In the domain of global affairs, throughout history, conflicts have been happening until the time we are living today. These shape the fate of nations. If we see things through the lens of realism, it provides us with insight into the underlying motives of each behavior and action of a nation-state in the realm of international relations. Every action, either positive or negative, is driven by the self-interest of the state in the pursuit of power. There are no eternal allies and permanent enemies; only the interests are perpetual and permanent that derive all the actions. If we observe all the ancient rivalries, e.g., imperial crusades for expansions or the Peloponnesian wars of the Athens and Spartans, all the states vied for the dominant position and power. Moving on to modern times, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union also provides an illustration of realism in action. The superpowers of the world engage in competition for dominance and supremacy. The driving force in shaping the dynamics of international relations is thus the pursuit of power, security, and national interests.
One of the major issues or competitions that has arisen in these years is the ‘‘Great Power Competition’’ of the 21st century between the United States and China. This is a great example of the Thucydides trap. As China is the fastest-growing economy in the world, it poses a threat to the existing superpower, i.e., the US. This creates an environment of tension and competition between the states in different domains. One of the examples of this is the trade dispute. Both countries have been imposing tariffs on each other’s goods, which creates economic tension in the markets globally. The Belt Road Initiative has also been detected as a threat by the US government, which is an alternate route to the Strait of Malaka that has been blocked several times for trade activities by China due to the presence of the US Navy. Another area of contention is the ‘‘South China Sea’’ issue. China has triggered the concern of neighboring countries and the international community because it has been constructing artificial islands and military facilities that, of course, disturb the power dynamics, due to which the US has expressed its concern about China’s growing presence in the region, and both the US and China are asserting their interests in that area and are engaging in military operations.
Another manifestation of a realist perspective in terms of contemporary international relations is the Russia-Ukraine war that began in 2014 over the Crimea region, and it is still relevant today because it is unresolved to this day. The conflict has been characterized by power struggles, territorial ambitions, and strategic calculations. Russians’ actions can be understood from a realist perspective, as all the actions have been driven by the state’s perceived national interest. Previously, Ukraine was a great buffer zone for Russia, providing safety from potential threats from the west. NATO expanded and tried to make Ukraine an ally, which basically posed a threat to the national security of Russia. Now we can see that the Russian annexation of Crimea was an attempt to secure access to the naval bases in the Black Sea, enhance its military capabilities, and assert its dominance in the region. Moreover, Russia also supported the separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, which can be interpreted as a strategic move to maintain influence over Ukraine and prevent it from aligning too closely with the west. This conflict is still unresolved, with occasional flare-ups of violence and ongoing diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution. Despite all the condemnation and economic sanctions, Russia has shown no interest in stepping back from its stance on Ukraine, which has also shown the limitations of international institutions regarding dispute resolution between major powers.
Another major conflict of the time is the Israel-Palestine issue. We can see the stance of both states through the lens of realism, which emphasizes power dynamics and security concerns. First of all, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be understood as a strategic move in order to establish control over the territory for its security, which will provide Israel with a buffer zone against potential security threats such as attacks from Hamas or other military incursions. On the other hand, Palestine’s actions can be understood as a quest for self-determination and national identity. No state can tolerate any kind of compromise on their sovereignty, territorial integrity, or illegal occupation. All the Palestinian resistance movements can be interpreted and perceived as a reaction to Israel’s illegal military occupation of their land and the unjust killing of civilians.
In short, observing the rivalries and conflicts among different states on different matters from a realistic perspective provides us with insight into why state actors take any sort of action and act the way they do. It shows that the reason for the conflict is often the states trying to protect themselves and gain advantages over others.
The writer is a student of “Government and Public Policy” at “National Defence University Islamabad” and a member of PYDIR.