John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power

Abstract

With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer's main innovation is his theory of 'offensive realism' that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz's structural realist theory to explain from a structural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz's more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer's theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz's theory. Mearsheimer's work is remarkably clear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics.

The Annexation of Crimea: A Realist Look from the Energy Resources Perspective

“…Mearsheimer states that Russian attempt to annex Crimea was a response to the West and especially NATO's enlargement to the East, and Putin "responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West" (Mearsheimer, 2014). He also pointed to Geopolitics 101 which says that "great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory", which can be applied to explain Russia's actions (Toft, 2005). The implication of Moscow-Kyiv energy relation according to this perception results in subtractive Russian energy diplomacy about Ukraine, instead of an additive policy.…”

Realism and Fear in International Relations

“…Thucydides 1972, 49, 103, emphasis added. Booth 2011Buzan, Jones, and Little 1993;Cozette 2008;Elman 2004;Frei 2001;Humphreys 2013;Jütersonke 2010;Keohane 1986a;Layne 2002;Pashakhanlou 2009;Pashakhanlou 2014;Schroeder 1994;Schweller 1996;Snyder 2002;Toft 2005;Tucker 1952;Valeriano 2009;Wendt 1992;Williams 2007. Machiavelli 1988, 59, emphasis added.…”

New-Regionalism: The Slipknot of the Two Rival Trends?

“…However, since this aim is hard to achieve (even for the US), regional hegemony is state's prior goal. To set this goal states to seek power directly or they try to prevent other state's gaining power indirectly (Mearsheimer 2001, Toft 2005. Similar with Mearsheimer, Katzenstein (2005) also emphasizes the dominance of the international system over the sub-systems and he argues that there are six major regions which are Europe, East Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East and South Asia.…”