Introduction: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism paints a pessimistic picture of a world where great powers are condemned to relentless competition. In this view, the international arena is not a place for cooperation, but a tragic space of struggle for survival. This article explores the mechanisms that force rational states to aggressively pursue power and explains why, in a system lacking a global arbiter, peace is merely a fragile episode. Readers will learn how the system's structure determines leader behavior and what barriers prevent lasting trust between nations.
The Five Pillars of Realism: Anarchy, Survival, and Military Potential
The foundation of the theory is anarchy, understood not as chaos, but as the absence of a higher sovereign authority over states. Within this environment, Mearsheimer identifies five pillars: anarchy, the possession of offensive capability, uncertainty regarding the intentions of others, the primacy of survival, and the rationality of actors. Because states can never be certain of their neighbors' future intentions, and each possesses the force necessary to strike, survival becomes an ontological goal, taking precedence over prosperity or ideology.
A key tool is offensive military potential, particularly land forces capable of seizing territory. The structural uncertainty of intentions means states must assume the worst-case scenario. Consequently, fear and self-help become the only logical responses to a systemic void where no one can guarantee the security of weaker actors.
Power Maximization, Relative Gains, and Actor Rationality
In the world of offensive realism, powers strive to maximize relative power rather than absolute wealth. Cooperation is blocked by the fear of cheating and the problem of relative gains: a state fears that a partner will gain a greater advantage that could be turned against them tomorrow. Actor rationality here consists of cold calculations of costs and benefits to improve one's strategic position. The safest state is regional hegemony—dominance in one's own neighborhood while simultaneously blocking rivals in other parts of the world.
Mearsheimer points to the strategy of offshore balancing, employed for example by the USA. Due to the "stopping power of water," global hegemony is impossible; therefore, powers seek to dominate their own region while sabotaging the growth of competitors through proxies, allowing them to remain the sole guarantor of their own security.
Multipolarity, Nuclear Weapons, and Alternative Paradigms
Competition takes different forms depending on the distribution of power. In multipolarity, "buck-passing" and bleeding rivals dominate. Offensive realism differs from defensive realism (K. Waltz) in that it rejects faith in the stability of the status quo—for Mearsheimer, states are always looking for opportunities to expand. Nuclear weapons act as a mitigating factor for the risk of total war (MAD), but they do not eliminate conventional arms races or the stability-instability paradox.
Critics, such as Alexander Wendt (constructivism), argue that "anarchy is what states make of it," suggesting the possibility of building security communities. Meanwhile, cognitive psychology (Kahneman, Tversky) challenges the rational model, pointing to cognitive biases and heuristics that cause leaders to often make sub-optimal decisions, succumbing to over-optimism or the illusion of control, which makes world politics even more unpredictable.
Summary: The Tragic Loop of Fear
In Mearsheimer’s world, where the shadow of uncertainty dances on the walls of anarchy and states, like lone wolves, circle the campfire of power, peace remains only a fragile truce. Strategies like buck-passing—forcing others to bear the burden of balancing an aggressor—and bleeding rivals through third parties prevail. In multipolar systems, this theater of shadows encourages cynical games. Are we condemned to an eternal struggle in a labyrinth of fear, or can we rise above this tragic logic?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF