The Cold War System Theory: Demise of the USSR and Changes in the Balance of Power

The US and the USSR maintained their diplomatic relations, and yet, behaved like enemies. Many historians refer to the war as “diplomatic war”. The Cold War was defined by Fleming as “a war that is fought not in the battle field, but in the minds of men; one tries to control the minds of other.” Unlike a standard war, it was fought in the diplomatic channels and the United Nations forum. As the Cold War progressed, its nature underwent many changes during over four decades, however, three primary characteristics of the Cold War were recognized by the historians C. Kegley and E. Wittkopf, they are the

To understand changing patterns of global power is no easy feat, but several theories may give us an insight to the shift of power in our modern world, I wish to talk about these theories and how we can use them to better understand our past and present global power situations.

The Cold War, a period of sustained political and military tension between the USA and the USSR, resulted in various viewpoints concerning the cause of the tension emerging. Until today the question remains unresolved, even after the 1991 release of Soviet archives. The main point of disagreement relates to the roles that ideology played in the events between 1945 and 1949. Was it the strongly opposing ideologies, capitalism and communism, or power and material interest that drove both superpowers to the decades of struggle for global supremacy.

Mearsheimer’s short article “The cause of great power war” explains the occurrence of major power wars. According to Mearsheimer, power gives rise to three kinds of systems which are known as Bipolarity, Unbalanced Multipolarity, and

“The expectation is not that a balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that a balance once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Balances of power recurrently form.” (Waltz, 1979, p. 128) Donnelly successfully critices Waltz conclusion by identifying that in a multipolar world, the existence of at least two potential threats dramatically attenuates the link between external capabilities and threat. Therefore, Waltz balancing concept is primarily a logic of bipolar orders not of international relations in

After World War 2, faith in the United States government was at an all time high. A brief, superficial, and weak understanding of the history on the aftermath of World War 2 leads the reader to understand that not only did the United States help defeat the evil Nazis, the fascist Italians, and the imperial Japanese. In the wake of World War 2, the United States of America ended up cementing itself as a world power – if not the world power, usurping the empty throne previously held by Great Britain and subsequently sharing it with the Soviet Union. Yet as is typical, there can never be two champions. There can never be two reigning super victors – one of the two powers had to lose. So began the conflict that never was, the cold war – a global chess match of attrition. Neither the USSR nor the USA would outright engage in conflicts with one another, but in the thirst and pursuit for more influence and power, they continually opposed each other through pawn states on a global scale for approximately 44 years. This type of warfare was known as ‘proxy’ warfare, and though the dates specifically for the Cold War are not known, the common dates for the war range from 1947 to 1991. With this understanding, it can also be inferred that it was not just a war for power, it was a war of ideologies.

Fuelled by aversion and escalation of competition, the Cold War marks history’s height of political and military tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite fighting alongside in the Second World War, tensions heighted and conflicting ideologies ripped these two nations apart. The rivalry, that consumed a large portion of the twentieth century, nearly brought the world to the brink of disaster. The strenuous relationship was characterized by the overwhelming sense of mutual doubt, animosity, and lack of communication. As two nations eminently divided by ideological differences, the mutual misperception between the US and the USSR is undeniably imperative to the development of the early Cold War in regards to Soviet

From any historical event, there is always different presentations of the same facts. In every subject, an author’s opinion or point of view can completely change the story. In this paper I will be focus on highlighting the most significant factors various authors have proposed led to the Cold War. There are three viewpoints on what on what were the significant factors that led to the Cold War. There is the Orthodox viewpoint, which blames Soviet expansion, the Revisionist view, stating that American imperialist capitalism led to conflict. I will pay particular attention to the eminent William A. Williams who is considered the father of Revisionist school of thinking. There is also the post Revisionist view which places the responsibility on a variety of factors both the Soviets and the United States of America. I will place emphasis on the writings of John Lewis Gaddis. All the statements have merit, but there is noticeable bias towards either the communist or capitalist factions. The key to determining truth about what were key factors that lead to the Cold War is to present information with as much balance and objectivity as possible.

There are many different political theories that try to explain the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Two prominent political theories which I will explore throughout this essay are the Realist and Idealist theory. No one theory is completely correct, as many different factors must be considered regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War. For example, one essential influence to the end of the Cold War was the role of nuclear weapons and how they were used.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

The realist way of looking at the international system is through calculated moves, with the goal being to win security for the state, which is measured in power. To better understand how war acts as a means to this end, scholars have proposed many theories. The three most plausible theories are offensive realism, the power transitions theory, and defensive realism. After applying these theories—offensive realism, power transitions, and defensive realism—to World War I and the Cold War, this paper examines them in the context of the present climate of Eastern Europe, and argues that while great power war will likely occur in the next fifteen years, it is not imminent.

Every country differs in economic wealth, military might and political power. As one will soon see, this is not a universally agreeable proposition, but the United States is observed by some as the world’s sole superpower since the conclusion of the Cold War. Below, there will be an exploration of the literature on the global distribution and balance of power. Then, there will be an examination of the most stable global distribution. Additionally, the United States’ ideal strategy to keep its military superiority will be examined.

Every country differs in economic wealth, military might and political power. As one will soon see, this is not a universally agreeable proposition, but the United States is observed by some as the world’s sole superpower since the conclusion of the Cold War. Below, there will be an exploration of the literature on the global distribution and balance of power. Then, there will be an examination of the most stable global distribution. Additionally, the United States’ ideal strategy to keep its military superiority will be examined.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

Under the ruins of the World War II (WWII), a new world order was beginning to appear. The old and weak European powers, were devastated from the war, and could no longer hold the world on its shoulders. Subsequently, new superpowers had to take over the control; they were the USSR and the USA. Soon after the end of WWII, new international tensions became apparent after the break of the Grand Alliance (Taylor, 1993, p. 49). The disagreements between the new superpowers grew to a point where the Cold War became a fact. That new world order split the world ideologically into two camps; the anti-imperialist(USA) and the anti-capitalist(USSR)(Ibid, p.51).The ideological war was underlined by a geopolitical transition, subsequently creating