Anarchy Is What Explains the History of International Relations

The article examines the major events of the two previous centuries of international relations through main concepts of political realism. The author argues that in order to understand the present dilemmas and challenges of international politics, we need to know the past. Every current major global problem has historical antecedents. History from the late 19th century constitutes the empirical foundation of much theoretical scholarship on international politics. The breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the outbreak of the devastating global conflagration of World War I are the events that sparked the modern study of international relations. The great war of 1914 to 1918 underlined the tragic wastefulness of the institution of war. It caused scholars to confront one of the most enduring puzzles of the study of international relations, why humans continue to resort to this self-destructive method of conflict resolution? The article shows that the main explanation is the anarchical system of international relations. It produces security dilemma, incentives to free ride and uncertainty of intentions among great powers making war a rational tool to secure their national interests.This research is funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant agreement number 14.461.31.0002)

Correspondence: debating China's rise and the future of U.S. power

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide and the most common movement disorder. A defining pathologic feature of PD is the progressive death of dopaminergic neurons in a basal ganglia nucleus termed the substantia nigra (SN). Another hallmark feature of PD pathology is the presence of Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites, which are cellular inclusions with aggregated protein depositions, representing pathology in neuronal cell bodies and neuritic processes. Recently, epidemiological and genetic studies support roles for neuroinflammation in the progression of PD. Two types of cells that play a critical role in regulating neuroinflammation are microglia and astrocytes, which are activated in the basal ganglia of PD patients. Studies within this dissertation characterized activation of microglial cells by alpha-synuclein (α-synuclein), the most abundant protein in Lewy bodies, which has been implicated in PD pathogenesis. To garner insights into molecular mechanisms associated with astrocyte proliferation and activation, genomic alterations during developmental stages of astrocytes were examined since they are likely to recapitulate the reactivity associated with gliosis in PD brain. The activation of these glial cells and pathology of neurons in the basal ganglia causes the hallmark symptoms of PD. The symptoms of PD are termed parkinsonism. These are thought to result, at least in part, from alterations in the balance of output of the neostriatal efferent neurons, due to the loss of dopaminergic neuronal innervation of these cells. Phosphodiesterase 10A (PDE10A) is preferentially expressed in neostriatal efferent pathways and PDE10A inhibitors (PDE10i) have been shown to target dopamine signaling mechanisms. Studies here have utilized PDE10i to understand the balance of activation of medium spiny neurons in the indirect pathway versus activation of the direct pathway, since recent findings show PDE10i lead to a decrease in thalamic drive to the motor cortex, a primary symptom of PD. In conclusion, the aims of this dissertation sought to identify neuroinflammatory mechanisms within activated microglia in response to α-synuclein and proliferating astrocytes. Also, this work evaluated an inhibition of PDE10A in neurons within a region important to the progression of PD

An abiding antagonism: realism, idealism, and the mirage of western-Russian partnership after of the Cold War

Europe’s security environment is critically dependent on nature of the relationship between Russia and the broader west. What are the obstacles in the way of a stable partnership? Against the conventional wisdom that foregrounds domestic politics, we establish the importance of an abiding clash of definitions of national interest on both sides. The US and Russian strategic perspectives draw on the modern historical experience of both sides, are consistent with well-established international relations theories and are independent of particular personalities such as Putin’s. We demonstrate that though personalities, ideas, and contingency played their roles, these basic clashing perspectives existed even during the euphoric days of the Cold War’s end. Success in negotiating an improvement of US-Russian relations will require a pragmatic compromise between deeply divergent interests. Stable economic and political relations may be possible, but the first step in attaining it is recognizing the scale of the challenge