The Tragedy of Great Power Politics | John Mearsheimer

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a book by the American scholar John Mearsheimer on the subject of international relations theory published by W.W. Norton & Company in 2001.

Buy Now

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is written based on the theory of offensive realism with power as the currency of great power politics and the Security Dilemma its logic.

Mearsheimer wrote The Tragedy of Great Power Politics in 2001 as an antidote to the End of the History and the Last Man By Fukuyama and to pour cold water on the optimists that thought the great power's rivalry had ended. Mearsheimer argues that the traditional pattern of rivalry between the great powers will continue in the post-cold war era in contrast to the claims made by Fukuyama. His work is a significant contribution to the Neorealist paradigm and adds Offensive Realism as a new structural theory in opposition to the Defensive Realism of Kenneth Waltz. Mearsheimer lays out bold propositions and ideas based on plausible assumptions to explain the actions of great power. Firstly, he lays out the critical components of his theory of offensive realism. Then he tries to demonstrate that the theory can explain a lot about the history of international politics by applying the theory to several case studies, such as the rise of Germany and the United States. Finally, he uses the theory to predict great power politics in the twenty-first century. In doing so, he tests them by examining a large volume of historical records and cases.

In this book, he talks about his theory of offensive realism in international relations, which is a mixture of the realism of Hans Morgenthau and the realism of Kenneth Waltz. Mearsheimer points out that the reason for the continuity of violence and the lack of peace is that the great powers that make up the international system fear each other and compete for a balance of power. Their ultimate goal is to be the only dominant power in the world because it is the best way to ensure survival.

According to Professor John Mearsheimer, the United States is to blame for what is happening, as it forced Ukraine's integration into NATO, despite Russia saying it would never tolerate this fact, which it saw as an existential threat. According to Mearsheimer, "Putin the aggressor" is a story invented by Western politicians to justify their lack of vision and irresponsibility. Furthermore, Putin is doing what Americans have always done: "(military) power creates law."

The author also helps us to understand that Ukraine's reaction revolves around European integration, which assumes principles respected by all (such as the non-violation of territorial integrity). Furthermore, resistance to unjustifiable aggression teaches that being a nation is not just about having a common language or history. It needs to be defended against external threats.

Mearsheimer puts forward five hypotheses that encouraged states to engage in violence and search for power, namely:

1] The international system is anarchic

2] The great powers possess offensive military capabilities

3] The states cannot be entirely certain of other states' intentions

4] Survival is the primary goal, and states try to survive in rational rather than reckless ways

5] Great powers are the prominent and influential actors in world politics

It also indicates that the great powers' achievement of a clear military advantage over their competitors leads these powers to continue searching for more power, as the pursuit of power does not stop until hegemony is achieved.

Mearsheimer is complex, his arguments are almost always tactically sound, and he always backs them up with at least some example. Still, I remain defensive in my realist preferences; Mearsheimer's strategy view is not convincing. He becomes too sweeping and too short-sighted. Political entrepreneurship/ statesmanship is something he refers to, but in ways that do not make it possible in the present context. The concept of Political entrepreneurship, following the tradition of Adam Smith's classical liberalism, will ignore social welfare leading to the formation of a night-watchman state.

I see a duality in Mearsheimer's interpretation of what drives uncertainty in the political system. What I see is a finding of human ambition as a constant. Based on that, he analyses behaviours, focusing on what is feasible in the short term in different situations. Mearsheimer both ascribes enormous power to the human factor and chooses to ignore it.

These complaints noted, Mearsheimer's text is impressive. He pinpoints essential conditions, such as the strategic behaviour in foreign policy, and categorises several useful tactical behaviours that help an analyst (or hobbyist) look at an international situation and understand it better. I recommend him to all political science geeks; it is just that I think you should read him as a handbook rather than a prophet.

This edition is from 2019, but the book was originally released in 2001: the most substantial difference between the two versions is that in the latter, there is a chapter on China as an emerging power that could soon challenge the hegemonic status of the United States of America. Moreover, according to Mearsheimer, the conflict between the two powers will be challenging to avoid. Yes, because the US political scientist is a staunch supporter of the theory of offensive realism: since states exist in a condition of anarchy (there is no superior body that governs them), they are forced to adopt an aggressive attitude towards others. - which will often lead to wars - to reduce the risk of being attacked and increase their security. From this, it follows that the situation of greater security would be with a single world hegemon, which is very difficult to happen practically. To demonstrate this theory, Mearsheimer examines the history of the last 200 years, from the Napoleonic wars to the present day, and carefully analyses the relationships and conflicts between the various powers, with consequent variations in the balance of power between them. Moreover, Mearsheimer certainly does not spare himself in wanting to demonstrate his theories, sometimes becoming repetitive since some concepts are repeated more than once in all sorts of ways. However, beyond a small amount of redundancy, I found this analysis rather convincing - and depressing, of course - also because the international political situation of recent times seems to be the natural continuation of what is told in The Tragedy of the Powers. Moreover, since this text was written before what happened, at this point, I trust what Mearsheimer says.