pressure is distorted and, as a result, leads to contradictions in foreign policy, or to a slow reaction ⁴⁰[48]. On the one hand, this approach continues the tradition of structural realism with its emphasis on systemic and structural challenges, but on the other hand, the authors believe that it is necessary to take into account a set of internal factors, since the reaction of similar countries to similar external global and regional challenges is not always The same and predictable⁴¹ [48]. However, the priority of system factors over internal factors in neoclassical realism stipulates that the internal characteristics of the state influence the trajectory of its foreign policy actions in the medium and short term, that is, internal factors determine tactics rather than the actor's strategy.

Theorists of the neoclassical direction of realism distinguish three components that affect the behavior of the state: 1) "independent variable" (external environment, system); 2) "intervening variable" (a complex that constitutes a state-institutions, interaction of power and society, ideology); 3) "dependent variable" (foreign policy). The main focus, in this case, focuses on how the interfering variable affects the dependent one⁴² [48].

The relationship between the variables is due to two factors. First, decision makers do not always act rationally. Due to lack of all the necessary information, the politician acts on the basis of available knowledge, his life experience, beliefs and attitudes. Secondly, according to neoclassical realism, the state is not a monolith, not a single and a priori harmonious mechanism. It includes a system of institutions of power and civil society. Therefore, the strength of the state in the world depends on the effectiveness of political institutions and the level of interaction between government and society ⁴³[48].

Political, economic, religious, ethnic and cultural factors influence the interaction of state institutions and society, which can be active or passive, disunited or consolidated. The level of social consolidation depends on the legitimacy of the authorities, as well as on the existence of a national ideology shared by most citizens. In addition, representatives of the political, economic and religious elite must agree with national ideology; Otherwise the state will be unable to compete in the global competition of values, and the lack of agreement within the ruling circles will weaken the country's foreign policy. The system of authorities is also an important component of a successful foreign policy, while the degree of institutionalization demonstrates the level of development of the state and society. According to representatives of neo-classical realism, the very existence of the state is not enough for an effective foreign policy. It’s necessary to be able to mobilize and use rationally this strength and resources, that is proportional to the quality of the state-public communication and the effectiveness of the state apparatus⁴⁴ [48]. As a result, both the democratic consolidated states and authoritarian and totalitarian countries, where domestic and foreign policy depends on several groups of elites, can act on the world arena.

The concepts presented above do not remain unnoticed by military theorists. Today the war, as part of foreign policy, is being waged by the whole of society and all its institutions, and not just the armed forces of the state; At the same time, wars are being waged in all spheres of society, which allows the chance to win without a shot being fired⁴⁵ [27, C.318]. The traditional tasks of military victory over the enemy and the possession of his territory assume less importance. In the West, the ideas outlined in the work of US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter's "Preventive Defense"⁴⁶ [37, C.69] gain increasing popularity, in this work the emphasis shifts toward political, economic and advocacy tools, but at the same time the use of force or the threat of use of force remains relevant for the protection of the interests of the United States and its allies around the world.

To date, the security and defense policy in many countries boils down to the concepts of "civilian", "spiritual" or "total" defense, which implies a whole system of political, economic, legal, information, psychological and pedagogical measures aimed at strengthening of the consolidation and unity of society, as well as ensuring the readiness and ability of the country and people to defend themselves against aggression, with a high degree of mobilization of all available resources⁴⁷ [27, C.327]. Of course, that the application of such concept requires not only the existence of a strong military potential, but also a high level of state efficiency and its consolidation with society. The presence of contradictions, conflicts and tensions within the country, as well as ineffective work of the bureaucratic apparatus makes the state vulnerable not only to military aggression, but also to actions of a non-military nature, within the framework of information and psychological operations, subversive and criminal actions. The theoretician of "color revolutions" D. Sharp defines the civilian-based defense as "the defense policy of the country aimed at repelling both external and internal aggression, by preparing the population and social institutions for mass resistance and disobedience"⁴⁸ [27, C. 327].

The concept of "war" and "armed conflict" is also undergoing changes. In the US Military Doctrine of 2013, the "war" is still called the form of armed confrontation between states using military force, but it is noted that violent forms of achieving interests are characteristic not only for states but also to non-state forces that can use terrorist and criminal actions to achieve their goals. In addition, unlike the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2014), US military theorists share military conflicts on a regular and irregular basis. The former are fought between the states, while the latter are between the state and the non-state actor or without the participation of the state at all. Thus, Western military theorists also highlight a new kind of "non-traditional" threats to national security that can use contradictions in domestic politics and through terrorism and criminal activity and sow division and chaos into the territory of a neighboring state.

Turning to the conclusion, it should be said that to date, representatives of neorealism proceed from the assumption that the causes of conflicts between states can be both systemic challenges and domestic factors, to which should be paid more attention. At the same time, modern researchers proceed from the premise that a strong foreign policy depends not only on the powerful military potential, but also on the effective work of the institutions of state power and society in building national defense. Therefore, a successful military strategy should also take into account non-military methods of influence on the states. More details on modern concepts on the study of wars and armed conflicts will be discussed in the second chapter.