The Dangers of John Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism and the Wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs’ Vision
Introduction
In an era defined by global crises, the battle of ideas among intellectuals is more consequential than ever. Two of the most influential thinkers in international relations and global development today are John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. Mearsheimer, a prominent realist scholar, advocates for offensive realism — a theory that emphasizes the inherent competition between great powers, predicting inevitable conflict in the anarchic international system. In contrast, Sachs, an economist and global development expert, promotes international cooperation, economic interdependence, and sustainable development as the best pathways to global stability and prosperity. This essay argues that Mearsheimer’s ideas are dangerously outdated and increase the risk of conflict, while Sachs’ approach offers a more sustainable and enlightened vision for the modern world.
The Risks of Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism
John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism is grounded in the assumption that great powers are inherently aggressive because they must maximize their security in an anarchic world. This perspective leads to a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy: if every state assumes the worst about its rivals, then policies become more confrontational, making war more likely.
Offensive realism, as outlined by John Mearsheimer, is a theory in international relations that argues great powers are inherently driven to seek dominance in the international system to ensure their survival. According to this view, states act aggressively to maximize their power and security in an anarchic world where no central authority exists to enforce rules. This approach is dangerous because it assumes conflict is inevitable, promoting zero-sum competition and mistrust between nations. In a nuclear-armed world, such behavior increases the risk of catastrophic wars, as states may miscalculate or escalate conflicts in their pursuit of supremacy.
1. Fueling Great Power Competition and Conflict
Mearsheimer’s framework has particularly influenced U.S. policy toward China, shaping the belief that a rising China must be contained. This approach, however, has increased tensions rather than diffusing them. The ongoing U.S.-China trade war, military buildup in the Indo-Pacific, and technological decoupling all stem from the assumption that China’s rise is inherently a threat rather than an opportunity for peaceful economic and technological competition. Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that global military spending reached $2.24 trillion in 2022, with the U.S. and China leading the way. This arms race is driven by the kind of zero-sum thinking that offensive realism encourages.
A significant flaw in John Mearsheimer’s perspective is his assumption that all nations will act in the same way as the United States. And it is dangerous to view the world or the geopolitics at play from that lens alone. John Mearsheimer states that he doesn’t view the Chinese as the bad guys or the Americans as the good guys, framing his perspective as a reflection of how international politics operates. However, he cleverly equates China and the U.S. to support his narrative, asserting that China will inevitably mimic America’s behavior. Yet, this comparison falls short. Unlike the U.S., China lacks imperialistic ambitions and does not operate as a ruthless hegemon. If China had imperialistic ambitions, Australia would have become a Chinese colony. Instead, it was the British who arrived and colonized the continent. Historically and culturally, the differences between the two nations are profound. Over the years, Mearsheimer’s lectures have made it clear who the aggressors are. As Jeffrey Sachs aptly remarked, no one explains the U.S. better than Mearsheimer. In contrast, China champions cooperation and a shared future for humanity — a stark reminder that China has not bombed another country in over 40 years.
2. Undermining Diplomatic and Economic Cooperation
Mearsheimer’s approach also discourages diplomatic solutions to global crises. This fatalistic approach does not consider that diplomacy, economic ties, and international agreements can prevent conflicts from escalating. According to the World Bank, global economic interdependence has lifted over a billion people out of poverty since the 1990s, a process threatened by the return to Cold War-style power politics.
3. Neglecting Global Challenges Beyond Military Power
Perhaps the biggest flaw of offensive realism is that it treats military power as the primary measure of a state’s strength while downplaying economic stability, climate change, and global health security. The COVID-19 pandemic, which led to over 7 million deaths worldwide, demonstrated that global security threats are not just military in nature. The aggressive policies fueled by offensive realism prevent nations from cooperating on global issues that require collective action.
The Wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs’ Global Vision
Jeffrey Sachs presents a radically different approach to international relations, one grounded in economic development, multilateral cooperation, and sustainability. His extensive work with the United Nations on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides a roadmap for addressing the root causes of conflict: poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation.
1. Promoting Economic Interdependence as a Path to Peace
Sachs argues that deep economic ties between nations reduce the likelihood of war, a theory backed by historical evidence. The European Union, for example, was built on economic integration, and it has largely prevented intra-European conflicts since World War II. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), nations with strong trade relationships are significantly less likely to engage in military conflicts. Sachs’ ideas suggest that rather than decoupling from China, the U.S. should seek a balanced relationship that emphasizes economic cooperation while managing strategic concerns through diplomacy.
2. Advocating for Sustainable Development and Climate Cooperation
Sachs also emphasizes climate change as the defining challenge of the 21st century. Unlike Mearsheimer, who focuses narrowly on military power, Sachs recognizes that unmitigated climate change poses a severe security risk. The Pentagon itself has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier.” Sachs’ push for green energy investment and international climate cooperation is backed by economic data: according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the transition to clean energy could generate 14 million new jobs by 2030, stabilizing global economies and reducing the geopolitical scramble for fossil fuels.
3. Strengthening Global Institutions
Where Mearsheimer sees international institutions as weak and ineffective, Sachs sees them as essential for managing global challenges. His work with the UN Millennium Development Goals and SDGs has demonstrated that coordinated global efforts can yield tangible results. For instance, Sachs played a key role in debt relief programs that allowed developing nations to invest in education and healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that such efforts contributed to a 50% reduction in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015.
Comparing the Two Approaches
Conclusion
Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, while useful in understanding historical conflicts, is increasingly dangerous in today’s interconnected world. Its focus on inevitable great power competition leads to unnecessary military buildups, economic fragmentation, and the neglect of global crises. In contrast, Sachs’ vision offers a far more constructive approach, emphasizing cooperation, economic integration, and sustainable development. As the world faces unprecedented challenges — from climate change to economic instability — embracing Sachs’ wisdom is not just preferable but essential for a peaceful and prosperous future.
