Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / The Security Dilemma - Theory and Practice

Transcript

The Security Dilemma - Theory and Practice · Diplomacy and International Relations

• 0:00
  Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we're digging into
• 0:03
  something really fundamental, a concept that explains so much
• 0:07
  about why big powers compete, even when maybe they just want
• 0:10
  to be safe. Yeah, we're focusing on
• 0:12
  Diplomacy and International Relations by Bastian Freiborg
• 0:15
  and specifically the security dilemma.
• 0:17
  It sounds academic, but it's, well, it's core to understanding
• 0:21
  international politics. Absolutely.
• 0:23
  It's often called the central tragedy of it all.
• 0:26
  It's this idea that nations just trying to ensure their own
• 0:30
  safety can actually end up making everyone less safe,
• 0:32
  potentially leading to conflict. OK, so our mission today, we
• 0:36
  want to unpack the theory behind it.
• 0:38
  You know the foundations. And then see how this dilemma
• 0:40
  actually plays out in some of the world's critical hotspots
• 0:43
  right now. Right, so let's start at the
• 0:45
  beginning. Where does this idea even come
• 0:47
  from? It seems to link back to, well,
• 0:50
  the the structure of international relations itself.
• 0:52
  It does. It all starts with anarchy.
• 0:54
  And we need to be clear, like you said, this isn't chaos in
• 0:57
  the streets. No, it's the political science
• 0:59
  term, meaning there's no world government right, No global 911
• 1:04
  to call if another state attacks you.
• 1:05
  Precisely. There's no supranational
• 1:07
  authority to enforce rules or protect states, and because of
• 1:11
  that anarchy, every state has to look out for itself.
• 1:14
  It's a self help system. OK, self help and that drives
• 1:17
  this feeling of insecurity. It drives the need to prepare
• 1:21
  for the worst, mainly because of uncertainty over intentions.
• 1:24
  You just can't be 100% sure that another state's military buildup
• 1:28
  is purely defensive. Even if they say it is.
• 1:31
  Even if they genuinely believe it is.
• 1:33
  You see your neighbor building up arms, you think, well maybe
• 1:35
  that's aimed at me, so you build up yours in response.
• 1:37
  Which sounds like the definition John Hurst gave us.
• 1:40
  He described it as this situation where groups living
• 1:44
  side by side without a higher power are constantly worried
• 1:47
  about being attacked or even destroyed.
• 1:49
  That's the one. It's a structural condition.
• 1:51
  And the paradox? The real kicker is that rational
• 1:54
  steps taken for defense. End of looking threatening to
• 1:56
  others. Exactly.
• 1:58
  State A boosts its security. State B sees this, feels
• 2:03
  threatened, and reacts with its own military measures.
• 2:06
  Now State A feels less secure than before it started.
• 2:10
  It's an action reaction spiral. Leading to what hers called
• 2:13
  those unintended tragic results. It's a cycle fueled purely by
• 2:17
  defensive motives, potentially. Potentially, yes, driven by that
• 2:21
  inescapable uncertainty and lack of trust inherent in the
• 2:24
  anarchic system. OK, That makes sense as a core
• 2:27
  mechanism, yeah. And listen.
• 2:29
  Before we dive into the real world examples, just a quick
• 2:31
  note for you listening. If you're finding this deep dive
• 2:34
  useful, you can actually help us keep the lights and get access
• 2:37
  to extra episodes too. That's right, you can subscribe
• 2:39
  on Spotify or Apple Podcast. It's a small monthly fee and the
• 2:43
  link is right there in the description.
• 2:44
  It really helps us continue making these deemed dives.
• 2:46
  It really does. OK, so where do we see the
• 2:49
  security dilemma playing out today?
• 2:51
  Well, a really prominent example, especially from a
• 2:53
  Western perspective, has to be NATO expansion after the Cold
• 2:57
  War and Russia's reaction. Oh definitely.
• 2:59
  Let's trace that post. Cold War NATO brought in former
• 3:03
  Warsaw Pact members. You had Poland, Hungary, the
• 3:07
  Czech Republic in 99. Then the Baltic states, Romania,
• 3:10
  Bulgaria, others in 2004. Right.
• 3:13
  And from NATO's viewpoint, this was about expanding the zone of
• 3:16
  democracy, stability, collective defense, benign intentions
• 3:20
  essentially. But the security dilemma tells
• 3:22
  us intentions aren't always what matter most.
• 3:24
  It's the perception of the action.
• 3:26
  So how did Moscow view this eastward expansion?
• 3:30
  Well, they didn't see it as benign.
• 3:31
  The perception, certainly intensifying over time, was one
• 3:34
  of encirclement, A strategic move by a rival alliance pushing
• 3:38
  right up to its borders, shrinking its traditional sphere
• 3:41
  of influence. And this is where thinkers like
• 3:43
  John Mearsheimer come in. He's argued this quite
• 3:45
  forcefully. Yes, Mearsheimer, drawing from
• 3:48
  offensive realism the idea that states maximize power for
• 3:51
  survival, argues that NATO expansion was inherently
• 3:54
  provocative, especially the talk.
• 3:56
  Remember the 2008 Bucharest Summit?
• 3:58
  Where they declared Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become
• 4:00
  members. Exactly.
• 4:02
  For Merchheimer, that crossed a red line.
• 4:04
  It wasn't just abstract enlargement anymore.
• 4:07
  It was pushing into areas Russia considers vital to its security.
• 4:11
  He argues this directly provoked deep Russian insecurities.
• 4:16
  Fueling countermeasures and ultimately contributing to
• 4:19
  conflict. It's a strong structural
• 4:22
  argument. Geography and power, Trump
• 4:25
  stated. Intentions.
• 4:26
  It really emphasizes how actions, even if intended
• 4:29
  defensively or democratically, are interpreted through a power
• 4:33
  lens by potential rivals. The expansion itself created the
• 4:37
  conditions for friction. But wait, some might ask, NATO
• 4:40
  expanded earlier under different Russian leaders, perhaps with
• 4:43
  less overt hostility initially. Does that challenge the purely
• 4:47
  structural view? That's a fairpoint.
• 4:48
  The intensity of the reaction certainly depends on the
• 4:51
  specific regime, its perceptions, its goals.
• 4:53
  But the argument from the source material leans towards the
• 4:56
  structural pressure being constant.
• 4:57
  Meaning the expansion itself, pushing the alliance closer,
• 5:01
  fundamentally altered the strategic environment in a way
• 5:03
  that sooner or later was likely to trigger a security dilemma
• 5:06
  reaction from Moscow regardless of who was in charge.
• 5:09
  Pretty much. The West sought security, but
• 5:12
  the means chosen alliance expansion inadvertently ramped
• 5:15
  up in security for Russia, leading to the very
• 5:18
  militarization it hoped to prevent.
• 5:20
  A classic tragic outcome. And this isn't just a Europe
• 5:23
  thing. We see similar dynamics, maybe
• 5:25
  even more complex ones, playing out in the Pacific, right
• 5:28
  between the US and China. Absolutely.
• 5:29
  The South China Sea is another other textbook case, really.
• 5:32
  It started, you know, with overlapping territorial claims.
• 5:35
  China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan all
• 5:39
  have stakes there. But it seems to have escalated
• 5:42
  beyond just who owns which reef. It really did, especially after
• 5:45
  the Scarborough Shoal incident back in 2012.
• 5:48
  That seemed to mark a shift. It became less about specific
• 5:51
  islands and more about the regional order, itself a broader
• 5:54
  strategic competition. Which then kicks off that action
• 5:57
  reaction arms spiral we talked about.
• 5:59
  Precisely. China builds up its naval
• 6:01
  develops missiles, capabilities seen by others as offensive or
• 6:04
  coercive. And the response?
• 6:06
  the US, Japan, Taiwan. Others develop their own
• 6:10
  capabilities, often framed as defensive anti coercion systems.
• 6:14
  But each move just raises the stakes.
• 6:16
  Every upgrade on one side is read by the other as making them
• 6:19
  less safe, and this creates a really sharp problem when it
• 6:22
  comes to deterrence, particularly around Taiwan.
• 6:25
  Yes, the tightrope walk. How does the US signal enough
• 6:30
  commitment to deter an attack on Taiwan?
• 6:34
  Without signaling so much commitment, maybe seeming like
• 6:37
  it's backing full independence, that it actually provokes
• 6:40
  Beijing into thinking they have to act now, before it's too
• 6:43
  late. That's the dilemma in a nutshell
• 6:45
  for policymakers, isn't it? Be tough, but not too tough,
• 6:49
  because if Beijing perceives an unconditional US commitment or
• 6:52
  Taiwan moving definitively toward independence.
• 6:55
  It could make them feel cornered, making a pre emptive
• 6:57
  use of force more likely, not less.
• 7:00
  The rational act of strengthening deterrence could
• 7:02
  paradoxically trigger the conflict it aims to prevent.
• 7:05
  Wow. So whether it's Moscow or
• 7:07
  Beijing, the search for security by one side seems to inherently
• 7:10
  breed insecurity for the other. That's the relentless logic.
• 7:13
  But it does raise the question, why does this feel sharper,
• 7:16
  maybe more dangerous in some situations than others?
• 7:18
  What dials the dilemma up or down?
• 7:21
  OK, so now we're getting into the theoretical gears behind the
• 7:23
  dilemma, like the offense, defense, balance.
• 7:26
  Exactly. This is a key variable.
• 7:28
  It asks does military technology and strategy at a given time
• 7:32
  favor the attacker or the defender?
• 7:34
  And crucially, can you even tell the difference between offensive
• 7:38
  and defensive weapons? Right if offensive capabilities
• 7:42
  are dominant, think tanks rolling across borders easily.
• 7:45
  Quick, decisive wars. The argument is that war is more
• 7:49
  likely. Yeah, because there's a huge
• 7:50
  incentive to strike first before the other side can mobilize.
• 7:54
  Some historians argue this was the case in the run up to World
• 7:56
  War One. Maybe that period from 1815 to
• 7:59
  1913 offense seemed easier. And conversely, if defense has
• 8:03
  the advantage, think trenches, fortifications, long wars of
• 8:07
  attrition where attackers suffer huge losses.
• 8:09
  Then war should be less likely, or at least the security dilemma
• 8:12
  should be less severe because launching an attack is just too
• 8:15
  costly and uncertain. You can afford to wait and see.
• 8:17
  But the source material threw a curveball here, didn't it?
• 8:20
  Mentioning the period from what 1648 to 1789?
• 8:23
  Often seen as defense dominant with all the siege warfare.
• 8:27
  Yes, that period actually saw more frequent wars than the
• 8:31
  later offense dominant era, which is counterintuitive.
• 8:34
  So what explains that? Well, the thinking is while
• 8:37
  tactical defense was strong, taking fortresses was hard.
• 8:41
  The political landscape was different.
• 8:43
  Lots of smaller states personalized rule.
• 8:46
  Maybe war was just politically easier and cheaper to start,
• 8:49
  even if winning was hard. So the purely technological
• 8:53
  balance isn't the whole story. Political factors can override
• 8:55
  it. Definitely, it shows these
• 8:57
  structural forces interact with other things, which leads us to
• 9:01
  the biggest structure of all, the overall polarity of the
• 9:04
  international system. Meaning the number of great
• 9:06
  powers, Bipolar, multipolar. Right, international politics is
• 9:10
  usually seen as a small number system, only a few truly great
• 9:14
  powers at any time, and the argument a famous 1 is that
• 9:18
  bipolar systems tend to be more stable.
• 9:20
  Like the US and the USSR during the Cold War.
• 9:22
  Exactly. And the link to the security
• 9:24
  dilemma is direct. In a bipolar world, your main
• 9:27
  rival is crystal clear. There's less uncertainty about
• 9:30
  who the threat is. So actions and reactions are
• 9:33
  more direct. If the Soviets did something,
• 9:36
  the US reacted, and vice versa. High tension, maybe, but less
• 9:41
  room for miscalculation about who's doing what to whom.
• 9:43
  Precisely. The pressure to manage the
• 9:45
  relationship carefully is immense, because any major
• 9:48
  conflict involves the other superpower directly.
• 9:51
  Now contrast that with a multipolar system, three or more
• 9:54
  great powers like Europe before World War One.
• 9:57
  OK, So what happens to the security dilemma then?
• 10:00
  It gets way worse. The uncertainty skyrockets.
• 10:02
  Who are alliances aimed at? If State A builds up its
• 10:06
  neighbors, is that aimed at state B or State C, or both?
• 10:09
  Responsibilities get diffused. Calculations become harder.
• 10:13
  Yes, states might gamble thinking they can make a move
• 10:16
  and the other powers won't unite against them.
• 10:18
  Or they might misinterpret another states defensive move
• 10:21
  because it's unclear who it's defending against.
• 10:23
  This complexity sharpens the core problem uncertainty, making
• 10:26
  the system much less stable. So the structure itself,
• 10:29
  bipolarity versus multipolarity, fundamentally changes how
• 10:32
  acutely the security dilemma is felt.
• 10:34
  Absolutely. OK, so we've established this
• 10:36
  dilemma is pretty much baked into the system.
• 10:38
  It's this tragic logic. What can policy makers actually
• 10:41
  do about it? Can we escape it?
• 10:44
  The source material suggests maybe not escape, but navigate
• 10:49
  it more skillfully. Mitigation, not elimination.
• 10:52
  Right. And a key part of that is
• 10:53
  strategic communication. It starts with recognizing that
• 10:57
  the state you perceive as threatening might just be acting
• 11:00
  out of its own defensive concerns.
• 11:02
  It requires trying to understand their perspective.
• 11:05
  So talking is important, diplomacy, OK, but just saying
• 11:08
  we're peaceful isn't enough, is it, given the inherent mistrust?
• 11:12
  No words are cheap. Assurance needs to come through
• 11:15
  substantive measures, things you can actually see and verify.
• 11:18
  Like what for example? Things like the type of weapons
• 11:21
  you build and where you put them.
• 11:22
  Are you building weapons clearly designed for defense or for long
• 11:25
  range power projection? Are your forces deployed right
• 11:28
  on the border or further back? OK, so force posture, deployment
• 11:32
  patterns, things that signal defensive intent through
• 11:34
  actions, not just words. Maybe even inviting observers to
• 11:37
  military exercises. Exactly.
• 11:40
  Transparency measures that demonstrate your military
• 11:42
  doctrine is defensive. These visible actions can help
• 11:46
  build a swivel of trust or at least reduce misperceptions.
• 11:51
  And then, looking longer term, there's this idea of moving
• 11:53
  beyond the dilemma altogether towards what Carl Deutsch called
• 11:57
  security communities. Yeah, that's sort of the
• 12:00
  aspirational end game. A security community isn't just
• 12:03
  an alliance against a common enemy.
• 12:05
  It's a group of of states, often democracies, that develop such
• 12:09
  deep cooperation, shared values and, crucially, mutual
• 12:13
  identification. That they genuinely develop as
• 12:15
  Deutsche could it dependable expectations of peaceful change.
• 12:19
  They simply stop thinking about fighting each other.
• 12:22
  Right. Think maybe Scandinavia or North
• 12:24
  America. War between Canada and the US is
• 12:26
  essentially unthinkable now. They've moved beyond the self
• 12:29
  help logic. Internally, trust has replaced
• 12:32
  the security dilemma, at least within that community.
• 12:34
  So it is possible, just very difficult to achieve on a wider
• 12:37
  scale. Extremely difficult, especially
• 12:39
  between major powers with conflicting interests and
• 12:42
  different political systems. So wrapping this up then, the
• 12:45
  big take away seems to be that international relations isn't
• 12:48
  necessarily 0 sum, but the anarchic structure pushes states
• 12:53
  towards self help. Which automatically limits
• 12:55
  cooperation and fuels that competitive dynamic, driving the
• 12:59
  security dilemma even among states that might prefer peace.
• 13:03
  It's a powerful, if somewhat pessimistic, view of how the
• 13:07
  world works. It certainly highlights the
• 13:08
  constraints that the international system itself
• 13:11
  places on state behavior. Which leads us nicely to our
• 13:14
  final provocative thought for you, the listener, to consider
• 13:17
  if this anarchic structure really forces states into this
• 13:21
  competitive security seeking behavior, does that mean
• 13:24
  explanations for conflict that focus only on a state's internal
• 13:28
  makeup, like its ideology or its economic system or its leaders
• 13:31
  personality, are missing the point?
• 13:33
  You mean are those reductionist theories insufficient because
• 13:35
  they ignore the external systemic pressures?
• 13:37
  Exactly should we therefore always start by looking for
• 13:41
  these structural security dilemma type explanations when
• 13:44
  we try to understand why nations clash?
• 13:47
  That's a huge, huge question about how we analyze
• 13:49
  international politics, something definitely worth
• 13:50
  mulling over. Indeed.
• 13:53
  Well, that's all the time we have for this deep dive into the
• 13:55
  security dilemma. A massive thank you for joining
• 13:58
  us. We hope this framework gives you
• 13:59
  a useful lens for looking at global events.
• 14:02
  Absolutely. If you found this discussion
• 14:04
  valuable, please do follow the show on whatever platform you're
• 14:07
  using. And if you could rate US five
• 14:10
  stars, that really helps get these deep dives out to more
• 14:12
  people. Thanks so much for listening.