The Dominance of Realism in Global Politics
In the field of international relations, states play a central role in shaping global interactions. Historically, states were not always considered the primary actors, but this changed with the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the nation-state system and prioritized state sovereignty. This period also saw the emergence of the balance of power concept. Today, realism remains the dominant school of thought in international relations, viewing the state as a rational entity that seeks to maximize power and security.
The foundations of realism can be traced back to Thucydides, who analyzed the war between Sparta and Athens, illustrating how the rise of Sparta threatened Athens’ security. His work, The Peloponnesian War, remains a cornerstone of realist thought. The concept of the “Thucydides Trap”—which describes a rising power challenging the dominance of an established power—is frequently applied in contemporary discourse, particularly concerning China’s rise and its challenge to U.S. global supremacy.
Several scholars have further developed the realist perspective. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, described the social contract between the masses and the state, arguing that a strong central authority is necessary to maintain order. Hans J. Morgenthau, in Politics Among Nations, articulated six key principles of realism, emphasizing the centrality of the state, the pursuit of power, the absence of morality in politics, and the competitive nature of international relations. Similarly, thinkers like Sun Tzu, E.H. Carr, and Kenneth Waltz have contributed to a deeper understanding of realism. Modern scholars such as John Mearsheimer have refined realism by distinguishing between its offensive and defensive variants.
Examining contemporary global politics, it becomes evident that realism continues to shape international relations. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine exemplifies offensive realism, where Russia aggressively seeks to expand its influence and counter NATO’s eastward expansion. John Mearsheimer argues that NATO’s enlargement and Western involvement in Ukraine have fueled Russian aggression. The conflict underscores the realist assertion that states must prioritize their military capabilities rather than rely on external assurances.
The geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China further demonstrates realism in action. China’s rapid military and economic expansion challenges U.S. global hegemony, prompting strategic containment efforts such as the formation of alliances like QUAD and AUKUS. The U.S. has countered China’s rise through tariffs, technology restrictions, and an increased military presence in the Indo-Pacific. The South China Sea disputes also exemplify China’s assertive stance, aligning with offensive realism’s principles.
The Israel-Palestine conflict provides another example of power politics through a realist lens. Despite international condemnation, Israel, with its military superiority, continues to expand settlements and conduct military operations. Palestine, lacking comparable military strength, struggles to deter Israeli actions. Additionally, the failure of international institutions like the United Nations to resolve the issue reinforces the realist argument that global organizations are often ineffective in restraining powerful states.
In South Asia, strategic deterrence is primarily maintained through military buildup and nuclear capabilities. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal deters aggression from India, while India, due to its larger conventional military forces, refrains from direct invasion but exercises influence over smaller neighbors like Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. This dynamic affirms realism’s assertion that stronger states exploit weaker ones to advance their interests.
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program further highlights realism’s emphasis on self-reliance in security. Nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against perceived threats from the United States and international sanctions. Realists argue that without a credible military deterrent, North Korea might have faced a fate similar to Iraq or Libya, where regimes without nuclear capabilities were overthrown through external intervention.
The geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran also illustrates realism in the Middle East. Both states engage in proxy warfare in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq to expand their influence. The lack of a global authority capable of effectively mediating such conflicts aligns with the realist view of an anarchic international system where power dictates outcomes.
Thus, realism remains the leading paradigm in international relations. Whether in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the U.S.-China rivalry, or tensions in the Middle East, power and security considerations consistently take precedence over moral or ideological concerns. The inability of organizations like the United Nations to prevent disputes further supports realist claims. In a world where authority is decentralized, states must fortify their economic, political, and military structures to ensure survival and counter potential threats from competing powers.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Spine Times.
Uroosa Khan
The author is an independent researcher having keen interest in foreign policy, geopolitics, and international relations.
