By Richard Martin, Chief Strategist, Alcera Consulting Inc.
Geopolitical realists like John Mearsheimer often emphasize that raw power is the primary currency in an anarchic international system. They argue that powerful states dominate weaker ones, and that balance-of-power politics is inevitable. While this perspective offers a useful descriptive framework, it falls short in explaining the agency of smaller nations, the role of alliances, and the mechanisms that can counteract sheer military might.
Realism: Description vs. Prescription
At its core, realism is not necessarily a justification for power politics but an attempt to describe how states behave in a world without a central authority. However, realists sometimes blur the line between describing international dynamics and implying that states must accept their fate under the dominance of great powers. This fatalistic outlook downplays the fact that many smaller states actively shape their security environment, rather than simply being shaped by it.
The Role of Alliances in an Anarchic System
If raw power were the sole determinant of security, smaller states would be permanently at the mercy of larger ones. However, the international order is not a mere jungle of might-makes-right. Institutions such as NATO and the United Nations exist precisely to mitigate unchecked power politics. While they do not erase the realities of competition and conflict, they create alternative mechanisms for security that go beyond brute force. Realists often underappreciate how international norms and collective security arrangements allow smaller nations to protect their sovereignty.
NATO, for instance, was founded to counter Soviet aggression, not to provoke it. The alliance expanded over the decades, not through coercion but by invitation. Former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact nations voluntarily sought NATO membership because they feared a return of Russian imperial ambitions. The events of the past two decades—including Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022—have validated these concerns. Countries that once lived under Soviet domination had every reason to seek protection under NATO’s security umbrella. The realist argument that NATO “provoked” Russia conveniently ignores the fundamental agency of these nations, as well as their legitimate security concerns.
Spheres of Influence vs. National Sovereignty
One of the more problematic assumptions of hard realism is the idea that great powers naturally have “spheres of influence” that smaller states must respect. This reasoning implicitly denies the sovereignty of nations that fall within those spheres. The notion that Ukraine, the Baltic states, or Poland should accept a degree of Russian control simply because of historical ties or geographic proximity is a relic of imperialist thinking. These nations, like any other, have the right to determine their own security arrangements. The fundamental flaw in the realist perspective is that it often treats smaller states as pawns rather than as actors with their own interests and decision-making capabilities.
The Right to Self-Defence and the UN Charter
The UN Charter enshrines the right of nations to self-defence, a principle that directly challenges the realist notion that only great powers can guarantee security. The formation of defensive alliances like NATO aligns with this principle, as it allows nations to collectively deter aggression. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reinforced why such security guarantees are crucial. Smaller nations are not obligated to accept domination by stronger neighbors, nor should they be faulted for seeking partnerships that enhance their security.
War is Destructive, but Sometimes Necessary
Most nations recognize that war is wasteful and destructive. However, realism argues that war can sometimes be a rational choice when a greater threat looms. The Ukraine conflict is a stark example. Ukraine did not seek war, but when faced with an existential threat, it chose to resist. Peaceful nations do not desire conflict, but they will fight when the alternative is subjugation. This reality undercuts the simplistic realist claim that NATO expansion was an unnecessary provocation; instead, it reflects a legitimate response to growing security threats.
Conclusion: Beyond Power Politics
The realist perspective provides a useful framework for understanding international relations, but it underestimates the ability—and right—of smaller states to shape their own destinies. Alliances like NATO are not violations of realism but rather pragmatic responses to the realities of power. While raw military strength remains a fundamental force in global affairs, it is not the only force. Norms, institutions, and collective security mechanisms enable nations to counterbalance great power politics. The world is not solely governed by brute force—it is also shaped by strategic choices, diplomacy, and the collective will of nations striving to secure their place in the international order.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the founder and president of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in exploiting change (www.exploitingchange.com). Richard’s mission is to empower top-level leaders to exercise strategic foresight, navigate uncertainty, drive transformative change, and build individual and organizational resilience, ensuring market dominance and excellence in public governance. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles. He is also the developer of Worldview Warfare and Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking methodology that focuses on understanding beliefs, values, and strategy in a world of conflict, competition, and cooperation.
© 2025 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
