In the current global political context of the 21st century, neorealism (or structural realism) defines power politics as the strategic competition among states—intensified by economic rivalries, technological advancements, and shifting alliances—to maximize security and influence in an increasingly multipolar and uncertain international system. Neorealism differed from classical realism in two important respects: methodology and level of analysis. In terms of method, unlike realism which was configured as a rigorous and parsimonious social-scientific theory drawing on microeconomics, neorealism was reconfigured on a broader systemic, structural approach that employs scientific rigor, emphasizing anarchy, state-system centric analysis, and the distribution of power to explain international relations through deductive reasoning and empirical validation. Kenneth Waltz—the father of neorealism—argued that traditional realist arguments about domestic institutions, diplomacy, and national morale were irrelevant. He viewed states as unitary rational actors in a self-help system, conditioned by system’s logic. (In International relations, a system’s logic refers to the underlying principles and structural constraints that shape state behavior, interactions, and outcomes within the international system, often influenced by anarchy, power dynamics, and institutional frameworks).

However, the neorealist theory of international relations borrows some of its assumptions or theoretical underpinnings from classical realism. For example, while states remain the supreme rational actors in international politics, state actions are reflective of human behavior—power politics. Also, the international system has significant consistency across both place and time, incorporating historical continuity within international politics. State reaction, although a function of the structure of the international system, emulates the human attitude of contest and rivalry with one another.

Neorealists such as John Joseph Mearsheimer, Kenneth Waltz, and Robert Gilpin give precedence in their analysis of the structure of the international system as an independent explanatory factor. The inclusion of the international system as a place (not in the literary sense) where international politics take place moves beyond the human nature analysis of the classical realist like Machiavelli or Morgenthau. However, it is essential to note that neorealists, such as Waltz, often refer to human nature in their analysis in an attempt to explain concepts such as peace and war—two central concepts in both realist and neorealist theories of international relations—as much as he does with states in the post-Westphalian international state system.

One crucial thing among power politics theorists is their attempt to produce a theory that can objectively explain the dynamics of world politics (and in consequence, world political economy). This way they propose an epistemological conceptualization of international relations. By this, I mean to fundamentally comprehend the conditions of global politics, such as war, defined as the temporally limited absence of peace; hence, posing the right question is pertinent. Every individual, nation, and international system aspires to attain peace, but pursuing peace without first addressing the root causes of conflict renders such endeavors speculative. Any of such peace achievement would readily expire in the fading memory of time, and if all things were equal, history at best.

It is essential to examine the elements inside the international system that perpetually enable us to comprehend the nature and extent of the peace we seek. This is how neorealists framed the epistemological inquiry of war and peace to provide appropriate contextual significance and substance to our desires for peace. In that view, Waltz categorized the major causes of war into a vertical hierarchy consisting of war within (1) man, (2) the structure of the state, and (3) the international state system in the post-Westphalian era. Despite my notion of hierarchy, they are mutually exclusive. He referred to these as images of international relations, which provide a layered lens to analyze and view the international reality. When considering the anarchic nature of the international system, it is imperative that we consider all provisions of the causes of war among all images, not between two or single images. I think this is done to provide a holistic outlook on the conditions of international relations. In my opinion, this would help reach more complexity in devising an understanding of how to achieve peace and avoid ignoring or manipulating outcomes.

A fundamental aspect of neorealist theory in international relations, aside from its explicit acknowledgment of the anarchic character of the international system resulting from the absence of a global sovereign, is the distribution of power. Power, for the neorealists, is distributed either unipolarly, bipolarly or multipolarly. The unipolar order represents the United States of America’s (US, henceforth) dominance in the immediate post-1989 era. On the bipolar side, arguments remain as to how this distribution affects the incidence or search for peace. While some scholars argue that unipolar hegemonic dominance signifies an opportunity to acquire more power, others, such as John Joseph Mearsheimer—a balance of power theorist—argue that equality or symmetry in the perception of the distribution of power between two states (US and China) or coalition of states provides countervailing effect which reduces the occurrence of war. For example, nuclear deterrence is effective when the prospective aggressor perceives that an attack will incur significant costs and is improbable to succeed or provoke a retaliation response from the other actor. This is not to suggest the end of war and the appearance of peace, but rather, the international system is put in a state of constant iffy and tension, resulting in fewer wars.

However, there is the third distribution of power—a multipolar system. This involves three or more actors (states) with power considered or perceived to pose a threat to one another invariably. For instance, a system in which powerhouses like China, Russia, and the US dominate, while middle/emerging powers like South Africa, Nigeria, and Turkey own their own distinct influence. Nonetheless, multipolarity remains distant from the current reality due to Russia’s limited economic capacity in the multipolar power grandiose in comparison to the US, China, or the collective European Union (EU), despite appeals for multipolarity from smaller nations such as Barbados, Ghana, and Senegal, among others.

In place of Russia as a potential major power in the multipolar system, we can consider the EU. Still, the EU continues to present itself as a civilian norm-based power, which only reverberates more with liberal international relations than classical/neorealist international relations. This is not to say that Brussels does not play power politics. On the contrary, they do, and we can see that with EU leaders responding to US tariff threats from President Donald Trump and the Greenland debacle with Denmark. The EU, as well as member states, play power politics (e.g., check out the EU and France’s response to the Niger coup in July 2023 when they supported Nigeria to invade Niger in the hope to restore the democratically elected government of Mohamed Bazoum, or the EU’s reaction to Russo-Ukrainian War by funding Ukraine’s war efforts as a way of responding to a threat of Russian aggression and helping Ukraine to restore territorial integrity). Whatever the intention it is safe to say to that the EU recognizes the anarchic nature of global politics and responds with a show of strength and power despite its normative rhetoric aimed at peace.

However, one thing is clear: the EU needs security, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) serves them well. Again, NATO is a US architect of security more than the EU, thus shifting the dynamics of power politics away from the ambit of the European Union into the domain of the Americans. It is important to remember that NATO was founded (with the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty) envisioned on US Truman doctrine in collaboration with several European nations in time when US was very much the only viable power in the world especially when compared to countries of Europe that were weakened by the devastation caused by the Second World War. Most of western Europe depended on the Marshall Plan worth $13.3 billion for European rebuilding and recovery efforts. Also, its origin can be traced further backward to the 1941 Atlantic Charter between the US and UK, despite the 1947 Treaty of Dunkirk and 1948 Treaty of Brussels (Western Union) which set the progressed the process to collective security. Thus, making NATO more of a US-led security architecture than an EU-driven initiative. This dynamic shift the center of power politics away from the EU and into the strategic domain of the US.

Advocacy for a multipolar international system transcends the bipolar dynamics of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States and the emerging Sino-American Neo-Cold War bipolarity. Alternatively, some contend it reflects a repudiation of the United States’ unchallenged unipolar dominance in global governance, particularly through the United Nations, alongside its dubious conduct purportedly aimed at safeguarding allies and national security worldwide. For example, the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET), a component of the US Africa Command’s Flintlock exercise, aimed to enhance the capabilities of pivotal partner nations in the Sahel region to combat violent extremist organizations. However, it has faced criticism for its lack of transparency in reporting overseas activities and for the unexamined racially motivated assumption within policy circles that, due to US military exceptionalism, white personnel can effectively instruct ‘lesser breeds’ and elevate them in a military context.   

In an effort to challenge American-led Western exceptionalism, several state actors and organizations have advocated for the reformation of international entities such as the United Nations and its Security Council, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) established under the significant influence of the US following World War II. Nevertheless, this opposition, frequently directed at US unipolar exceptionalism and hegemonic aspiration that extend beyond the UN in regions of the Global South, has mostly been ineffective. As an alternative, such effort has been redirected into the realization of more practical initiative which resulted in the formation of BRICS to challenge the US-centric Western hegemonic international system, prompting a movement towards the de-dollarization of global trade to enhance nations’ economic power rather than depending on US dollars and EU euros for state-level developmental needs. The hegemonic power of the United States, while shaping the international order, is experiencing a relative decline—as indicated by scholars like Richard Wolff and the implicitly acknowledged rationale behind the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda—potentially leading to unpredictability and systemic transformation of the familiar global landscape.

For theorists of bipolarity who regard China as a significant player and a counterbalance to US hegemony across the East-Pacific, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, as well as within the global economy—despite the geopolitical dominance of the US—Chinese investment in the US bond market through its persistent trade surpluses is a crucial maneuver. This strategy not only provides China with a strategic advantage to ascend as a genuinely powerful actor in this increasingly fluctuating international system but also contributes to the indebtedness of the US and might contribute to its weakness in the future. By the way, according to the United States Census Bureau, goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $690.3 billion in 2022. Exports from the US to China were $154.1 billion; imports from the US by China were $536.2 billion. The US goods and services trade deficit with China was $382.1 billion in 2022. Despite ongoing adjustments, this image starkly illustrates the discrepancy in export-import patterns when examining current data.

In summary, neorealism in the 21st century elucidates power politics as a competitive struggle among nations within the international state system motivated by security concern, economic rivalries, and advances in technology within an uncertain global framework. In contrast to classical realism, neorealism emphasizes the structure of the international system as an autonomous element influencing state behavior, highlighting anarchy and the distribution of power—be it unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. NATO represents US leadership in global security, although demands for multipolarity both politically, economically and militarily challenge American hegemony, resulting in initiatives such as BRICS and attempts to de-dollarize international trade. Notwithstanding these obstacles, US geopolitical dominance endures, especially via economic leverage and military alliances, solidifying its pivotal role in international affairs.

Christopher Amrobo Enemuwe is a doctoral student of Political Science at Idaho State University.