Understanding Today’s Military Psychological Operations (PSYOP) in the Operational Continuum. PSYOP is a continuous process which is stretched across the operational continuum, whereby the entire conflict spectrum is affected through skilful employment of this unique force multiplier to achieve comprehensive aims. Some of the aspects of its different types are:- a. Strategic PSYOP. Strategic PSYOP are directed at large segments of the target nation’s population using themes which exploit economic military, psychological and political vulnerabilities.
This was a result of the clash between the ideals of the two nations – communism against capitalism. Both nations were thirsty for power, domination and sought out any sort of expansion in any part of the world. The natural competitive nature that stirred up the Space Race was already fostered over time due to the Cold War. Thus, the Cold War was one of the main reasons why the two nations decided to
In the post-war period in the US, the Truman Administration has adopted a number of decisions that, in fact, determined the foreign policy course of the country for the entire period of the Cold War. One of the key elements of the new foreign policy became the doctrine of Truman. This doctrine proclaimed the global role of the United States in world affairs and linked world problems to the national security of the United States. Truman proclaimed that US politics should be aimed on the support of the free people in their fight with armed minorities and external pressure. Under the term ‘external pressure’ Truman implied the expansion of USSR.
Gaining and keeping world dominance was a struggle. The War that formulated was not a physical fight but one with words and the creation of new weapons. Secrets and lies about weaponry clouded the issues of real war and fueled the egos of all involved. “The USA and the USSR competed to produce new technological and industrial innovations which included space exploration, satellites and the race to the moon.”
Imperialism was quite competitive between nations and caused accrued tension in Europe. as an example throughout the warfare United Kingdom and France brazenly opposed Russian imperialization. United Kingdom and Russia conjointly visited war over Asian nation throughout the “Great Game” due to Afghanistan’s politics
5. CONCLUSIONS As theorised by Political Realism, all international relations is a struggle for power. States are therefore in a constant struggle to attain national security. A state’s pursuit of achieving national security results in conflict between states. However, one must understand that the struggle for national security does not always denote conflictual situation, and it can also entail cooperative situations.
There has been numerous studies and scholarly works pertaining both realism and structural realism (neo-realism) which developed aggressively during Cold War which according to Krause (1998; 301), are usually characterized by bipolarity, nuclear deterrence, MAD (mutually assured destruction), détente, and state survival. That was then when the approach was greatly impacted to particular historical moment. However, as of now, since the nature of international relations is constantly changing and fickle, realism in international relations “emphasize(s) the competitive and conflictual side of international relations” in an anarchic world system. (Buzan 1996; 51) The end of Cold War indicated the end of bipolarity, which also made realism hard to adjust itself in the complex dynamic of international relations right now. But, fret not, there is however, an existence of a strong realist dimension in the practice of security in the Asia Pacific.
“The way we choose to see the world creates the world we see”(Barry Neil Kaufman). Different perspective lead humans to make decisions that lead to conflicts, such as the Cold War. The Cold War was a rivalry between the U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and the U.S.A(United States of America). Cold War had no direct military actions between the countries. Competing perspectives and human decisions led to violent conflicts throughout the 20th century.
All of these new concepts of diplomacy bring their own different characteristic within the diplomacy process. In today’s complicated international system, the increasing numbers of state and non-state actors play a significant role in diplomatic processes. In