In the context of its nature, purpose and device, how does balance of power influence regional systems? (2005)
Relevance of Balance of power after the demise of soviet Russia. (2014)

I could not find an appropriate answer to these questions as some things are confusing me. If anyone could help?

You aren't going to find exact answers to any questions that appear in CSS exams because they make these questions themselves and they're designed in such a way so that the candidate has to use his own critical reasoning to answer the questions. I can't give detailed answers to the two questions as I just woke up and I'm not in a state of mind to articulate my thoughts clearly but I can give you some pointers in my ramblings below.

1: Balance of power is an integral part of the process of international relations. According to Waltz, "so long as the notion of self help persists, the aim of maintaining the power position of the nation is paramount to all other considerations". With this aim in mind, each country tries to accumulate as much power as possible but according to many realists, too much power can be a bad thing since it might prompt other regional powers to ally against you, so a delicate balance is crucial to preserve peace in a region.

According to Morgenthau, Balance of power can be achieved by either diminishing the heavier scale or increasing the lighter scale. Balance can be achieved in four ways, by keeping a hostile state divided, this has been the reason for Russia opposing European unification since forever. Second way is through territorial compensation, this was common during colonial days but irrelevant today. Third way is through arms race or disarmament but this can quickly get out of hand so isn't recommended for balancing. Fourth and the most important is alliances.

(the best example for balance of power is German unification and world War 1 imo)

Balance of power as an actual policy emerged after Peace of Westphalia and reached its peak in 19th century with Metternich and Bismarck at the helm of European politics. Whenever one European power became too strong, other European powers banded together to preserve the balance. This happened on numerous occasions and in most cases Britain maintained this balance on the continent as it was the most powerful European country. However a single event destroyed the balance that had been preserved for a long time, the unification of Germany. This caused the rise of a power greater in both economic and military terms than any other European power. Bismarck realized Germany's vulnerable position and moved quickly to divide up the opposition, he secured an alliance with Russia and Austria, and isolated France. Valance of power seemed to be preserved but this was a very delicate balance that was broken as soon as the new Kaiser Wilhelm came to power and didn't renew the alliance with Russia. Russia quickly signed a Treaty with France and they were soon joined by Britain. The blunders of Kaiser and destruction of balance of power soon lead to the first world war.

Another example of balance of power in modern world is containment of China by its neighbors. According to Mearshimer, states would always prefer to be hegemons rather than seek balance but when one state becomes too powerful, its neighbours have no choice but to band together and ensure balance of power. This is evident in how Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and other South East Asian countries tries have decided to forget their differences and join hands together against rise of China. This shows how crucial balance of power is in regional politics.


2: Realism had been the dominant ideology ever since the world War 1, but after the fall of Soviet Union came a brief period when it seemed liberal ideas would prevail and realism's ideas of balance of power and hegemony were archaic thoughts of demented minds. It was also thought that democracy would finally prevail in Russia and it would join western community and its age old policy of dividing western Europe would stop. It was also assumed that due to the presence of only one remaining superpower, balance of power would become irrelevant on a grand scale.

But these ideas failed to grasp two important points, the first is the prism through which Russian foreign policy has formed for centuries i.e. their fear of the European plain on their western border. By far the greatest threat to Russia has been a united Europe and since the days of Ivan the terrible, they have sought to keep the Co tinent as divided as possible all the while conquering as much of it as possible. This ground reality hasn't changed due to the breakup of Soviet Union and it is evident by seeing the opposition from Russia about former Soviet countries joining EU and Nato. One of the main reasons for invasion of Crimea was to send out a warning to nato to not incorporate Ukraine or any other former Soviet country to Nato anymore. Russia under Putin still utilizes a complex system of balance of power where it keeps many former Soviet countries allied with itself, while ensuring others don't join nato, and trying to keep countries in Caucuses allied with itself, ensuring Europe loses one of its key allies in Turkey, etc. And so far Putin and Russia have succeeded magnificently in this balance of power. Her economy is weaker than many European countries but it still manages to maintain significant leverage on most of Europe. This shows balance of power is still as relevant in European politics as it was in Soviet days.

Another important factor that analysts failed to take into account was the emergence of new hegemony which has happened. The rise of China has caused the rise if a new balance in east asia(I don't think I need to write any details about this since it's a fairly recent topic).



Btw, I'd advise you to read a book like Diplomacy by Kissinger or if you don't have enough time, then World Order by the same writer. They aren't textbooks but they're still fantastic pieces of literature on history of modern world from a realist's perspective and since Kissinger is one of the biggest realist authors these books make for an interesting read. He may be war criminal but he is a damn good author. Some of his other books like On China are also extremely good.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

You're really a helpful member here. Thanks a lot for your time and effort! i'll surely be reading these recommended writings asap.

No problem, I just really like talking about European history and anything related to it in general. If you have any further queries, feel free to ask.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk