By Denis Korkodinov
In the modern system of geopolitics, which is predominantly dominated by a conservative understanding of national security, the defense of the state, especially after attacks on Saudi oil facilities, is actually questioned under the influence of new types of global and regional threats. These types of threats, at least, increase the risk of vulnerability to national security and, as a maximum, are for many states the main method of exerting pressure on international competitors.
The collective security system today is more than imperfect. Abuse of the right to unilaterally withdraw from the agreements reached, ensuring the implementation of peacekeeping projects, and the collapse of existing international defensive alliances do not allow us to assert that collective security is a decisive factor in deterring potential aggression.
As a result, the sovereignty of states, especially the Arab world, turned out to be very illusive. This state of affairs forces many state leaders to refuse to participate in old alliances, which, as a rule, have long turned into historical atavism, and to enter into new alliances with those states or groups of influence (Hezbollah, Hamas, YPG and others) which can guarantee the inviolability of state sovereignty for a short period of time.
Under the influence of these factors, the whole system of geopolitics is being transformed, as a result of which the modern world is losing its former shape. The imbalance thus formed between the archaic collective security system and reality is probably the main cause of regional tensions. The problem is that the expectations of many political actors from the collective security system are different, which is why the whole system collapses, since centrifugal tendencies prevail in it.
The lack of uniformity of views on collective defense, in any case, after the Second World War, is clear evidence of a fiasco on the way to the formation of a new regional security system. This does not allow states to reach a compromise in the field of defense and impedes their constructive defense cooperation.
There are a number of reasons that have affected these issues. Firstly, there are different ideas about what methods are suitable for resolving old conflicts and preventing new conflicts. This is especially true for Syria, Yemen and Libya, where the international community demonstrates an almost complete lack of a common understanding of how to reconcile the warring parties without harming at least one of the parties. Secondly, geographical differences quite often create significant obstacles to the development of common mechanisms for preventing or neutralizing external threats. Thirdly, the creation of international defense alliances between political actors of different levels of development of military potential, when the defense of the weakest state is ensured by the most powerful allies.
As a result of this, some states begin to fulfill the role of a donor of the collective security system, while other states bear the burden of the role of recipients. Meanwhile, the viability of the system directly depends on the ability of the countries that make up the parts of this system to equally protect each other.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)