In his book Politics Among Nations, political scientist and seminal international relations theorist Hans J. Morgenthau contends that “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power”. A reality that remains undiminished in the 21st century is that power is the central principle of global politics and persists in governing state behaviour.
From ancient empires to modern nation states, the dominant logic of international relations has consistently prioritized competition over cooperation. Thucydides, a firsthand observer of the Peloponnesian War in the fifth century BC, argues that, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. He further elaborates that the rising power of Athens disrupt Sparta, inciting a devastating conflict that ended in Athenian defeat and proved that fear and power shape the destiny of states. Through another lens, the Treaty of Westphalia (1618-1648) marked the turning point in global politics built upon the principle of the modern nation state. It established the earliest boundaries of sovereignty, and endorsed states in making decisions unilaterally in their national Interest. That was the transition that built the essence of Realism, where national interest, borders and power determined the grammar of global politics.
In the 21st Century, modern conflicts have been switched from traditional warfare to non-kinetic warfare including cyber, propaganda, psychological and economic warfare. Realism examines these tools as a strategic expansion of power in global politics. Emerging bipolarity is marked by China’s Belt and Road Initiatives, the US-India strategic partnership and Russia’s regional objective, escalating competition for dominance. In South Asia, the Indo-Pak relationship also remains locked in a realist security dilemma. The perpetual conflict between India and Pakistan in not a diplomatic collapse, it is realist power politics where survival supersedes the emotions. In the harsh arena of global politics, power, survival and strategic tactics seem to prevail throughout the globe. In 21st Century, states driven by self-interest, not ideals, acting with strategy and vigilance, will shape the world’s turbulent course
World Wars I and II exposed the failure of idealism as power led to war by forming blocs like the Triple Entente and the Axis, with states exerting power to secure their national interest. This led to the emergence of realism. In the era of indirect warfare, the Cold War segregated the world into adversarial ideological blocs, as the USA and USSR confronted each other through proxy wars, nuclear deterrence, and global power chess. The conflicts etched a truth in the global world order and proved that the balance of power and harsh realism of nuclear deterrence could ensure state survival in an anarchic world.
In the complex chessboard of international relations, strategic considerations often eclipse moral judgments, with the strategic contest between the USA and China having established that as the core struggle of this era. John Mearsheimer, a prominent realist theorist, argues that “The United States will go to great lengths to contain China and maintain its regional hegemony in Asia”. The Indo-Pacific region has become a strategic conflict zone where hegemony defines power.
In an era where power determined security, AUKUS has turned into a strategic pillar of realist geopolitical contest between the USA and China. The trilateral pact with the USA, UK and Australia as members, it has illustrated the realist logic of hard balancing, empowering Australia to possess nuclear powered submarines and enhanced defence power to deter China’s rise of naval dominance in the Indo-Pacific. It exemplifies self-help, deterrence and alliance building as a core tactic for state security in an anarchic system. The Geelong Treaty this July secured a 50 year UK-Australia submarine pact, unveiling a strategic move to counter China amid the strategic flux of US priorities.
QUAD, aligning the USA, Australia, Japan and India, has transformed the soft realism structure to counter China’s rise in Indo-Pacific. Despite lacking a formal strategic framework like AUKUS, it strengthens intelligence sharing, maritime collaboration and organized military drills to resist China’s dominance while remaining short of full scale warfare. In June 2025, QUAD conducted its largest ever naval exercises near to South China Sea, engaging carrier strike forces, drones and anti-submarine systemd as evidence of cohesive deterrence.
Amid the dynamics of Realpolitik, drills serve as strategic declarations. Now shifting through another lens, recent PLA exercises revealed China’s operational plan for a Taiwan Strait conflict. The two-day military exercise conducted by the PLA in early April suggested a three-phase operational plan that the PLA is likely to adopt for a campaign against Taiwan. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s joint military force, served as the critical tool of Beijing’s hard power. In April, the PLA organized “Strait Thunder – 2025/A”, a large-scale strategic exercise which included demonstration of missile strikes, naval blockades and combined sea land operations near Taiwan. Through a Realist lens, such drills reflect China’s commit to deter the US alliances of AUKUS and QUAD by military strength and secure its national interest through force, if required.
While others formed alliances, China initiates infrastructure as a silent weapon in the global power competition. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) renewed momentum in 2025 through new infrastructure deals among global trade regions. Recently, China strengthened ties in Central Asia and Africa with major agreements in Kazakhstan and Egypt focused on digital networks, energy and transport. In April, it launched a direct shipping route from Guangzhou to Peru’s Chancay port, thus enhancing its influence in Latin America, apart from lowering logistics costs. BRI is a Realpolitik-driven plan to enhance China’s power by constructing railways, trade corridors and ports. In anarchic system, states use every instrument of power including economic strategy to secure their national interest without entirely depending on military force.
The 20th Century proved that realism excelled not in peace but in everlasting struggle, where proxy wars became the strategic weapons of global supremacy. Navigating under the veil of nuclear deterrence, the USA and the USSR evaded open conflict but extended power through proxy wars, including the Korean War (1950-1953) where contending regimes were weaponized to secure dominance, the Vietnam War (1955-1975) in which Washington struggled to contain communist expansion. In the Angolan Civil War (1975-2002), where both global powers endorsed opposing blocs in Africa, and the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) also witnessed competitors for strategic hegemony by facilitating antagonist Afghan factions without direct conflict. Proxy wars elucidated the realist struggle of the 20th Century but today the power game has turned into sixth-generation warfare.
In the 21st Century, modern conflicts have been switched from traditional warfare to non-kinetic warfare including cyber, propaganda, psychological and economic warfare. Realism examines these tools as a strategic expansion of power in global politics. Emerging bipolarity is marked by China’s Belt and Road Initiatives, the US-India strategic partnership and Russia’s regional objective, escalating competition for dominance. In South Asia, the Indo-Pak relationship also remains locked in a realist security dilemma. The perpetual conflict between India and Pakistan in not a diplomatic collapse, it is realist power politics where survival supersedes the emotions. In the harsh arena of global politics, power, survival and strategic tactics seem to prevail throughout the globe. In 21st Century, states driven by self-interest, not ideals, acting with strategy and vigilance, will shape the world’s turbulent course.
