The Security Dilemma in World Politics

Introduction

In international relations of the world’s geopolitics, the security dilemma happens when the security of one state or country seems to compromise the security of another. In this case, the enhancement of security in one area seems to threaten the peace in the other area. For example, when one country boosts its security, other countries get concerned for their security. Therefore, increasing the military strength of one country is interpreted as readiness for war or another political standoff. In this case, what happened between Ukraine and Russia led to political conflicts and tensions that are still present today. Ukraine was trying to boost its security standing by being NATO’s partner, which Russia interpreted as a threat to its internal affairs. Russia feared that if Ukraine partnered with NATO, its military would be under threat. Consequently, increasing the security of a nation is often interpreted as an offensive purpose that leads to tensions and escalated conflicts.

What the Security Dilemma Means for the World

Many countries take measures to enhance their security for their benefit, and it is often viewed as threatening the peace of other nations. Security enhancement is one of the items on the table that lead to escalating conflicts between nations or partners. “The political standoff between countries leads to a dilemma that no nation or state desires” (Johnson 221). The security dilemma is most intensive in situations where it is pretty challenging to distinguish between defensive and offensive weapons. In any political conflict, offense takes more weight compared to defense. Henceforth, many countries will have excuses to attack their neighbors on the accusations of having offensive weapons that they interpret could threaten their internal security. Therefore, misinterpreting offensive versus defensive weaponry is the primary cause of diplomatic issues between states. Geography and military technology have a substantial impact on the defense-offense balance.

According to the international relations theory, the security dilemma is a primary concept in international affairs and is also viewed as a fundamental dilemma. Specifically, realist scholars argue that security-seeking nations end up in conflict with their neighbors or political competitors. “Some aspects of security dilemma in world politics include mutual fear, power competition, and anarchy” (Joshi and Anit 68). According to realist scholars, the security dilemma happens to be a significant part of defensive realism. Therefore, states boost their security apparatus as part of being anarchic. Henceforth, political survival is one of the primary motivating factors of the states that seek more security enhancement. In many cases, countries distrust other states’ intentions and do not take matters of security enhancement lightly. Even among friendly countries, security enhancement is often viewed as a preparation for war or diplomatic tiff, which could destabilize the multilateral or bilateral relations between partner states.

Defensive and offensive realism happens to be at the core of security dilemmas in the world. Once states notice that their neighbors or rivals have started boosting their security, they also begin maximizing their security. In this case, such a security issue explains why mistrust between states could end up in conflict. “That is what happened between Russia and Ukraine when the two countries could not trust one another as far as boosting their security is concerned. Russia saw a threat from Ukraine when it learned that the latter was collaborating with NATO, which is perceived as an ally of the United States” (Jie 187). Therefore, security-seeking behaviors among states are not matters that are taken lightly even though they may have benign intentions. Defensive and offensive realism share the primary beliefs of anarchy, self-help, statism, and survivalism based on the international relations theory. Offensive realism provides a perspective of countries as power maximizers instead of being concerned with enhancing security.

International relations theorists view the recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a potential threat to world peace. Now, the crisis between the two countries is the most prominent political conflict globally, whose genesis was the enhancement of security in Ukraine. The feud has also roped in NATO as the two sides seem to stamp their power and authority in world politics. “The conflict between Russia and NATO, which also involves Ukraine, could be viewed in the context of political realism that focuses on anarchy” (Akchurina and Vincent 1642). In this case, the absence of an international government controlling the conflict is the primary catalyst of the issues of the conflict. International relations are subject to interests and power, the primary forces that make countries escalate conflicts based on their security concerns. In an anarchical international system, security is the issue that has the most concern among various political players. The turbulent political environment, which egoistic players also characterize, leads to the issue of security dilemma in global politics.

The security dilemma is significantly propelled by the insecurities surrounding the various political actors that have opposing sides. Therefore, each side views the other party as threatening its peace. Henceforth, nations attempt to strengthen themselves militarily and diplomatically to defend their interests and power. “No country wants to appear weak, and most states would prove they can wage war even when they have dwindling chances” (Joshi and Anit 71). The other competing side interprets the security efforts by the opposing group as provocation or an existential threat to peace. Such provocation is usually met with an immediate response leading to war and a threat to international relations. The security actions between countries like those between NATO and Russia recently led to a self-reinforcing and ironic cycle of misunderstandings (Akchurina and Vincent 1651). Such misunderstandings also lead to provocations and heightened tensions that, in many cases, result in wars that are not intended.

Russia and NATO’s current predicament propagates a history of deep-rooted mutual mistrust between the parties. “The security dilemma between the opposing camps has continued to destabilize the politics of Russia and Ukraine, as well as that of the world at large” (Holzer and Mareš 7). The genesis of the problem between Russia and Ukraine started in 2014 when some unmarked military personnel marched across the southeastern Ukrainian border with Russia. The issue made Russia to be subjected to international scrutiny, as its intentions were unclear. However, “Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, vehemently denied that his troops were responsible for the invasion” (Johnson 219). On the contrary, considerable evidence placed Russia at the center of the infamous invasion. The aggression of Russia toward Ukraine has a long history and has been controversial for many years. Such a conflict is the primary reason for security concerns in the Baltic States.

Russia seems to be fighting a lone war in the Baltic States because most of the territories support NATO as its member. For example, the Baltic states such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are not just former members of the Soviet Union, which share a border with Russia, but also members of NATO. Therefore, Ukraine was the only odd country that did not have a membership with NATO. “Before President Obama retired from office, he had issued a speech that put on notice Russia because of its incessant political and military aggression towards other countries in the region” (Holzer and Mareš 10). In this case, Obama criticized Russia’s foreign policy and reiterated a possible war with the country if it did not cease waging war against its neighbors. Additionally, “Obama warned that any military aggression against Eastern European members of NATO would trigger a unified military response from all the members.” (Akchurina and Vincent 1650). At that time, “countries like Estonia were at the risk of being invaded by Russia.” (Akchurina and Vincent 1652). Therefore, the security dilemma involving NATO and Russia has a long history and just escalated recently because of political and ideological differences between the parties involved.

“The issue of security dilemma in the world is not just confined to Russia and NATO alone, but also countries like the United States and China.” (Holzer and Mareš 11). In this case, there has been an emerging security dilemma involving the two countries, which has been fueled by political, economic, and ideological differences. Historically, “the effect of ideological differences in the relations between China and the United States depends on whether there is robust strategic reasoning for meaningful relations” (Jie 189). The ideological variations are also determined by whether the internal developments in China are in tandem with the US expectations. “When Trump was the president of the United States, the relations between the two countries became very competitive.” (Joshi and Mukherjee 81). In this case, the US began to be disillusioned because of the internal developments in China. In this respect, the US did not expect China to register much economic growth, which seemed to compete with what Washington had achieved over the years.

The ideological factor has become more pronounced in the bilateral relations between the two economic powerhouses in the world. “Such ideological differences threaten the world’s economy and peace, leading to a security dilemma” (Johnson 217). Competing interests between the two countries are much responsible for the differing ideas about the two countries. The US views China as a country keen to dislodge the status quo in controlling the world’s economy and geopolitics. Therefore, such ideological competition has not augured well for world peace because the two nations are major players in having a cohesive globe. The cold war between China and US has affected the world’s economy and may be described as a security dilemma because of reading different scripts on significant world matters. If China and the US can minimize the adverse effect of ideologies, the world can witness less dangerous and less intense competition between the countries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the world is presently experiencing various forms of security dilemmas that threaten world peace. In this case, the dilemma is because of the emerging ideological differences and competition among the countries involved. For example, competing interests in the control of regional politics primarily cause the Russia-NATO conflict. In this case, Russia seems to have a stake in controlling the politics and economy of the Baltic Sea, contrary to what NATO would expect. The US-China relations are also affecting world peace leading to a security dilemma. Competition is the primary driving force that makes the two countries try to outdo one another to control the world’s economy and geopolitics. If not well handled, the silent conflict between the two countries may eventually lead to escalated tensions and thus creating a security dilemma.

Works Cited

Akchurina, Viktoria, and Vincent Della Sala. “Russia, Europe and the Ontological Security Dilemma: Narrating the Emerging Eurasian Space.” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 70, no. 10, 2018, pp. 1638–1655.

Holzer, Jan, and Miroslav Mareš. “Russia as a Czech Security Enigma: Introductory Remarks.” Czech Security Dilemma, 2019, pp. 1–14.

Jie, Dalei. “The Emerging Ideological Security Dilemma between China and the U.S.” China International Strategy Review, vol. 2, no. 2, 2020, pp. 184–196.

Johnson, James Samuel. “Chinese Evolving Approaches to Nuclear ‘War-Fighting’: An Emerging Intense US–China Security Dilemma and Threats to Crisis Stability in the Asia Pacific.” Asian Security, vol. 15, no. 3, 2018, pp. 215–232.

Joshi, Yogesh, and Anit Mukherjee. “The Security Dilemma and India’s Naval Strategy.” India–China Maritime Competition, 2019, pp. 64–87.