Article Review

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Questions
Q1
Mearsheimer’s argument against the existence of offensive versus defensive realism is correct since the world cannot prevent war if defense gains an advantage over offense. Precisely, arms control as a measure of defensive realism cannot reduce war irrespective of the strategies undertaken to control conflicts. When states with offensive military capabilities have aggressive intentions, they usually fear each other due to possible attacks (Mearsheimer 425). The future objectives of such countries are often unknown. When countries gain power and become highly aggressive, they lack a higher authority that they can turn to for protection. It is vital to note that states link the logic behind power and aggression to the fact that they reside in a self-help world (Mearsheimer 425). Therefore, they have to be extremely powerful to survive in such a world. Such notions often result in states seeking to gain the upper hand at the expense of peace if they hope to survive.
Q2
Despite the pessimism associated with realist literature, it continues to be the most accurate tool for understanding events surrounding international relations. Realists ruminate that given the situation of anarchy, states possess the absolute power in the global system. Countries not only formulate bodies such as international organizations but also influence their actions. The Syrian conflict offers an excellent example that can be explicated through the Realist theory.

As permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and Russia voted three resolutions desired to cease violence in Syria through sanctions. Through these actions, these states blocked the UN from providing foreign military aid to Syria. These actions communicated the message that no international or local body has the right to interfere with the governance of a sovereign state.
Work CitedMearsheimer, John. “Realists as Idealists.” Security Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, 2011, pp. 424-430.