The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics

“Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon—that is, the only great power in the system.”

This quote highlights Mearsheimer’s argument regarding the nature of state behavior in international politics. It suggests that states inherently seek hegemony, or dominant power status, driven by the necessity to ensure their survival in an anarchic world. This pursuit of power often leads to strategic conflicts and competition among states, underscoring the realist notion that power dynamics are central to understanding international relations.

“Great powers are rarely content with the current distribution of power; on the contrary, they face a constant incentive to change it in their favor.”

Mearsheimer emphasizes the dynamic and competitive nature of international politics, reflecting the theme of Offensive Realism and the Imperative for Power. This quote reflects his view that states are not just passive actors but are actively seeking to alter the power balance to their advantage. It underscores a key tenet of offensive realism: The insatiable drive of states for power augmentation is not merely for the sake of aggressive expansion in and of itself but is also a strategy for survival in a system without a higher authority to ensure security.

“Great powers, I argue, are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, with hegemony as their final goal.”

This quote lays the foundation of Mearsheimer’s argument, emphasizing the relentless pursuit of power by great powers in an anarchic international system. It encapsulates the central theme of offensive realism, where states are driven not just by survival instincts but by an ambitious desire to establish dominance or hegemony (See: Index of Terms). This relentless quest for power is presented as an inherent characteristic of great powers, underlining the competitive nature of international relations.

“The first assumption is that the international system is anarchic […]. There is no ‘government over governments.’”

Here, Mearsheimer introduces a pivotal assumption of his theory: the concept of anarchy in the international system. This quote is crucial, as it explains the lack of a central authority to govern state interactions, leading to a self-help system where states must rely on their own means for survival and power. This assumption of anarchy is foundational in understanding why states act aggressively and competitively, shaping the behavior of great powers in the international arena.

“The best way for a state to survive in anarchy is to take advantage of other states and gain power at their expense.”

This quote highlights the aggressive nature of state behavior in an anarchic international system. Mearsheimer suggests that survival in such a system is not passive but instead requires active measures to gain power, often at the expense of others. This passage reflects the realist view of international politics as a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain in power is inherently seen as a loss for another, fueling constant competition and conflict among states.

“Power lies at the heart of international politics, yet there is considerable disagreement about what power is and how to measure it.”

This quote sets the stage for the chapter’s exploration of the concept of power in international relations. It succinctly captures a fundamental debate in the field: the elusive nature of power and the challenges in quantifying it. This statement primes the reader for a deeper investigation into different perspectives and dimensions of power, emphasizing the significance of understanding power’s multifaceted character in the realm of international politics.

“States have two kinds of power: latent power and military power. These two forms of power are closely related but not synonymous.”

This quote introduces a critical distinction that forms the backbone of the chapter. By differentiating between latent and military power, the author highlights that a state’s potential (latent power), as rooted in socioeconomic factors, is distinct from its actual military capabilities. This differentiation is key to understanding how states leverage their inherent strengths and convert them into tangible military force. The choice of words like “closely related” and “not synonymous” underscores the complexity of power dynamics in international relations.

“Wealth is important because a state cannot build a powerful military if it does not have the money and technology to equip, train, and continually modernize its fighting forces.”

The author underscores the pivotal role of wealth in establishing and maintaining military power. The passage encapsulates the fundamental idea that economic strength is a prerequisite for military might, highlighting the interdependence between a state’s economic health and its defense capabilities. The language used here—“equip, train, and continually modernize”—emphasizes the ongoing, dynamic process of military development, which is heavily reliant on a state’s economic resources and technological advancements.

“Simply put, the most powerful states possess the most formidable armies. Therefore, measuring the balance of land power by itself should provide a rough but sound indicator of the relative might of rival great powers.”

The author stresses the fundamental importance of land power in determining a state’s military strength. He emphasizes that the capability of a state’s army, along with its supporting air and naval forces, is the primary measure of its power. This perspective challenges traditional views that overemphasize the role of naval or air power, highlighting the enduring significance of ground forces in international politics. The quote aligns with realist theories in international relations, which prioritize military power and security concerns.

“The stopping power of water is of great significance not just because it is a central aspect of land power, but also because it has important consequences for the concept of hegemony.”

This statement examines the strategic implications of geography on military power, particularly how large bodies of water limit the reach of land forces. It points out that physical barriers like oceans make it virtually impossible for any state to achieve global hegemony. This insight is crucial for understanding the limitations of military power and the challenges in projecting force across vast distances, which in turn shapes the dynamics of international relations and the pursuit of global dominance.

“Wars are won by big battalions, not by armadas in the air or on the sea. The strongest power is the state with the strongest army.”

This quote argues for the primacy of land power in determining the outcomes of wars. It asserts that despite the advancements in naval and air capabilities, the decisive factor in warfare remains the strength and effectiveness of ground forces. This perspective challenges the views of naval and air power advocates and reaffirms the traditional view that control of land is the most direct path to military victory. The quote also reflects a realist approach to international relations, where military might and territorial control are seen as essential for state security and influence.

“Great powers concentrate on achieving four basic objectives. First, they seek regional hegemony […]. Second, great powers aim to maximize the amount of the world’s wealth that they control […]. Third, great powers aim to dominate the balance of land power […]. Fourth, great powers seek nuclear superiority.”

This quote encapsulates the core strategic objectives of great powers in international politics. It highlights the multifaceted nature of power, encompassing military, economic, and technological domains. This holistic view underlines the realist perspective that states seek comprehensive dominance—not just in military terms but also in economic and nuclear capabilities. The mention of “regional hegemony” and “nuclear superiority” particularly underscores the strategic depth that great powers aim for in order to secure their positions in the international system.

“War is the most controversial strategy that great powers can employ to increase their share of world power […]. Nevertheless, the argument is wrong: conquest can still improve a state’s power position.”

The author here challenges the conventional wisdom that views war as a futile or counterproductive means for states to achieve power. Instead, he boldly asserts the utility of war and conquest in enhancing a state’s strategic position. This perspective is significant as it confronts the often-idealistic views in international relations, arguing instead for a more pragmatic, albeit controversial, understanding of power dynamics. The quote brings to light the realist argument that, despite its destructiveness and controversy, war remains a critical tool in the arsenal of state strategies for power acquisition.

“Buck-passing and putting together a balancing coalition obviously represent contrasting ways of dealing with an aggressor.”

This quote introduces the concept of “buck-passing” as a strategic alternative to balancing coalitions in international politics. It reflects the strategic calculus that states engage in when faced with a potential threat. The distinction between these two approaches—buck-passing and forming balancing coalitions—highlights the nuanced and complex nature of state strategy. The concept of buck-passing in particular reveals a more indirect and potentially risky strategy, where states seek to avoid direct confrontation, hoping another state will counter the aggressor. This approach is emblematic of the strategic depth and foresight that characterize state behavior in the realist paradigm.

“Either we’ll do it or they will crush us.”

This quote, attributed to Joseph Stalin, succinctly encapsulates the existential threat perceived by the Soviet Union and the urgency driving its policies. The use of direct speech brings a sense of immediacy and personalization to the historical narrative. This quote exemplifies the stark realism often characteristic of political discourse in high-stakes scenarios, emphasizing survival as the paramount goal. The binary choice presented (“do it or they will crush us”) reflects the zero-sum thinking prevalent in international relations, especially during periods of heightened tension and conflict.

“The American drive for hegemony was successful. Indeed, as emphasized earlier, the United States is the only state in modern times to have gained regional hegemony. This impressive achievement, not some purported noble behavior toward the outside world, is the real basis of American exceptionalism in the foreign policy realm.”

This quote underscores the realist perspective in international relations, emphasizing the pursuit of power and hegemony as central to a nation’s foreign policy. The United States’ achievement of regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere illustrates the practical application of realist theory, where power and control, rather than noble intentions or moral imperatives, drive state actions. This reflects a core tenet of realism: the prioritization of national interest and security over ideological or ethical considerations.

“Every great power would like to dominate the world, but none has ever had or is likely to have the military capability to become a global hegemon.”

This statement reflects the limitations inherent in the pursuit of global hegemony due to logistical, economic, and military constraints. It aligns with the concept of balance of power in international relations, suggesting that the aspiration to global dominance is often checked by the practicalities of power projection and the counterbalancing actions of other states. This quote highlights the inherent checks and balances in the international system that prevent any one state from achieving absolute global dominance.

“Buck-passing is preferred over balancing because the successful buck-passer does not have to fight the aggressor if deterrence fails. In fact, the buck-passer might even gain power if the aggressor and the buck-catcher get bogged down in a long and costly war.”

This quote highlights the strategic reasoning behind buck-passing, a method where states avoid direct conflict and hope another state will counter the aggressor. The incentive lies in avoiding the risks and costs of war while potentially gaining from the weakened state of both the aggressor and the defender. This reflects a calculated, risk-averse approach in international politics, revealing the pragmatic, often self-serving nature of state behavior.

“A threatened great power operating in a bipolar system must balance against its rival because there is no other great power to catch the buck.”

This quote underscores the inevitability of balancing in a bipolar world, where only two major powers exist. In such a scenario, the concept of buck-passing is rendered ineffective due to the lack of a third party. This reflects the strategic constraints imposed by the structure of the international system on state behavior, demonstrating how the distribution of power can dictate the options available to states.

“The more relative power the potential hegemon controls, the more likely it is that all of the threatened states in the system will forgo buck-passing and form a balancing coalition.”

This quote explores the dynamics of coalition formation in response to a rising hegemon. It suggests that as a potential hegemon gains power, the threat it poses becomes so acute that other states are compelled to abandon buck-passing and unite their forces. This reflects the balance of threat theory, where the perceived danger of a state’s growing power and aggressive intentions drive others to overcome their differences and align against it.

“Anarchy alone, however, cannot account for why security competition sometimes leads to war but sometimes does not. The problem is that anarchy is a constant—the system is always anarchic—whereas war is not.”

This quote highlights the complexity of international relations and the inadequacy of anarchy as a sole explanation for war. It underscores the dynamic nature of global politics, where the constant state of anarchy interacts with variable factors—like power distribution, state interests, and strategic calculations—to determine the likelihood of war. The quote also reflects The Limitations of International Institutions in Conflict Mitigation, as the author believes that no international organization is strong enough to effectively prevent war and end the anarchy that governs global relations.

“The core of my argument is that bipolar systems tend to be the most peaceful, and unbalanced multipolar systems are the most prone to deadly conflict.”

This quote succinctly captures the central thesis of the chapter, using contrast to highlight the differences in stability between bipolar and unbalanced multipolar systems. The statement is a pivot around which the chapter’s arguments revolve, and it emphasizes the predictive nature of structural theories in international relations.

“The optimists’ claim that security competition and war among the great powers has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact, all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power and are destined to compete for power among themselves for the foreseeable future.”

The author highlights the enduring nature of power politics, emphasizing that despite changes in the international system, states continue to prioritize their own power and security. Mearsheimer underscores that the principles of realism—particularly the focus on power and security—remain relevant in explaining state behavior.