Reddit reviews The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (Updated Edition)

Here's the thing, International Relations is all about figuring out why states act as they do, using culture as the metric misses a lot of motivation for how states interact as logical players in a somewhat anarchistic game of survival as a state.

I haven't read this book, but I've read Joesph Nye and he's also one of the standards that most IR students will end up reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Conflict-Cooperation-Introduction/dp/0205851630/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I also mention Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics in another comment. It's heavily assigned and great if you loved playing Risk as a kid.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

IMHO the realist/Clausewitzian explanation is by far the most effective. The theory posits that all states are inherently confrontational, as all states seek to maximize their own security, and doing so necessarily compromises the security of other states. The situation is tragic, as elucidated by Mearsheimer.

How this is Clausewitzian is that he posited that any state in a position of strength would become aggressive, whereas any state that is weak would become passive and seek peace. China and Russia were both in positions of extreme weakness around 2000 economically, something that they both fixed during the GWB administration. Note China and Russia's economic ascendance during his terms. Both the Chinese and Russians have expressed the desire for peaceful relations with the US, neither of which receive much reciprocation, because the US doesn't have to, at least not yet.

So, bottom line, China and Russia have become aggressive because they can now actually challenge US aggression...and make no mistake the US has been ultra-aggressive since the end of WWII (chart #2 shows % of global military spending by US since 1988).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by Mearsheimer.
https://www.amazon.ca/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics/dp/0393349276

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

Some from my shelf

Arsenals of Folly

The Cold War

On China

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

NATO's Return to Europe

On War

Bonus: The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

This entire conversation is basically a way of saying "how can we prove neorealism wrong?" Neorealism says that it is the nation state that's important, and liberal institutionalism says that it is institutions that are important (constructivism focuses on identity). The EU is a supranational institution, and with the problems caused by forces of nationalism during the 20th century in Europe and how they led to war, and because nobody wants war, some Europeans thought they could overcome the nation-state, and therefore overcome war.

And that's why its a 'tragedy' that neorealism is right. If you want to find out how the world really works, I can't suggest anyone better than John Mearsheimer (along with Stephen Walt). They're both neorealist theorists, Mearsheimer being an offensive neorealist, Walt a defensive neorealist; they agree on most points.

After years of studying this stuff, I couldn't find anyone apart from these two academics who explained international politics better. As an example, check out this book and all the controversy it created.

They are not popular in Europe, for reasons such as neorealism being pessimistic, nation state-centric, and concerned with questions such as survival, rather than the thriving of a society (they would say geopolitics trumps economics, or that you can't have economics without first taking the security and defense issues off the table as it were). They would say that it was not the EU which deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, but that it should have gone to NATO, as an example. They would likely say that the democratic peace thesis is wrong, because it is non-falsifiable; no democracy would call the country it is going to war with a proper democracy like it is.

There's more to say, but when I found out about these guys, it was like a bomb going off in my head. Finally, everything made sense, instead of things always being twisted around like a pretzel. In conclusion, they'd likely say the dream of a properly federalized Europe is a waste of time, and your time and personal political philosophy would best be spent elsewhere. Oh, one last thing - they're just as harsh on the US as they are on Europe!

A book recommendation for you: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer builds up a clear argument, with analysis of historical relevance stretching from Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany up to the modern United States.

His view is arguably colored by his assumptions about International Politics. However, the author makes this clear in the first few chapters, explaining his theory of Offensive Realism. It is at the same time a logically understandable and depressing view of the interaction of states.

The book finishes with a chapter wherein it is predicted that the rise of China is unlikely to be peaceful. There also are suggestsions of strategies for the U.S. to deal with this change in the balance of power. A clear and convincing read, highly recommended.

To give some sense of overview, there are other views of International Poltitics, this is just one of them, there is enough room to be critical. This book gets a serious debate going though, which you are looking for, reading from your post.

And since you are asking my opinion: Great Power politics are likely to trump relatively minor factors of environment and language in international relations. I assume that being the leading nation in the world means having the most power in the world. This has little to do with language and less to with environmental policy. It has everything to do with military forces, arsenals and alliances. Economic power as well, has a higher priority.

I am not saying the factors you point out are unimportant. The spread of language and the accompanying culture can be a spread of "soft power". The spread and popularity of Hollywood movies is an example of this. Many people throughout the world today speak English. But this can change. It is not hard to imagine that in three generations Chinese can have spread its influence as a language significantly.

If Chinese military and economic growth can be turned into a dominant position, other countries will study its culture in order to court and befriend it and hopefully benefit from associating with them.

I think that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a really neat book. This is somewhat unrelated to your niche, and some of you guys have heard me speak about this on IRC. I have no education in International Relations and a high school education in history, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it really does a good job at explaining ambitions that underpin nations foreign policy and what causes them to have such ambitions. It's certainly not a perfect book, but it does a good job at explaining a staunchly, sobering realist theory of international relations. One reviewer puts it this way, "I found the book an enjoyable read but Mearsheimer has a surprisingly superficial grasp of world history. However, he does provide a helpful explanation of American foreign policy over the past 200 years." That's important to know before digging into this book, and it's also important to know that John is very staunchly realist. In my own opinion, I think realism is a very good theory, but it also assumes (again, my uneducated opinion) that (like with books like the Dictators Handbook) that leaders are psychopaths with no emotions. That ideology doesn't play a role on some level in decision making. That foreign policy is entirely predicated around protecting a nation.

I'd like to hear /u/Fresh-Snows thoughts on it. He studies international relations extensively from what I've heard. He could offer an interesting opinion.

Also, Ender in Exile is a very good book that I am currently reading. If you have read Enders Game, or of Scott Cards books on the Ender universe in general, I highly suggest picking up this book.

Seconded on Elements of Style. Also, try reading authors who are known for straightforward and concise prose. It's only coming to mind because I was a political science major, but John Mearsheimer is great for this- his chapters precisely follow the "tell you what I'm going to say; say it; summarize what I just said" mantra.

As you said you saw the usual classics I'll skip over Hayek, Hazlett, Milton Freedman, Orwell, ect

1.A very interesting read on America's Economic History. Not econ theory, this is the history of our economy crushing it for over 200 years. Will give you the faith that America's best days are always ahead of us as long as we remain capitalist :

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125

2.The best book on Foreign Policy I've ever read. It's a realist take on internation affairs which is what we are finally back to under this admin.

Nation's will work in thier own self interest, armies need to take territory to win wars, you need a great economy to have a great military, China must be confronted, ect:

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

To understand the failure of the foreign policy of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy one should read

https://www.amazon.de/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

>Make note, I'm just a high schooler. I don't have any significant experience in academic IR studies, and I get most of my information from books, magazines, and journals. To be honest, I'm a little fuzzy on theory


I was the same in high school, trying to self-teach. If you have the opportunity to take a college intro-IR course it clears up sooo much. If you did it like me, you are teaching yourself out of order and context, and in a way that biases strongly towards some things and not others. Anyway, if you can't take an organized class, try to pick up a book on theory and that starts at the basics. I haven't read it yet, but if you like Realism then The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is supposedly excellent. Likewise, The End of History is the go-to Liberal book. Haven't read that either yet, so someone correct me if I'm way off-base with these recommendations. There's also Constructivism as the new thing, but I'm not really familiar with it. Anyways, getting theories down more helps a ton, it definitely changed my views on whether or not certain wars were good/bad ideas. But from your post you seem to have a good grasp on things, so IDK if this advice will help that much.


(^ this isn't related to your question, I just thought it might be helpful)


Anyways your question is basically Liberal Vs Realist it seems. A liberal of the Neoconservative (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect.) branch would say Saddam violated the liberal order first, and now the newly democratic Iraq has removed the threat. Iraq will join the other democracies and only attack dictators til there are none left and we have world peace. (this is really dumbed down, but you get the point)



Other less militaristic liberals (the Clintons, Woodrow Wilson especially) would say that that was an expected occasional break-down in the liberal order, and that liberal institutions for the most part prevent this sort of thing from happening more often, as it would if there was no UN or WTO ect. In their eyes, if Bush were ever put to international court and tried then it would be proof of the liberal order's success. The liberal order includes international free trade, which liberals say makes war unprofitable, and so they say, unlikely.


Realists (George HW Bush, Nixon, Kissinger) would agree with your middle paragraph, that the 'global order' is a manifestation of American hegemony, and that liberal institutions are set up to maximally benefit the USA, which is why other powers become revisionists; Iran/China/Russia does not feel it benefits from a US-led order (the WTO, World Bank, ect), and wants to set up an new order that maximizes their own power instead.


So its depends on who you ask, there is no real consensus here. For what its worth, I think you are dead on about the 'liberal order' really being the 'American order', and like you said, its mostly been a good thing.

Start with these two:
https://www.amazon.com/Afghanistan-Graveyard-Empires-History-Borderland/dp/1605981893/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177236&sr=8-5
https://www.amazon.com/Forever-War-Dexter-Filkins/dp/0307279448/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177260&sr=8-3

Read this one to understand America's behavior: https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496177330&sr=8-1

Update with a simple read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80%93present)

End with this: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Latest-Longest-War-Afghanistan/dp/022626565X (on my kindle TBR list, but it's gotten good reviews from reputable publications, which is key when reading any sort of history, unless you're interested in becoming one of those looney right-wingers or bat-shit lefties).

Yeah, but there would be different issues at play, as well. There would be the whole issue, of European states looking at one another, or one European state looking at a non-European state, (i.e. Greece and Turkey) and possibly suddenly saying to themselves "I'm actually not 100% sure about that state's future intentions. I'd better make sure I'm not a paper tiger."

Slippery slope may ensue.

And it is that - in Mearsheimer's theory, that is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (1992). (updated edition published 2014)

<== has a BA in International Relations

If you really want to get into International Relations, the LKY School of Public Policy isn't very highly-regarded in the field. NTU's RSIS is far more respectable. Main reason is: Kishore Mahbubani of LKYSPP is a prolific huckster who spouts a lot of BS in order to drive sales of his own books.

And then there's the issue of your reason for wanting to pursue this Masters. You need to ask yourself on what you really want to get out of it, because admissions committees are going to pay a lot of attention to your reason for making them bother to read your application in the first place.

There's also the problem where you don't seem to know a lot about IR. If you don't, this beginner's guide is very effective at covering what undergrads usually go through in a semester-long Intro to IR course.

For more detailed reading, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics presents one of the dominant theories of International Relations and according to my very biased opinion, the one which represents what our global order moving towards in the next couple years.

Read those two at the very bare minimum, then you should have a fair idea if you're keen on this path. If reading those two makes you bored, then forget it, because you'll be reading a lot of this kind of material.