Identify the major differences between the classical realism of Hans J. Morgenthau and the neorealism of Kenneth Waltz. Which approach is best suited for analysing international relations after the Cold War? (2015, 10 Marks)
Realism combines three ideas: egoism, anarchy and power politics. Hans J. Morgenthau explains power politics through egoism; Kenneth N. Waltz explains it through anarchy. That difference of foundation decides which copes better with the world after 1991.
The major differences
- Cause. Morgenthau’s struggle for power springs from human nature. Waltz’s springs from structure: anarchy, functionally alike states, and the distribution of capabilities, which he treats as decisive.
- Goal. For Morgenthau, states pursue interest defined as power; for Waltz, survival, with power only a means.
- Method and scope. Morgenthau’s realism is historical and advises statesmen through prudence. Waltz’s is deductive and explains systemic outcomes, not foreign policy.
- Change. Morgenthau looks to shifts in national power and diplomatic skill; Waltz only to changes in polarity.
After the Cold War: the case for neorealism
- The Cold War ended as Soviet capabilities eroded, a change in the distribution of power.
- In “Structural Realism after the Cold War” (2000), Waltz warned that “unbalanced power, whoever wields it, is a potential danger to others” and predicted balancing against unipolarity. Russia’s war on Ukraine since 2022 and the US–China contest over technology fit that prediction.
- The lens captures the diffusion of capabilities: in 2025 China’s military spending reached about $336 billion and India’s $92 billion, fifth in the world.
- Self-help is back in the nuclear field: New START expired on 5 February 2026 with no successor.
Its limits, and Morgenthau’s revenge
- A structural theory did not foresee a superpower dissolving peacefully; that turned on Mikhail Gorbachev‘s choices. William C. Wohlforth (1999) showed that unipolarity drew little hard balancing for a decade.
- Morgenthau’s warning against moral crusading fits the costly democracy-promotion wars of the unipolar years better than any structural account.
- Terrorist networks, transnational firms and global institutions fall outside a theory of like units.
- States respond differently to one structure. India’s multi-alignment, sitting in the Quad while hosting the BRICS summit in New Delhi in September 2026, follows S. Jaishankar‘s formula in The India Way (2020): “engage America, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia”. That is statecraft, which neoclassical realism restores.
Conclusion
Neorealism is the better starting point after the Cold War, since it explains the slide from unipolarity to renewed great-power rivalry. Alone it cannot explain particular choices or non-state threats; the most useful approach is neorealist structure read through classical attention to statecraft.