Neorealism, a cornerstone of worldwide relations concept, is a complete lens by way of which to analyse state conduct in a disordered world. States, whether or not pushed by survival or ambition, are anticipated to stability energy (Waltz 1979) or maximise it (Mearsheimer 2001), yielding predictable patterns of interplay throughout the worldwide stage. But the empirical report disagrees, as geography and context muddy these theoretical waters. Within the Arctic, an incredible energy rivalry between the USA and China manifests as a quiet jostle for financial benefit. Oil exploration, uncommon earth mineral stakes, and tentative transport lane claims play out with out spiralling into direct confrontation. Distinction this with the South China Sea, the place China constructs synthetic islands and the USA conducts freedom-of-navigation operations (USCC 2016). Each areas pulse with systemic pressures and bipolar competitors between superpowers, however one stays a chilly standoff with little threat of significant escalation, the opposite a simmering flashpoint. Why does the identical structural rigidity produce such starkly divergent outcomes?
This text proposes “regional neorealism,” a theoretical innovation that reframes neorealist spirals by way of the prism of geographic location and dynamic exterior pressures. Inside this framework, a spiral refers to a self-reinforcing cycle of actions between states, the place every motion provokes an escalating response. While that is primarily based loosely on Jervis’ (1978) evaluation of the safety dilemma, the place states’ defensive measures are misinterpreted as threats, regional neorealism expands the idea by emphasising how geography and assets form the spiral’s trajectory, relevant to each offensive and defensive neorealism. This framework presents an revolutionary evaluation of key instances: the Arctic, South China Sea, the Baltics, and Ukraine. It’s grounded in neorealist roots while extending its attain to a world the place an anarchical system derives from geographical places and the way they alter. Regional neorealism presents not a rejection of neorealism, however a refinement, bringing each offensive and defensive faculties collectively in concord to supply a lens for a planet in flux.
Neorealist Foundations and Limitations
Neorealism stands as a dominant faculty in worldwide relations concept, with its explanatory energy rooted within the penalties of worldwide anarchy. Kenneth Waltz’s Idea of Worldwide Politics (1979) lays the inspiration for defensive neorealism, arguing that the worldwide order compels states to prioritise survival above all. Inside this context, states are rational actors who calibrate their energy to stability in opposition to exterior threats quite than squander their pure assets on ambition. Safety dilemmas might emerge, whereby one state’s defensive buildup alarms one other, sparking a spiral of distrust, however Waltz means that mutual restraint usually retains excessive escalation in verify (1979). The system’s construction, outlined by polarity and energy distribution, determines interplay outcomes: states search solely stability. John Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Nice Energy Politics (2001) counters this with offensive neorealism, portray a a lot bleaker image. While it recognises anarchy, it means that it ends in not simply worry however alternative; states will maximise energy, pursuing domination at any time when possible. Offensive neorealism additionally means that survival calls for this dominance, and restraint is a luxurious. The place Waltz sees stalemates and instinctual survival, Mearsheimer sees struggles and alternative – rigidity is not only an unlucky exception however inevitable.
These two branches of neorealism have shaped many years of scholarly debate, providing a sturdy toolkit for understanding world dynamics. Nevertheless, their power fails when confronted with proof of regional anomalies that defy their predictions. Take the Arctic, a theatre of nice energy rivalry that ought to, by offensive neorealist logic, hum with battle. America and China vie for affect. Washington bolsters naval workout routines close to Alaska with Trump making a bid for Greenland, while Beijing pours investments into Greenland’s uncommon earth mines and eyes the Northern Sea Route- but militarisation and direct battle stay absent (Volpe 2020). No American forces shadow Chinese language freighters, and no Arctic Council assembly devolves into sabre-rattling. As an alternative, competitors unfolds in financial phrases: drilling contracts, mining bids, and diplomatic jostling over transport rights (Østhagen 2017). Mearsheimer’s offensive neorealism doesn’t supply a believable clarification right here: if states maximise energy relentlessly, why are there no Chinese language bases on Svalbard, or no U.S. blockade of thawing passages? The Arctic’s calm defies any expectation of unchecked rivalry (Heron 2025).
The Baltic area additionally showcases a primarily defensive dynamic, pushed by financial interdependence and the realities of geography. The Baltic Sea options important transport lanes which have linked main ports like Gdansk, Stockholm, and St. Petersburg. These Baltic hubs are central to Northern European commerce, making a shared prosperity that hinges on stability. Disruption, say from direct battle between its actors, would minimize these routes, inflicting financial ache on all regional actors (Rostoks and Sprūds 2015). This interdependence ends in states prioritising safety over lively aggression. Geography reinforces this because the Baltic’s shallow, island-strewn waters hinder large-scale offensive strikes, favouring defensive ways. Slim naval passages, just like the Danish Straits, amplify this as any try to dominate dangers fast counteraction (Kasekamp & Rasmussen 2018). Territorial beneficial properties, equivalent to seizing ports, promise little reward in opposition to the potential fallout: commerce losses and reprisals. Even Russia’s Kaliningrad has served extra as a defensive anchor than a springboard, it’s hemmed in by NATO neighbours. The result’s a area the place financial risk-taking is deterred by geographic spatial constraints. States concentrate on safeguarding their lanes and wealth, not increasing borders. This additional aligns with defensive neorealism: the Baltic’s mix of bustling commerce and unforgiving geography turns rivalry into restraint, proving that survival and stability trump territorial ambition.
Now, shift to the South China Sea, the place offensive neorealism’s predictions align extra closely- we will see the place defensive neorealism fails. China’s arming of islands, which now host radar and runways, exhibits energy maximisation; the U.S. responds with frequent patrols, sending destroyers by way of contested waters and reaffirming Taiwan’s sovereignty (USCC 2016). Mearsheimer’s offensive neorealism thrives in explaining this spiral of actions, which is partially pushed by a compressed commerce route and untapped pure reserves. The restraint of Waltz’s defensive posture, nonetheless, presents no path to understanding these developments, as escalation will not be prevented however embraced, and China is rewarded by constantly threatening smaller states and asserting navy dominance within the area (Fravel 2011). Offensive neorealism, due to this fact, captures the South China Sea’s warmth however stumbles over the Arctic’s chill, revealing a vital blind spot: its systemic lens assumes uniform conduct throughout various geographies.
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine additionally epitomises an offensive spiral, the place geographic proximity, border-drawn cultures, and useful resource stakes ignite aggressive energy maximisation, exposing the boundaries of Waltz’s defensive neorealism inside completely different areas. The flat, open plains of jap Ukraine, colliding with Russia’s border, supply no pure limitations, in contrast to the Arctic’s ice or the Baltic’s choked sea routes. This lowers the price of navy motion. This proximity, paired with Ukraine’s fertile soil, huge grain exports, and strategic Black Sea ports like Odesa, fuels Russia’s want for regional dominance, not simply survival (Charap and Colton 2017). Waltz’s concept (1979) predicts that states stability energy cautiously, restraining from escalatory motion to protect stability. Nevertheless, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and push into Donbas defy this very logic.
No safety dilemma explains Moscow’s territorial want, it’s a calculated offensive lunge. The absence of restraint that has led to tanks rolling and cities being shelled clashes with Waltz’s imaginative and prescient of rational actors avoiding overreach. As an alternative, regional components have amplified an offensive spiral: Ukraine’s agricultural wealth and coastal entry promise financial acquire, while its place as a geopolitical hinge invitations Russia to reshape its regional benefit. This aligns with offensive neorealism’s ethos that energy trumps stability, difficult Waltz by exhibiting how native dynamics can override systemic warning in favour of conquest.
It will be shortsighted to not take into account the altering nature of regional safety when a part of the problem with each defensive and offensive neorealism is their rigidity. The Baltic Sea’s present defensive spiral, for instance, contrasts sharply with its previous throughout the Chilly Warfare when the Soviet Union pursued aggressive expansionism within the area. This wasn’t nearly securing a buffer zone in opposition to NATO, geography decided each technique and beliefs. The Baltic’s maritime entry has fostered commerce and alignment culturally with Western Europe, while Russia’s huge inside inspired a centralised management (Mackinder 1904). The united states sought to beat this cultural divide by extending its borders and forcefully exporting its Soviet values, which illustrated geography not simply as a strategic asset but additionally as a instrument for ideological domination and extension. This mirrors Mearsheimer’s (2001) offensive neorealism: the Soviet aim wasn’t simply survival however the enlargement of its values.
With the united states’s collapse, the area’s dynamics shifted. The Baltic states turned to NATO and the EU, while geography, as soon as a key consider Soviet enlargement, now limits Russian affect. Kaliningrad stays a militarised outpost, however it’s remoted and boxed in by NATO neighbours (Åtland and Kabanenko 2020). This shift reinforces regional neorealism’s core declare and the weak point in separating neorealist branches of concept: spirals are fluid, not inflexible. They’re formed by geography’s evolving position in technique and tradition.
Waltz acknowledges geography fleetingly, noting terrain as a modifier of functionality (1979), however it’s secondary to construction, and bipolarity or multipolarity is prioritised over place. Mearsheimer, then again, prioritises energy over context, assuming states exploit alternatives no matter spatial constraints. Neither grapples with how isolation, just like the Arctic’s ice and vastness, stifles direct navy escalation, nor how proximity, just like the South China Sea’s crowded reefs, stokes it. Nor do they account for dynamic shifts: local weather change thaws Arctic routes and overpopulation will increase useful resource claims, but neorealism stays a static snapshot. These empirical anomalies should not simply outliers however patterns that demand clarification. The Arctic’s stability and the South China Sea’s volatility underscore a fact that neorealism misses: geography shapes strategic alternative.
Regional neorealism steps into this breach. It preserves neorealism’s core that anarchy is fixed however posits that regional situations decide whether or not defensive or offensive spirals dominate. The Arctic’s harshness raises the price of aggression; the South China Sea’s density lowers it. Exterior pressures equivalent to local weather, and inhabitants reshape these theatres, tilting trajectories in direction of both finish of the offensive/ defensive spectrum over time. This intervention refines neorealism, not by rejecting its key faculties, however by grounding them in place and alter, providing a framework to decode the riddle of regional variations.
Regional neorealism emerges as a theoretical framework to elucidate why state behaviour modifications throughout areas and the way world shifts may redraw safety patterns. It builds on neorealism’s basis that states are rational actors in an anarchic system however pivots to argue that geographic location and environmental pressures, not simply systemic construction, determine whether or not defensive or offensive spirals prevail. This framework options three interlocking rules: geographic determinism, regional variation, dynamic shifts, and useful resource primacy. It presents a lens to decode present anomalies and anticipate future interactions, introducing the ideas of spiral sorts and dynamic modifiers, making the 2 distinct faculties of neorealism much less inflexible.
Varieties of Spirals, Dynamic Modifiers, and the Three Key Rules of Regional Neorealism
Safety spirals seize the movement of motion and response that defines state competitors, the place actions supposed to make sure a state’s security are interpreted as threats, resulting in countermeasures that escalate the tensions they needed to keep away from. Versus the safety dilemma (Jervis 1978), this time period describes the fluidity of state competitors on a spectrum of offensive and defensive behaviours, as these spirals should not uniform or predetermined. They morph in keeping with regional dynamics, with geography, useful resource stakes, and pure vulnerabilities deciding whether or not competitors is militarised confrontation or channels into cautious defensive behaviour. In some areas, logistical limitations and financial interdependence increase the price of escalatory motion, encouraging a slower, extra defensive spiral the place states prioritise stability. Elsewhere, proximity and useful resource density amplify the rewards of assertiveness, accelerating an aggressive spiral.
Defensive spirals usually function financial rivalry and restraint over navy clashes. The situations that result in this are bodily geographic limitations (ice, mountains, oceans), which end result within the larger value of aggression. The Arctic exemplifies this spiral. U.S.-China tensions simmer over financial spoils, with American companies vying for oil leases and China funding mines, however the area’s harsh local weather and huge distances deter full-scale militarisation. While Russia maintains bases alongside its Arctic coast, there was no up to date threat of direct battle, particularly in comparison with different areas. The Arctic Council mediates useful resource talks, not struggle talks. Isolation constantly enforces this defensive posture.
However, offensive spirals are characterised by energy maximisation, militarised posturing, and intense territorial disputes. Sure situations result in these circumstances: proximity, useful resource density, overlapping claims, and non-physical geographically outlined situations equivalent to cultural projection. The South China Sea embodies this spiral. China stations navy gear throughout islands, arming them with radar and runways; the U.S. counters with naval patrols (Aquilino 2022). The proximity of ships passing close by amplifies each transfer, while fisheries, oil, and overlapping commerce routes stoke financial stakes larger than in distant areas. Offensive dynamics win due to the particular traits of the area, with states pushing the sting of dominance.
Differing areas are marked by change, whether or not that be by way of human inhabitants or geographical shifts. Regional neorealism, due to this fact, requires the popularity of dynamic modifiers, which might shift the stability between defensive and offensive neorealist explanations. The chief dynamic modifier that a number of areas face is local weather change. It has been predicted that the Arctic may very well be ice-free by 2040 (World Financial Discussion board 2017). This soften may considerably scale back transport instances by way of the Northern Sea Route, inviting naval presence and flipping it in direction of offensive spirals. This additionally poses a threat to areas already susceptible to offensive spirals, as offensive behaviour turns into extra rewarding. Overpopulation additionally performs a key position as a dynamic modifier. For instance, demand for fish within the South China Sea or minerals within the Arctic pressures states to actively safe management over potential rivals (Zhang & Bateman, 2017). The development of know-how should even be recognised as a dynamic modifier in neorealist thought. Advances in seabed mining or Arctic drilling shift financial incentives, probably militarising what have been as soon as defensive zones.
Geographic determinism is on the core of regional neorealism’s three key rules: geography will not be a passive stage however a key lively shaper of state technique and safety. Isolation, just like the Arctic’s sprawling ice fields and exhaustive distances, imposes steep prices on navy motion. This tilts states towards defensive postures, the place existence is thru restraint quite than enlargement. Proximity, as within the South China Sea’s tight reefs and transport lanes, shrinks the buffer between rivals, decreasing the bar for escalation and fostering offensive behaviours. Terrain, distance, and cultural boundaries are drivers of state safety and behaviours. Geography additionally influences entry to assets, and within the South China Sea, fisheries, hydrocarbons, and an important commerce artery mix financial and territorial motivations, igniting militarised rivalry. Nevertheless, that is certainly not the one driving issue ensuing from geography. The enlargement and safety of tradition and differing political methods, contained inside and because of geographic boundaries, additionally drive state competitors. That is significantly true when additionally aided by geographical proximity, equivalent to within the case of Ukraine and the previous Soviet Union. Regional neorealism insists that place dictates how states behave.
The second precept of regional variation implies that rivalries such because the U.S. and China filter by way of regional prisms, which end in completely different outcomes. Within the Arctic, vastness and harsh terrain diffuse rigidity into financial channels: ExxonMobil bids in opposition to Chinese language companies for oil patches, not warships (Ruskin 2023). The identical geopolitical rivalry within the South China Sea cedes territorial and navy flashpoints- China’s Spratly and Taiwan disputes end in U.S. naval exercise. Neorealism’s spirals are due to this fact not common; the context of every area shapes them. The rules behind safety exercise might maintain in a single area however collapse in one other, demanding a concept that recognises this various actuality.
Regional neorealism additionally emphasises the significance of dynamic shifts, as areas do not stay nonetheless; local weather change and overpopulation act as altering forces, reshaping the situations which determine state behaviour over time. Melting Arctic ice unlocks transport routes just like the Northwest Passage and exposes uncommon earth minerals in Greenland, eroding the components that maintain its defensive spirals. Rising world populations are projected to succeed in practically 10 billion by 2050 (UN 2025). This amplifies the demand for power, meals, and supplies, pressuring states to safe zones that have been as soon as out of attain. These shifts rewrite the geopolitical local weather, probably flipping secure areas into contested ones the place defensive neorealist explanations lose to offensive neorealism. These components which geography determines will be unraveled by surroundings and demography. Because of this offensive and defensive neorealism don’t represent inflexible definitions however that state safety behaviour exists on a spectrum the place each are related.
Conclusion: A World in Flux
Regional neorealism emerges not as a rejection of conventional neorealism however as an important refinement. It maintains neorealism’s core that states navigate an anarchic world however asserts that geography and evolving exterior forces dictate whether or not defensive or offensive spirals prevail. The Arctic and South China Sea exemplify this duality: one frozen in financial rivalry, the opposite ablaze with territorial confrontation. But each might transfer on the neorealist spectrum as local weather change, inhabitants pressures, and technological advances dismantle regional dimensions. The Arctic’s ice protect melts; the South China Sea’s maritime visitors swells, with every shift recalibrating strategic incentives and capabilities, inviting rising contestation. On this evolving panorama, regional neorealism presents a complete predictive compass. It anticipates that beforehand secure areas might destabilise, while as we speak’s flashpoints may escalate additional.
As geography shifts and new areas emerge, equivalent to Antarctica, the deep seabed, and even outer house, the framework adapts, guaranteeing that neorealism stays resilient in a future seemingly outlined by environmental upheaval and technological leaps. For students and policymakers alike, regional neorealism sharpens the analytic realist lens on strategic behaviour. It equips worldwide relations and safety research with a concept that accounts for location, change, and systemic force- one which decodes regional anomalies and forecasts the shifting of worldwide rivalry. The Arctic’s calm could also be non permanent, and the South China Sea’s tensions might intensify, however the logic of regional neorealism endures: geography shapes technique, and as geography modifications, so too will the spirals of safety motion.
References
Aquilino, J. 2022. “China Has Absolutely Militarized Three Islands in South China Sea, US Admiral Says.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/china-has-fully-militarized-three-islands-in-south-china-sea-us-admiral-says (accessed March 19th, 2024).
Åtland, Okay., and I. Kabanenko. 2019. “Russia and Its Western Neighbours: A Comparative Research of the Safety Scenario within the Black, Baltic and Barents Sea Areas.” Europe-Asia Research 72 (2): 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1690634.
Charap, S., and T. Colton. 2017. Everybody Loses: The Ukraine Disaster and the Ruinous Contest for Submit-Soviet Eurasia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge for the Worldwide Institute for Strategic Research.
Fravel, M. T. 2011. “China’s Technique within the South China Sea.” Up to date Southeast Asia: A Journal of Worldwide and Strategic Affairs 33 (3): 292–319. https://doi.org/10.1353/csa.2011.0136.
Heron, A. (2025). Neorealism’s Regional Blindspot: The Arctic and South China Sea. E-Worldwide Relations. https://www.e-ir.data/pdf/107830 (accessed March twenty fourth, 2025).
Jervis, R. 1978. “Cooperation Beneath the Safety Dilemma.” World Politics 30 (2): 167–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009958.
Kasekamp, A., and A. F. Rasmussen. 2018. “Are the Baltic States Subsequent?: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.” In Strategic Challenges within the Baltic Sea Area: Russia, Deterrence, and Reassurance, edited by A.-S. Dahl, 61–72. Georgetown College Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvvnh3m.10.
Mackinder, H. J. 1904. “The Geographical Pivot of Historical past.” The Geographical Journal 23 (4): 421–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/1775498.
Mearsheimer, J. J. 2001. The Tragedy of Nice Energy Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Firm.
Østhagen, A. 2017. “Geopolitics and Safety within the Arctic: What Position for the EU?” European View 16 (2): 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-017-0459-1.
Rostoks, T., and A. Sprūds. 2015. The Completely different Faces of “Comfortable Energy”: The Baltic States and Jap Neighbourhood between Russia and the EU. Riga: Latvian Institute of Worldwide Affairs.
Ruskin, L. 2023. “ExxonMobil Says It Plans Comparatively Restricted Arctic Funding.” Alaska Public Media. https://alaskapublic.org/information/2023/04/18/exxonmobil-says-it-plans-relatively-limited-arctic-investment (accessed March twentieth, 2024).
United Nations. 2025. “Inhabitants: World Points.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/inhabitants#:~:textual content=Thepercent20world’spercent20populationpercent20ispercent20expected,billionpercent20inpercent20thepercent20midpercent2D2080s (accessed March 24th, 2024).
U.S.-China Financial AND Safety Evaluation Fee (USCC). 2016 Annual Report back to Congress. https://www.uscc.gov/annual-report/2016-annual-report-congress (accessed March 20th, 2024).
Volpe, M. 2020. “The Tortuous Path of China’s ‘Win-Win’ Technique in Greenland.” The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/tortuous-path-china-win-win-strategy-greenland/ (accessed March 20th, 2024).
Waltz, Okay. N. 1979. Idea of Worldwide Politics. Studying, MA: Addison-Wesley.
World Financial Discussion board. 2017. “The Arctic May Be Ice-Free by 2040.” World Financial Discussion board. https://www.weforum.org/tales/2017/05/the-arctic-could-be-ice-free-by-2040/ (accessed March 24th, 2024).
Zhang, H., and S. Bateman. 2017. “Fishing Militia, the Securitization of Fishery and the South China Sea Dispute.” Up to date Southeast Asia 39 (2): 288–314. http://www.jstor.org/secure/44683771 (accessed March 21st, 2024).
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
