Q.Highlight any one major reason that compelled both the superpowers to avoid the risk of another world war.

The term "Shock Therapy" refers to the rapid, sweeping economic reforms adopted by Russia and other former Soviet republics in the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea was to transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy almost overnight — privatising state-owned industries, removing price controls, cutting subsidies, and opening up to foreign trade. The results were brutal and far-reaching.

Let's look at each option to see which one does not fit.

Option (A) — the value of the Rouble declined. This is a well-documented consequence. As price controls were lifted and the economy spiralled into hyperinflation, the Russian currency lost much of its value. Ordinary people saw their savings wiped out. So this is a genuine consequence.

Option (B) — the economy of the entire region was ruined. This is also true. The transition was chaotic. Industrial output collapsed, unemployment soared, and poverty became widespread. The former Soviet republics, including Russia, experienced a severe economic depression in the 1990s. So this is a genuine consequence.

Option (D) — the collective farm system disintegrated. Under Shock Therapy, state and collective farms were privatised or broken up. The old system of collective agriculture, which had been a cornerstone of the Soviet economy, fell apart. Many farms were mismanaged or abandoned, leading to a sharp drop in agricultural production. So this too is a genuine consequence.

Understanding the vocabulary of international security requires grasping what each concept fundamentally represents in the global political arena. These are not abstract academic terms but the building blocks of how states interact, protect themselves, and manage conflict in the modern world.

Terrorism has become one of the most contested yet crucial terms in contemporary security studies. At its core, it refers to political violence—the deliberate use of violence against civilians or non-combatants to achieve political, ideological, or religious objectives. What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violence is its intent to create fear, intimidate populations, and coerce governments or societies into changing policy or behavior. The targets are often symbolic, and the violence is designed to send a message far beyond the immediate victims.

Disarmament is a more straightforward concept rooted in the practical mechanics of reducing military capability. It means giving up certain kinds of weapons—either reducing the number of arms a state possesses or eliminating entire categories of weaponry altogether. This can happen voluntarily through treaties (like nuclear non-proliferation agreements) or be imposed after conflict. Disarmament is distinct from arms control, which regulates but doesn't necessarily eliminate weapons, and from demilitarization, which removes military forces from specific areas.

Alliance describes the formal or informal partnerships that states forge to enhance their collective security. It is essentially a coalition of countries that agree to cooperate, usually for mutual defense or to pursue shared strategic interests. NATO, the Warsaw Pact (historically), and various bilateral defense treaties all exemplify alliances. These arrangements rest on the principle that collective strength deters aggression more effectively than isolated national power. …

Arms control represents one of the central pillars of international security architecture since the Cold War. The concept rests on a straightforward premise: states can enhance their security not only by building more weapons but also by agreeing to limit, reduce, or regulate certain categories of armaments. These agreements aim to prevent arms races, reduce the risk of war, and build predictability between potential adversaries.

The three treaties listed — ABM, SALT II, and START — all exemplify this logic perfectly. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union, restricted the deployment of missile defense systems. The reasoning was counterintuitive but strategically sound: if both sides remained vulnerable to nuclear retaliation, neither would risk a first strike. This mutual vulnerability became known as "Mutual Assured Destruction" and, paradoxically, helped maintain stability.

SALT II, negotiated in the late 1970s, placed ceilings on the number of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles each superpower could possess. Though never formally ratified by the U.S. Senate, both sides largely observed its limits. START, which followed in the 1990s, went further by actually requiring reductions in deployed warheads and delivery systems — moving beyond mere limitation to active disarmament.

An alliance in international relations is fundamentally a formal or informal arrangement between two or more states to work together toward shared security goals. The assertion captures this core idea: alliances are coalitions where member states coordinate their actions — whether through joint military planning, mutual defense pacts, or collective deterrence strategies — to prevent or respond to military threats. Think of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or the Triple Entente before World War I; each was built on the principle that coordinated action among multiple states creates a stronger defensive or deterrent posture than any single state could achieve alone.

The reason statement addresses the underlying motivation. Why do countries enter into these arrangements? Because alliances amplify power. A state facing a powerful adversary or rival alliance can improve its strategic position by pooling military resources, intelligence, and diplomatic weight with partners. This is the logic of balancing: if Country X perceives a threat from Country Y, it may ally with Countries A and B to create a counterweight. The combined strength of the alliance shifts the balance of power, making aggression less attractive to the adversary and defense more credible for the members. …

In the complex landscape of international relations, nations constantly seek ways to ensure their security and prevent conflict. This pursuit has led to the development of various concepts aimed at fostering stability and reducing the likelihood of war. One crucial aspect involves managing perceptions and intentions, especially concerning military capabilities and activities.

When nations regularly exchange information on their defence matters, they are engaging in a process specifically designed to reduce suspicion and build trust. This transparency helps to clarify intentions, prevent miscalculations, and ultimately lower the risk of armed confrontation. It moves beyond mere diplomatic dialogue to concrete actions that demonstrate a commitment to peaceful coexistence.

This process is known as Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs). CBMs are a set of actions, agreements, or arrangements undertaken by states to reduce mistrust, enhance transparency, and increase predictability in their military activities. They are not about disarming or forming alliances, but rather about creating an environment where states feel less threatened by each other's military postures.

Common examples of Confidence-Building Measures include:

• Prior notification of military exercises: States inform each other in advance about the scale, location, and timing of their military drills.
• Observation of military exercises: Allowing observers from other nations to monitor exercises to verify their defensive nature.
• Exchange of military doctrines and budgets: Sharing information about strategic thinking and defence spending.
• Establishment of direct communication links: Hotlines between military headquarters to prevent escalation during crises.
• Transparency regarding troop movements and deployments: Providing data on the location and size of forces near borders.

Let's briefly consider why the other options are not the best fit: …

Part (a)

The term 'hegemony' comes from the Greek word meaning 'leadership' or 'rule'. In international relations it describes a situation where one country — the hegemon — is so powerful that it can shape the rules, norms and institutions of the international system to suit its own interests. Crucially, hegemony is not the same as outright empire or direct colonial control: an imperial power rules by force and administration, whereas a hegemon leads through a mix of coercion and consent. …