The Role of Ideology in the Cold War

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Cold War was a significant period for the history of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Eastern Bloc, as well as other countries. The term Cold War is used to describe the period between 1946 and 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. This essay aims at analyzing the role of ideology in the Cold War, addressing the impact of capitalist and communist ideologies along with the perspectives of realism, idealism, and liberalism.

Capitalist and Communist Ideologies

It is possible to say that ideology was key to the tensions that arose during the Cold War; this point can be analyzed from several perspectives. On the one hand, the Cold War presented the conflict of capitalist and communist ideologies. Capitalist ideology has several peculiar traits that reflect the values a government has. For instance, capitalist states are driven by the principles of democracy, have clear class distinctions, such as working, middle, and upper class, focus on individuals’ needs as opposed to collective ones, advocate for the freedom of speech, and allow wealth to be distributed unevenly.

At the same time, in communist states, the governmental system is totalitarian, education and healthcare are provided by the government, society is classless, and the focus is on the local community rather than individual needs. This conflict is evident, as the economic and political organization of the Soviet Union and the United States were highly different. The former was communist and tried to install communist regimes in Eastern Europe while the latter brought the Western part of Europe under its capitalist influence and feared the domination of the Soviet Union and its ideology. It is possible to conclude that both of the countries were convinced by the superiority of their approaches.

The factors presented above show that ideologies were significant in the Cold War. If both the Soviet Union and the United States were capitalist, they would have similar goals, and there would be no contrast in their objectives. However, being a totalitarian state, the Soviet Union wanted to achieve hegemony in Eastern Europe, while the United States aimed at perceiving liberal democracy. As a result, tension emerged and was not eliminated until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Realism

On the other hand, the Cold War can be analyzed from the theoretical perspective of realism. This theory emerged as a way to justify the actions the U.S. took to maintain its hegemony. According to the theory of realism, conflicts and tensions in politics arise due to the egoistic nature of humans; it is based on the anthropological pessimism that can arise as a result of collective interests. Realism argues that conflicts between international systems arise naturally because all of them are anarchic and seek to expand their powers. From the perspective of realism, moral principles are not significant for the resolution of a conflict, and they do not guide governments’ decision-making processes.

It is possible to say that in the case of the Cold War, this theory is particularly significant, as for both the Soviet Union and the United States, their national interests were above each other’s ones. Moreover, they perceived each other’s goals as barriers to achieving success because the Soviet Union wanted to expand its powers while the U.S. sought to preserve them. Thus, the theory of realism reflects the events of the Cold War.

Idealism

Idealism is a theory that opposes the perspective of realism presented above; its main bases are peace, prosperity, freedom, and progress. From the perspective of idealism, the internal policies and philosophies a government has should be the objectives of its external policies, too.

It is possible to say that both the Soviet Union and the United States were guided by the principles of idealism, as both of the governments aimed at extending their viewpoints onto other states. They believed that by making European countries communist or capitalist, respectively, they would ensure freedom and prosperity for the states they controlled.

Liberalism

Liberalism is also a significant perspective on international relations that can explain the significance of ideology in the Cold War. It can be considered a theory that was derived from idealism. Liberalism does not perceive power politics as the only possible result of international relations, focuses on cooperation between governments and mutual benefits, and states that free trade can lead to wealth and peaceful cooperation.

Moreover, one of the ideas of liberalism is that the spread of democracies and the establishment of democracies in various countries, in particular, can lead to the minimization of wars. Liberalist ideas can also be considered significant for the period of the Cold War, as each of the states tried to ensure cooperation with its allies; moreover, the United States practiced liberal approaches as opposed to totalitarian ones the Soviet Union had.

However, the liberalist approach may be considered inapplicable for the primary cause of tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States because the countries did not aim at cooperating with each other to achieve their goals. Instead, each of them wanted to pursue their own objectives, such as gaining power.

Analysis

It is possible to say that the perspective of realism is the most convincing for describing the role of ideology in the Cold War. The arguments presented above show that both states tried to act not according to moral principles but the goals they had, regardless of their opponents’ persuasions. The Soviet Union wanted to acquire and keep new territories using autocratic methods to ensure its security. At the same time, the Soviet Union perceived the excessive power the United States had and the expansion of its influence to Western Europe as a threat, which meant that it had to protect its interests instead of cooperating with the enemy.

It is crucial to add that realism can be considered a general theory that applies to all great powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union. The examples presented above prove this claim and show that the principles of realism were crucial for the tensions and outcomes of the Cold War.

The Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the event that happened in October 1962 and led to a direct conflict between the Soviet Union and the U.S., which could potentially lead to a nuclear conflict. The crisis started when the Soviet Union began building nuclear missiles in Cuba, which could affect the United States because a potential attack could reach many cities in the country.

As a result, the U.S. blocked Soviet ships, and the Soviet Union removed the missiles from Cuba after an agreement with the United States. This paper aims at exploring the idea that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a security dilemma in action, analyzing the aspects of a security dilemma as a term, as well as the factors affecting Kennedy’s and Khrushchev’s decisions and motives.

Security Dilemma

It is first crucial to identify the meaning of a security dilemma from the perspective of international relations. The term can be used to describe a situation in which a country’s measures to enhance its security are perceived as a threat by another state. As a result, the latter may start taking measures to heighten its security, too; for instance, it may make alliances, increase its military strength, or commit to use weapons, including nuclear ones. These actions may lead to a conflict even when none of the sides desires it, which might have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis as a Security Dilemma

It is possible to say that, on the one hand, the event was an example of a security dilemma due to several reasons. First, the United States had wrong perceptions of the goals of the Soviet Union’s missile program and might have an unrealistic view of Soviet concerns about its and Cuba’s security. The U.S. believed that the USSR wanted to expand socialism or communism. As a response to that, the country started blocking Soviet ships headed to Cuba and warned the USSR to remove the nuclear missiles from the country.

The Soviet Union, in its turn, shot down an American reconnaissance plane, which lead to direct confrontation between the countries. The concerns of the United States only stopped after the countries agreed to each other’s requirements. This situation shows that the countries did not want to engage in a conflict from the beginning. Instead, Khrushchev wanted to build missiles in Cuba to help Cuba in exchange for Communist support.

For the President of the Soviet Union, such a decision was vital, as it allowed him to have a Communist state next to the U.S. However, it is possible to say that the Soviet Union did not wish to engage in a war with the United States and built nuclear missiles for a different purpose, causing misunderstanding from the American side.

From an alternative perspective, there are arguments showing that the Cuban Missile Crisis could not have been a type of a security dilemma. For instance, there are opinions that Khrushchev wanted to build nuclear missiles in Cuba because he wanted to put additional pressure on the positions the United States had in West Berlin.

From this perspective, it is impossible to say that Khrushchev did not have an intention to harm or threat the U.S.; his motives were offensive and not applicable to the concept of a security dilemma. Moreover, it is possible to say that Khrushchev knew that the reaction from the United States would follow his actions. One of the goals he potentially had was to remove the American nuclear missiles from Turkey, which was close to the territory of the Soviet Union.

Finally, one of the other arguments for this position can be the fact that at that time, Kennedy was a new president, and Khrushchev wanted to test his powers. From this perspective, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not an example of a security dilemma, as it contradicted the aspects of the concept. If the USSR did not want to defend its interests and built nuclear missiles next to the territory of the United States on purpose, the conflict was not caused by misunderstandings and a lack of communication between states. However, one may claim that the Soviet Union did not want to confront the United States or attack it using nuclear weapons in Cuba. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the crisis was primarily a case of a security dilemma.

Theoretical Perspectives

The Cuban Missile Crisis can be analyzed from various theoretical perspectives on international relations, including realism, idealism, and constructivism. From the view of realism, countries are inherently aggressive and concerned with their security. This viewpoint can be a significant argument for the position that the crisis was an example of a security dilemma, as it shows that the Soviet Union wanted to protect itself by ensuring instability for the United States.

On the contrary, from the perspective of idealism, countries do not wish to start wars with each other, conducting diplomatic actions instead. Although the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in an agreement between the involved states and the claims of the Soviet Union and the United States were mutually met, the countries did not aim at collaborating at first. The theory of constructivism perceives international relations as socially and historically constructed as opposed to the consequences of human nature. This perspective does not seem convincing from the view of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the primary focus of the conflict for both parties was to preserve their security.

Summary

The facts presented above show that the perspective of realism is the most applicable view on international relations that can be studied on the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The arguments presented above reveal that the crisis was likely an example of a security dilemma because both the Soviet Union and the United States were highly concerned about their security. The latter perceived building of nuclear missiles in Cuba as a direct threat while it was not the primary purpose of Khrushchev. As a result, the U.S. took action to protect its security, which resulted in a conflict.

Bibliography

Heywood, Andrew. Political ideologies: An Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education, 2017.

Kamei, Katsuyuki. “Crisis Management.” In Science of Societal Safety, edited by Seiji Abe, Mamoru Ozawa, and Yoshiaki Kawata, 141-150. Singapore: Springer, 2019.

Park, Allen. “Game Theory and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The PPE Review 7 (2018), 31-45.

Sanghro, Rafi Raza et al., “How Did the Tripartite Relationship Among the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba Lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Complicate Efforts to Resolve the Crisis?” Journal of History Culture and Art Research 7, no. 3 (2018): 199-207.

Walt, Stephen M. “US Grand Strategy After the Cold War: Can Realism Explain It? Should Realism Guide It?” International Relations 32, no. 1 (2018): 3-22.

Wohlforth, William C., and Vladislav M. Zubok. “An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism and the Mirage of Western–Russian Partnership After the Cold War.” International Politics 54, no. 4 (2017): 405-419.

Click Here To Order Now!