Paper

International relation can be best understood through the various schools of thought or rather theories. They are significant in giving a comprehensive detail of the constructs including assumptions and principles that make international relations. Realism theory still remains one of the most influential tool in understanding events related to international relations. This is because it provides a pragmatic approach in examining current events in the sphere of international relations (Maghroori 17). Realism is divided into three subdivisions, seeking to explain causes of state conflict. This include classical realism that argues that the conflict comes from the nature of man, neorealist which associates conflict the elements of the state, and neoclassical realism which associates it to both human nature and elements of the state. This school of thought is grounded on some fundamental principles that make the core of its arguments. This include the assumption that; the international system is anarchic, states are instrumentally rational, states seek power, states are unitary players, fundamental unit of social and political affair is the conflict group, states as important actors to world politics, and the principle that the interest of the state overrides ethics and morality

The first assumption in realism is the idea that a country, usually referred to as a state, serves as the main actor in international relations. It acknowledges the fact that there are other actors like individuals and organizations, which have limited influence (Maghroori 11). Secondly, the state is considered a unitary player, which is expected to work collectively to ensure that no authority is above it, with regard to matters of national interest. In addition, realists believe that the people who make decisions are rational players but selfish, since this rationality is required in pursuing the interest of the nation. In essence, the leaders are believed to understand these assumptions regardless of their political position, so ensure the state sustainability and continuity. Consequently, it is assumed that international system is anarchic, where there is no single international leader. In this theorization, the role of nature in influencing human action is not ignored. This is because it shapes how people behave. It asserts that nature influence people to continue acting in a repetitive way, as a result of the objective laws. In this assumption, it comes out that people desire power because of the egoistic nature. The innate selfishness of human beings, mistrust and their thirst for power explains the unpredicted consequences that can result from their actions (Maghroori 20). These consequences include conflict, lack of morality and ethics. The selfishness, mistrust and thirst for power can explain the unending wars among nations. Bearing the fact that nations are governed by human beings, their nature contributes largely to their behavioral tendencies, which in turn influence its security.

Realist therefore assume that leaders have the responsibility to promote the security of their country in all fronts. This can be realized through constant vigilance, that can be helpful in developing proactive measures to deal with both internal and external threats. These threats include those that target their rule or authority (Maghroori 15). The leader should be focused to achieve the utmost good of its people. In this way, for a state’s continued existence, they need to act accordingly depending on the needs presented by a given situation. Realism equally assumes the fundamental unit of social and political affairs to be a conflict group. This security dilemma is very important when it comes to the balance of power. In the realist perspective, power is a fundamental feature in international politics, with the nature of international interactions conflictual. Following this illustration, realists are focused in giving a perfect description of the world’s politics, and its influence in policy making.

Syrians civil war has been one of the largely debated issue in the recent past. The unrest in the country, and recently in the North Western province of Idlib has raised several international concerns (Doganay & Demiraslan 223). The major issue of concern has been the fact that Syria has received little international support to bring to an end the civil war. The Syrian opposition regime forces, that has been backed with the Russian militia have remained a central issue in Syria, as the Syrian opposition are fighting to get hold of their city. The fact that the opposition had recaptured Saraqeb, resulted to a counter attack which lead to the deployment of Turkish troop. The sad thing is the fact that the Turkish troop that was deployed in an effort to prevent the regime from entering and taking over their city, did not stop them. The regime has stretched and taken control of most opposition -based areas, including several villages in Idlib. Saraqeb as one of the largest cities in the country side of Idlib was taken over, with the most concern being the large population it hosted (Schmidt, pg. 31). With the continued use of violence, the Turkish militia that were deployed withdrew. With the regime supported with both Russian and Iranian troops, the opposition still fights back.

This event can largely be explained with the realist approach to international relations. Realist approach to international relations emphasizes that the state is the primary actor with others being of less significance. Realists assumes that states have the highest authority in the international system, assuming the position of anarchy. This school of thought is anchored in the belief that states form the bodies of the other actors, including international organizations. This means that states can influence the actions of international organizations. Russia alongside with China as permanent members of the UN security council vetoed three responsibilities of the UN to sanction the Syrian regime and stop violence (Schmidt 34). It is in this very light that these states stopped UN from offering foreign military aid in Syria. Russia had personal interest of continued influence in the region, and could do anything to stop the civil war from coming to an end. This is in line with the assumption that the interest of the state is overridden with ethics and morality. The other assumption in the realist school of thought that claims states to be self-interested is central in understanding this case. Russia votes against the No-fly zone and the protection of civilians in the UN security council. This is because Russia has interest in Syria based on its strategic geographical location, and benefit accrued to the exports to the Syrian army is a central concern. They strongly believe that their influence can be weakened when the violence is ceased (Doganay & Demiraslan, pg. 220). In this way, their own well-being is supreme, at the expense of morality. Besides, it is evident that the primary motivation of the state is survival as is illustrated by the Russian effort to ensure their influence remains.

This case also illustrates the realist idea that the behavior of states is primarily driven by pursuit of power. Russian geo-strategic interest is core due to the strategic geographical location of Syria in the middle east. Mosco and Tehran have mutual relation and share common interest, including enmity with America, fear of radical Sunni Islam movements and economic cooperation (Schmidt 36). Russia feels that if the regime is brought to an end, a democratic system is likely to be established, which will gain prominence in the region, thus isolating Iran. Russia therefore is interested in seeing President Assad remain in power, so that their influence is not lost to the United States.

Work Cited

Doganay, Mehmet, and Hayati Demiraslan. "Refugees of the Syrian civil war: impact on

reemerging infections, health services, and biosecurity in Turkey." Health security 14.4

(2016): 220-225.

Maghroori, Ray. "Introduction: major debates in international relations." Globalism Versus

Realism. Routledge, 2019. 9-22.

Schmidt, Søren. "The Middle East Regional Security Complex and the Syrian civil war." The

War for Syria. Routledge, 2019. 17-36.