• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Beyond Power Politics

Embracing a Comprehensive Geopolitical Perspective

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Geopolitical "offensive realist" John J. Maersheimer wrote an influential essay in 2014: "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin".[1] Please write an essay about the strengths and weaknesses of this position in the context of international relations theory.

Follow-up questions

• Could it be said that realism is more than power politics, and idealism is more than delusional? How can these two camps be integrated into a more comprehensive geopolitical paradigm? Do you now of authors who have attempted this?
• Linguist Noam Chomsky often makes the claim that, as the United States would not allow China to place nuclear arms in Mexico, near its border, so Russia will not allow nuclear arms in Ukraine, if that country would join NATO. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a preemptive strike to prevent this from happening. Is there any truth in this argument? Or is the current crisis different?
• Could it be said that geopolitical realism focuses on the lower rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (safety), whereas idealism points to the value of the higher rungs (self-esteem, self-actualization)? How can legitimate safety concerns of indivuals and nations been framed in a wider perspective?
• One of Maersheimer's quips is that if you live next to a bear, you don't poke him in the eye. Even if that is a graphic way of putting the relationship of the West to its neigbour Russia, what is wrong with this metaphor?
• One thing that has made many weary of "idealist" perspectives is that under the flag of bringing freedom and democracy to other countries, the US has engaged in power play of its own. How to deal with this level of hypocrisy?
• The war in Ukraine can be seen as a decolonization war, in which Ukraine tries to free itself of Russia's sphere of influence. At the same time, former Western colonies might see this war as a justified battle against Western hegemony. Please comment on this aspect of the crisis.
• Please provide a list of the top 10 annual military budgets per country. If it is true that the United States spends more on its defense than all other countries in the top 10 together, even if the US territory is not directly threatened, how would Maersheimer interpret such powerplay?

ChatGPT:

Introduction:

John J. Mearsheimer's essay, "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin," presents an offensive realist perspective on the Ukraine crisis and attributes the blame to Western policies and expansionism. While Mearsheimer's analysis offers valuable insights into international relations theory, it is essential to critically evaluate its strengths and weaknesses within the broader context of international relations theory.

Strengths of Mearsheimer's Position:

Realist Analysis:

Mearsheimer's argument draws on the principles of offensive realism, a widely recognized international relations theory. He emphasizes the pursuit of power, territorial security, and the self-interested behavior of states in his analysis of Russia's actions in Ukraine. This perspective acknowledges the importance of considering national interests and power dynamics in international relations.

Western Provocations:

Mearsheimer highlights the expansion of NATO and the European Union into Eastern Europe as provocative actions that threatened Russia's security interests. This argument underscores the significance of understanding how actions by Western powers can be perceived as threatening by other states, which is crucial for maintaining stability and avoiding conflict.

Balancing and Revisionist Powers:

The essay sheds light on the concept of balancing, wherein rising powers attempt to counter the influence of dominant powers to protect their interests. Mearsheimer argues that Russia's actions in Ukraine were driven by a desire to reestablish its regional influence, reacting to what it saw as Western encroachment into its traditional sphere of influence.

Weaknesses of Mearsheimer's Position:

Oversimplification of Western Intentions:

While Mearsheimer argues that the West provoked Putin's aggression, he oversimplifies the intentions of Western actors. It is reductionist to assume that Western policies were solely aimed at provoking Russia, disregarding other factors such as the desire to promote democracy, stability, and security in Eastern Europe.

Neglecting Internal Factors:

Mearsheimer's analysis largely focuses on external factors and the behavior of states, neglecting the significance of domestic politics, social dynamics, and historical factors within Russia and Ukraine. These internal dynamics played a substantial role in shaping the crisis and need to be considered to provide a comprehensive understanding.

Limited Emphasis on Norms and Institutions:

Offensive realism, the theoretical framework used by Mearsheimer, places little emphasis on the role of norms, institutions, and international law in shaping state behavior. By downplaying these factors, the analysis overlooks the potential for non-zero-sum cooperation and the influence of international norms on state actions.

Inadequate Consideration of Russia's Responsibility:

Mearsheimer's argument, while highlighting Western actions, tends to downplay Russia's own agency and responsibility in the Ukraine crisis. The analysis should account for Russia's role in annexing Crimea, supporting separatist movements, and violating Ukraine's sovereignty, as these actions were not solely reactive but reflect Russia's own strategic interests.

Conclusion:

John J. Mearsheimer's essay offers a thought-provoking offensive realist perspective on the Ukraine crisis and highlights the potential provocations resulting from Western policies. While the strengths of Mearsheimer's position lie in its realist analysis, recognition of balancing dynamics, and focus on power politics, the essay also exhibits weaknesses such as oversimplification of Western intentions, neglect of internal factors, limited emphasis on norms and institutions, and inadequate consideration of Russia's responsibility. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the Ukraine crisis and international relations, it is essential to incorporate a range of perspectives, considering not only power politics but also domestic, normative, and institutional factors that shape state state behavior. It recognizes the importance of norms, ideas, and institutions in shaping state actions and interactions. Idealism emphasizes the potential for cooperation, the pursuit of common values, and the role of international organizations and regimes in promoting peace, human rights, and global governance.

Could it be said that realism is more than power politics, and idealism is more than delusional? How can these two camps be integrated into a more comprehensive geopolitical paradigm? Do you now of authors who have attempted this?

Yes, it can certainly be argued that realism encompasses more than just power politics, and idealism goes beyond being delusional. Both realism and idealism represent distinct approaches to understanding international relations, and integrating them into a more comprehensive geopolitical paradigm can provide a more nuanced understanding of global dynamics. While there have been attempts to bridge these two camps, it is important to note that scholars often blend elements of realism and idealism to create hybrid theories that capture multiple dimensions of international relations.

To integrate realism and idealism into a comprehensive paradigm, one can consider the following approaches:

Structural Realism with Institutionalism:

Scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye have combined elements of realism with institutionalism. They argue that international institutions and norms can influence state behavior and shape outcomes. This perspective recognizes the significance of power and self-interest while acknowledging the role of institutions in mitigating conflict and facilitating cooperation.

Liberal Realism:

This approach combines elements of realism and liberalism, acknowledging the role of power and self-interest but also emphasizing the importance of international norms, cooperation, and democratic governance. Authors like Andrew Moravcsik and G. John Ikenberry have contributed to this perspective, arguing that states' pursuit of power can be tempered by institutional arrangements and normative principles.

Constructivist Realism:

Constructivism, often associated with idealism, focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and social constructions in shaping state behavior. However, some scholars have sought to integrate constructivist insights with realism. Alexander Wendt is a notable figure in this regard, who argues that state behavior is influenced by both material power and social factors, such as identity, norms, and shared understandings.

By integrating these different perspectives, a more comprehensive geopolitical paradigm can emerge, capturing the complexities of international relations. This integrated approach recognizes the importance of power dynamics, self-interest, institutions, norms, and ideational factors in shaping state behavior and outcomes.

It is worth noting that many scholars in the field of international relations have attempted to bridge the gap between realism and idealism. While the above-mentioned authors provide notable examples, there are numerous others who have made significant contributions to this endeavor, such as Hedley Bull, Charles A. Kupchan, Martha Finnemore, and Emanuel Adler. Their works offer valuable insights into how realism and idealism can be combined to provide a more holistic understanding of international relations.

Linguist Noam Chomsky often makes the claim that, as the United States would not allow China to place nuclear arms in Mexico, near its border, so Russia will not allow nuclear arms in Ukraine, if that country would join NATO. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a preemptive strike to prevent this from happening. Is there any truth in this argument? Or is the current crisis different?

Noam Chomsky's claim that Russia's invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a preemptive strike to prevent NATO from placing nuclear arms near its border, akin to the United States not allowing China to do so in Mexico, is a perspective worth examining. While it is essential to analyze the current crisis in Ukraine on its own merits, Chomsky's argument raises some valid points that deserve consideration.

Security Concerns:

The argument acknowledges the importance of security concerns and how great powers perceive threats to their national security. It suggests that Russia, like any other country, would act to prevent a perceived strategic disadvantage in its immediate neighborhood.

Historical Context:

Understanding historical context is crucial in analyzing the current crisis. Chomsky's argument touches on the historical memory of the Cold War and NATO's eastward expansion, which Russia perceives as a security threat. This historical lens helps shed light on the underlying tensions between Russia and the West.

Strategic Comparison:

Drawing a parallel with the hypothetical scenario of China placing nuclear arms in Mexico helps to highlight the potential double standards and the sensitivities of major powers regarding their security interests. This comparison invites reflection on how similar actions may be perceived differently in different geopolitical contexts.

However, it is important to note that the current crisis in Ukraine is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be reduced to a simple comparison with a hypothetical scenario. The situation involves factors beyond the question of nuclear arms, including Ukraine's internal dynamics, sovereignty, and Russia's broader geopolitical ambitions. It is also crucial to consider the legal and ethical aspects of Russia's actions, such as its violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and international norms.

Moreover, while Chomsky's argument highlights Russia's security concerns, it is crucial to analyze the proportionality and legitimacy of its response. Many argue that Russia's actions in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements, go beyond preemptive measures and infringe upon Ukraine's sovereignty and international law.

In summary, while Chomsky's argument brings attention to important aspects of security concerns and historical context, it is crucial to recognize the complexity of the current crisis in Ukraine, considering legal, ethical, and geopolitical factors to arrive at a comprehensive understanding.

Could it be said that geopolitical realism focuses on the lower rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (safety), whereas idealism points to the value of the higher rungs (self-esteem, self-actualization)? How can legitimate safety concerns of indivuals and nations been framed in a wider perspective?

Geopolitical realism does tend to emphasize the lower rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, particularly the need for safety and security. Realists argue that states prioritize their own survival and protection of their interests, often placing security concerns at the forefront of their decision-making. On the other hand, idealism, or more broadly, liberal and constructivist perspectives, emphasize higher-order needs such as self-esteem, self-actualization, human rights, and values.

However, it is important to note that this categorization is a simplification, as both realism and idealism encompass a wide range of perspectives. Realism also considers other factors such as power, self-interest, and national interests, while idealism recognizes the importance of security and acknowledges that ensuring safety is a fundamental prerequisite for the realization of higher needs.

Framing legitimate safety concerns within a wider perspective involves a comprehensive approach that takes into account both the lower and higher needs. It requires recognizing that security concerns are essential for individuals and nations to flourish and fulfill their higher aspirations. However, it is equally important to ensure that the pursuit of security does not come at the expense of ethical considerations, human rights, and the promotion of common values.

To achieve this, a few approaches can be considered:

Human Security:

This concept broadens the traditional notion of security beyond the state-centric focus of realism. It emphasizes the protection of individuals and communities from a range of threats, including political, economic, social, and environmental. By prioritizing human security, a wider perspective that addresses both safety concerns and higher-order needs can be achieved.

Normative Frameworks:

Establishing and promoting international norms, laws, and institutions that uphold human rights, democracy, and justice can provide a wider perspective. This framework acknowledges the importance of security while also emphasizing the value of self-esteem, self-actualization, and the well-being of individuals and communities.

Constructive Engagement:

Encouraging dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperative approaches among nations can create an environment where security concerns can be addressed within a broader context. This approach recognizes that mutual understanding, trust-building, and cooperation can contribute to both safety and the promotion of higher-order needs.

Long-Term Vision:

Developing a long-term vision that combines elements of both realism and idealism can foster a wider perspective. This involves recognizing the importance of security for individuals and nations, while also considering the long-term implications of policies and actions on values, self-actualization, and the well-being of future generations.

In summary, framing legitimate safety concerns in a wider perspective involves acknowledging the importance of both lower and higher-order needs. It requires finding a balance between security considerations and the promotion of ethical values, human rights, and the well-being of individuals and communities. By adopting a comprehensive approach, it becomes possible to address security concerns while also working towards the realization of higher aspirations.

One of Maersheimer's quips is that if you live next to a bear, you don't poke him in the eye. Even if that is a graphic way of putting the relationship of the West to its neigbour Russia, what is wrong with this metaphor?

While John J. Mearsheimer's metaphor of not poking a bear in the eye to describe the relationship between the West and Russia is vivid, it oversimplifies the complexities of international relations and has several shortcomings:

Essentializing and Oversimplifying Russia:

The metaphor reduces Russia to a singular, aggressive entity (the bear), disregarding the diversity of perspectives within the country and oversimplifying its motivations and actions. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of Russia's historical, political, and socio-economic dynamics, reducing them to a single metaphorical image.

Ignoring Agency and Responsibility:

The metaphor implies that Russia's behavior is entirely reactive, implying that the West is solely responsible for tensions. It neglects the agency of Russia in shaping its own foreign policy decisions and overlooks Russia's responsibility for its actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Overlooking Historical and Political Context:

The metaphor does not account for the historical context, including the expansion of NATO and the European Union into Eastern Europe. It disregards the aspirations of Eastern European countries to align themselves with the West due to historical experiences and a desire for security and stability.

Lack of Mutual Responsibility:

The metaphor suggests that avoiding conflict is solely the responsibility of the West, implying that Russia is justified in responding aggressively if provoked. This framing neglects the principle of shared responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in international relations.

Absence of Diplomacy and Cooperation:

The metaphor focuses on a confrontational approach, implying that any interaction with Russia must be approached with caution and deference. It overlooks the potential for diplomatic engagement, dialogue, and cooperative efforts in resolving conflicts and addressing shared concerns.

Reinforcement of Misperceptions and Stereotypes:

The metaphor reinforces pre-existing stereotypes and negative perceptions of Russia as an inherently dangerous and aggressive actor. Such simplifications can hinder constructive dialogue, understanding, and the search for common ground.

While metaphors can be useful in conveying ideas, it is important to recognize their limitations and the potential for oversimplification and misrepresentation. In the case of Mearsheimer's metaphor, it fails to capture the nuanced dynamics of the West-Russia relationship and obscures the need for dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual understanding in international relations.

Yes, what if the bear itself is hungry and aggressive, indeed.

If we consider the metaphorical bear to be hungry and aggressive, it can be seen as an attempt to highlight the perceived threat and potential aggression of Russia. However, it is important to approach this perspective with caution and consider the following points:

Objective Assessment of Threat:

While concerns about a hungry and aggressive bear may exist, it is crucial to objectively assess the actual level of threat posed by Russia. This assessment should be based on a comprehensive analysis of geopolitical dynamics, historical context, and the motivations and capabilities of the country in question. It is essential to avoid overgeneralizations and stereotypes when evaluating the behavior and intentions of any nation.

Addressing Root Causes:

If we view the bear as hungry and aggressive, it becomes imperative to delve deeper into the root causes of its behavior. Identifying and addressing the underlying factors that contribute to the perceived aggression can be more productive than simply viewing it as an inherent characteristic. Factors such as security concerns, historical grievances, or power dynamics may play a role and need to be addressed through dialogue, negotiation, and diplomatic channels.

Mitigating Conflict:

Instead of perpetuating the notion of an aggressive bear, efforts should be focused on finding ways to mitigate conflicts and reduce tensions. This involves seeking diplomatic solutions, promoting dialogue, and engaging in cooperative initiatives that foster trust-building and understanding between the parties involved. Recognizing mutual security concerns and striving for a balanced approach can help create a more stable and peaceful environment.

Broadening Perspectives:

It is crucial to avoid solely focusing on the bear's hunger and aggression and to consider a broader range of factors at play. Understanding the complexities of the geopolitical landscape, the interests and concerns of multiple actors, and the potential for shared security can help in formulating more comprehensive and effective strategies for conflict resolution.

Ultimately, the metaphor of a hungry and aggressive bear can be seen as a way to highlight concerns about a potential threat. However, it is essential to approach the situation with nuance, taking into account multiple factors, engaging in dialogue, and pursuing diplomatic solutions to mitigate conflicts and promote stability. By doing so, a more constructive and productive approach to addressing security concerns can be achieved.

Thanks for providing this non-partisan perspective on this complicated geopolitical crisis.

You're welcome! I'm glad I could provide a non-partisan perspective on the geopolitical crisis. Understanding and analyzing complex issues such as geopolitical conflicts require a balanced and objective approach, considering multiple perspectives and factors at play. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!

One thing that has made many weary of "idealist" perspectives is that under the flag of bringing freedom and democracy to other countries, the US has engaged in power play of its own. How to deal with this level of hypocrisy?

Dealing with the perception of hypocrisy in international relations, particularly when it comes to ideals such as freedom and democracy, can be challenging. Here are a few considerations to address this issue:

Critical Self-Reflection:

It is important for countries, including the United States, to engage in critical self-reflection and acknowledge past instances where their actions may have contradicted their stated ideals. Recognizing and acknowledging mistakes or inconsistencies is a necessary step toward fostering transparency and credibility in international relations.

Consistency in Principles:

Countries should strive to maintain consistency in their principles and actions. It is crucial to align rhetoric with behavior, ensuring that policies and actions reflect the values and ideals being promoted. This requires a commitment to uphold democratic norms, respect for human rights, and the rule of law both domestically and internationally.

Multilateral Approaches:

Emphasizing multilateralism and collaboration can help address concerns of hypocrisy. Engaging in partnerships and alliances that are built on shared values and common objectives can provide checks and balances, promoting accountability and reducing the likelihood of unilateral power play.

Dialogue and Listening:

Engaging in open and honest dialogue with other nations, including those critical of perceived hypocrisy, can foster mutual understanding and bridge gaps. Listening to the concerns and perspectives of others, acknowledging grievances, and working towards cooperative solutions can help rebuild trust and credibility.

Transparency and Accountability:

Promoting transparency in decision-making processes, as well as holding accountable those responsible for any perceived hypocrisy, is essential. This can be achieved through mechanisms such as independent oversight, robust media scrutiny, and public participation, which can help ensure greater accountability and reduce the risk of hypocrisy.

Long-Term Commitment:

It is crucial for countries to demonstrate a long-term commitment to their stated ideals. This involves sustained efforts to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, both domestically and in their interactions with other nations. Short-term interests should not compromise long-term commitments to shared values.

Addressing hypocrisy in international relations requires a comprehensive and continuous effort. It necessitates self-reflection, consistency in principles, engagement with other nations, transparency, and a long-term commitment to shared values. By actively working towards these goals, countries can help rebuild trust and credibility, fostering a more effective and principled approach to international relations.

The war in Ukraine can be seen as a decolonization war, in which Ukraine tries to free itself of Russia's sphere of influence. At the same time, former Western colonies might see this war as a justified battle against Western hegemony. Please comment on this aspect of the crisis.

The perspective that the war in Ukraine can be viewed as a decolonization struggle against Russia's sphere of influence and as a battle against Western hegemony from the viewpoint of former Western colonies brings attention to the complexity of the crisis. Let's explore this aspect further:

Decolonization Narrative:

Ukraine's desire to free itself from Russia's sphere of influence can be seen as an assertion of its sovereignty and independence. Similar to the decolonization struggles of the past, Ukraine's quest for self-determination and freedom from external control resonates with the experiences of former colonies that fought against imperial powers.

Opposition to Western Hegemony:

Some may perceive the conflict in Ukraine as part of a broader resistance against Western hegemony. From the perspective of former Western colonies, historical experiences of colonization and domination by Western powers may influence their perception of Ukraine's struggle as a justifiable resistance against Western influence in global affairs.

Geopolitical Realities:

However, it is important to consider the geopolitical realities and complexities of the crisis. While Ukraine seeks to assert its independence from Russia, the situation also involves competing interests, power dynamics, and regional security concerns. It is crucial to analyze the motivations and actions of all actors involved, considering multiple perspectives and recognizing that the crisis is not solely a binary struggle between decolonization and Western hegemony.

Diverse Interpretations:

The war in Ukraine can evoke diverse interpretations depending on one's historical, political, and cultural context. Different countries and communities may perceive the conflict through their own lenses, shaped by their unique historical experiences and current geopolitical realities. These interpretations can influence the level of support or sympathy offered to the parties involved.

Complexity of Power Relations:

It is important to recognize that power dynamics and geopolitical calculations are not limited to Western versus non-Western dynamics. Various actors, including regional powers and global players, may have their own interests and influences at play, which can shape the outcome of the crisis.

Understanding the war in Ukraine as a decolonization struggle against Russian influence or as resistance against Western hegemony from the perspective of former Western colonies offers alternative perspectives on the crisis. However, it is crucial to approach the issue with nuance, considering multiple factors and actors involved, and recognizing the complex interplay of interests, power dynamics, and historical context to gain a comprehensive understanding of the crisis.

Please provide a list of the top 10 annual military budgets per country.[2] If it is true that the United States spends more on its defense than all other countries in the top 10 together, even if the US territory is not directly threatened, how would Maersheimer interpret such powerplay?

As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, here is a list of the top 10 annual military budgets per country:

1. United States: Approximately $778 billion
2. China: Approximately $252 billion
3. India: Approximately $72.9 billion
4. Russia: Approximately $61.7 billion
5. Saudi Arabia: Approximately $61.2 billion
6. United Kingdom: Approximately $59.2 billion
7. Germany: Approximately $52.8 billion
8. Japan: Approximately $50.1 billion
9. France: Approximately $50.1 billion
10. South Korea: Approximately $44.8 billion

It is true that the United States spends more on its defense than all the other countries in the top 10 combined. John J. Mearsheimer, as an offensive realist, would likely interpret such powerplay from a realist perspective. Here are some key points that Mearsheimer might emphasize:

Security Dilemma:

Mearsheimer would argue that the international system is characterized by an inherent security dilemma, where states are driven to increase their military capabilities to ensure their own security in a self-help system. He would argue that the United States, as the dominant power, is motivated to maintain its military superiority to deter potential adversaries and protect its national interests.

Relative Power:

Mearsheimer would likely highlight the importance of relative power in international politics. He would argue that the United States' significant military expenditure serves as a means to maintain its relative power advantage over other countries, including potential rivals like China and Russia. This power advantage allows the United States to protect its interests and exert influence on the global stage.

Offense-Defense Balance:

Mearsheimer would consider the offense-defense balance, emphasizing that defensive capabilities are less costly and more effective than offensive capabilities. However, he might argue that countries, including the United States, continue to invest in offensive capabilities as a means of maintaining a position of strength and deterring potential aggression.

Competition and Power Maximization:

Mearsheimer would view the United States' significant defense expenditure as a rational response to the competitive nature of international relations. He would argue that in an anarchic system where there is no central authority, states are driven to maximize their power and protect their interests. From this perspective, the United States' military spending is seen as a strategic move to ensure its security and maintain its dominant position.

It's important to note that while Mearsheimer's offensive realism provides insights into the motivations behind such power dynamics, other scholars may offer different interpretations and emphasize additional factors such as domestic politics, economic interests, or global leadership responsibilities. International relations theories provide various lenses through which analysts can understand and interpret complex phenomena like military spending and power dynamics in the international system.

NOTES

[1] John J. Mearsheimer, "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin", Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014, www.mearsheimer.com

[2] Of course, population size matters. When these defense budgets are listed per capita you get:

1. Israel: $2,357 per capita
2. United States: $2,210 per capita
3.Singapore: $1,927 per capita
4. Saudi Arabia: $1,891 per capita
5. Kuwait: $1,812 per capita
6. Australia: $1,666 per capita
7. Norway: $1,643 per capita
8. United Arab Emirates: $1,627 per capita
9. Switzerland: $1,615 per capita
10. South Korea: $841 per capita
...
Russia: $446 per capita
China: $186 per capita

The United States are still on top, with the exception of Israel, but not as dramatically as when you look at absolute figures.