The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
Explaining his theory of "offensive realism," the University of Chicago professor of political science discusses the methods used by states to ensure their survival through military strength and regional dominance.
Stats for nerds
4recommend
9mentions
7people
2012–2024years
56% recommend44% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- A good starting point would be Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations. He was a German Jewish emigre to the United States, and it was with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation that his book was used to create International Relations departments within universities across the United States in the immediate post-WWII period. Prior to Morgenthau and the Rockefellers, international relations was not its own discipline distinct from history, philosophy, law, jurism, etc. Morgenthau's book was the standard textbook for international relations for several decades, and in it he tries to outline European realpolitik for his liberal American audience. His is still probably the most literate, sophisticated, and nuanced international relations introduction.
On the topic of a systemic drive to increase ones power at the expense of others, leading to escalatory and conflictual international dynamics, your go-to book is John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. He is also in the realist school of thought like Morgenthau, although you'll find that his style of writing is much punchier and pugilistic than Morgenthau's.
On the attempt to build systemically de-escalatory effects at the international level, I would pick up a copy of G John Ikenberry's After Victory. He describes how victorious countries following major wars would create a new set of rules for the international system, and how at least some of those post-war regimes attempted to reduce the returns to power in order to increase the stability of the system and reduce perceptions of threat and insecurity by weaker states. Note that he worked in the State Department during Bush Sr administration and has that direct experience of attempting to ensure order and stability following the end of the Cold War.
If you want to read case studies in escalation toward a war that no single actor actually wanted, I recommend Stephen Van Evera's Causes of War with a focus on his study of WWI. It goes well paired with Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August.
- I read Mearsheimer's "Tragedy of Great Power Politics", and I think it's one of the most important books ever written. It completely changed the way I think about what's going on in the world.
That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily). But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.
US and NATO do whatever is in their best interest, and that implicitly means they will try to reduce Russia's power. Russia knows that. In turn, Russia will try to reduce NATO's and US's power (and increase their own). That's all rational. Now, to say that the US and NATO have to have some form of guilt, and they should change their actions, that's crazy, it does not make any sense.
To say that the US, or NATO, or Russia, or anyone else is hypocritical, or they say one thing and do another, well, welcome to politics. "Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. Russia calls foul play. Well, what did they think? People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.
But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?
- >> The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?
I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer here (he was wrong on whether Russia would go to war for one thing; for another, he extrapolates way too far in ascribing motives to Putin/Russia that he doesn't have evidence for) and I think states are generally security maximizing and not power maximizing.
But Mearsheimer's book title of "The Tragedy of Great Power politics" is apt. Because the tragedy is that states have different interests than the well being of the people that live in them. I don't think pointing that out is immoral, quite the opposite; hard truths are still truths.
- Highly recommend "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer.
For Russia, annexing (all or part of) Ukraine now is too good a deal to pass. Russia knows that invading with an overwhelming force will result in a virtually bloodless annexation, just like the Taliban took over Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, and just like they themselves took over Crimea. Ukraine claims they'll fight to the last drop of blood, but theory and practice are a bit disconnected when you are a garrison in a city that's being approached by a few tens of thousands of soldiers and a few thousand tanks. Thinks looks different still if 50 other cities surrendered without a fight by the time it's your turn.
Russia is a country in the middle of a population collapse. They are less than 145 MM now, projected to get to 125 MM by 2050. Their great power aspirations dwindle by the day. But adding Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan and Uzbekistan brings an immediate boost of more than 100 MM. Every night Putin puts his head on the pillow, these things swirl in his head, "one hundred million more Russians", "Mother Russia great again", "they disrespect us now, we'll show them who's the boss", "enough is enough", etc, etc.
- My qualm with Stratfor is they assume the reader has a theoretical foundation in geopolitics, economics, and military strategy and history. The core they're running on here is best summarised by John Mearsheimer in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics [1]. Much of the rest arises from macroeconomics, game theory, and military strategy.
If nothing else this is valuable in that it follows closely the mindset of the US intelligence community (and many others, most precisely Russia's and Eastern Europe's).
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition-Norto...
- I had just started reading Mearsheimer's book (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics). It's quite depressing to say the least. My plan is to finish it and then read a critique or a competing viewpoint. What would you recommend as a follow-up as a critique of Mearsheimer?
Thanks in advance!
Related
Firepower
2 recommend · 3
Politics among Nations
1 recommend · 2
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
7 recommend · 13
The rise & fall of great powers
4 recommend · 4
Understanding Power
27 recommend · 57
The accidental superpower
13 recommend · 30
Power
1 recommend · 2
