Why do countries prepare for war while talking about peace? Why do governments defend international rules in one dispute and challenge them in another? And why can two states that both want security end up making each other feel less secure?
Realism offers one of the most influential ways of answering these questions. It asks us to look beyond diplomatic language and examine power, interests and the pressures facing states.
It is a useful starting point for understanding world politics. The danger comes when we treat it as the whole explanation.
What is realism?
Realism is a family of theories in International Relations. Its central concern is how states protect themselves in a world without a government above them capable of reliably guaranteeing their security.
Realists call this condition anarchy. They mean the absence of an overarching authority, rather than permanent chaos. States may sign treaties and build institutions, but they cannot assume that someone else will always protect them.
This creates pressure to prioritise survival, consider national interests and pay close attention to the power of other states. Realism therefore treats competition as a recurring feature of international politics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The practical question is uncomfortable but necessary: if an agreement breaks down, who has the means to enforce it?
The security dilemma
One of realism’s most useful ideas is the security dilemma.
Imagine two neighbouring countries. The first increases its military spending because it fears attack. The second sees that build-up and responds with new weapons of its own. Each government describes its actions as defensive. Each interprets the other’s actions as threatening.
Both wanted greater security. Together, they have created greater insecurity.
The problem is uncertainty. A government can observe another country’s capabilities more easily than it can know that country’s intentions—and intentions can change.
Realist thinking also emphasises the balance of power: states may strengthen their own capabilities or form alliances to prevent another state from becoming overwhelmingly powerful. These responses can restrain domination, although they can also intensify rivalry. Routledge’s introduction to realism
For policymakers, this raises a difficult judgement. When does military preparation discourage aggression, and when does it help produce the confrontation it was meant to prevent?
Different schools of realism
Realists disagree about where competition comes from and how states should respond.
Classical realism, associated with thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau, gives considerable weight to human ambition, political judgement and the pursuit of power. It also values prudence: leaders must consider the likely consequences of their actions. Moral conviction alone cannot make a policy effective.
Structural realism, or neorealism, associated with Kenneth Waltz, shifts attention towards the international system. Even states with different political systems face similar pressures when there is no higher authority to ensure their survival. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Within structural realism, an important disagreement concerns how much power is enough.
Defensive realists generally argue that excessive expansion can undermine security by provoking resistance and hostile alliances. Offensive realism, associated with John Mearsheimer, argues that uncertainty encourages great powers to seek opportunities to increase their relative power, with regional hegemony offering an especially secure position. Routledge, Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
That disagreement matters. The same concern for survival can lead to arguments for restraint or for expansion.
What realism helps us see
Realism encourages us to test political promises against available means.
A security guarantee needs credible backing. A diplomatic initiative needs some understanding of what each side fears and wants. A military intervention needs a plausible account of what happens after the initial operation.
Applied carefully, this approach can expose wishful thinking. It encourages questions that political speeches sometimes avoid: What is the objective? What will it cost? How might an opponent respond? What happens if the plan fails?
Those questions are valuable even when we reject a particular realist conclusion.
Where the model falls short
My main reservation is that a focus on states and power can make international politics appear more uniform than it is.
Governments interpret interests through ideology, history, public opinion and domestic struggles. A leader’s security may differ from the population’s security. Smaller countries also have their own ambitions and choices; treating them mainly as pieces in a contest
Leave a Reply