Trump is not merely abandoning the United States’ traditional role in defending the prohibition on war and, with it, conquest. He seems to want something more: to restore war or the threat of it as the main way that states resolve their disagreements and seek economic gain. Other countries are already signaling an acceptance that the norms have changed
Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro
Introduction, and the general thesis of the article
When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered his speech to the World Economic Forum at Davos on the 20th January 2026, he was really just acknowledging, in an eloquent and honest manner, the realities of the geopolitical world of recent decades. For all the appreciation and accolades his speech deservedly received in the media afterwards, this was something that needed to be said, understood and implemented many years ago. The year 2025 has, maybe more so than any other calendar year of the last few decades, stripped away many of our global assumptions, understandings and delusions.
Comfort zones of conduct, safety and above all, limitations, were all exposed as either never really having existed, now destroyed, or badly in need of a conceptual and practical overhaul. With what now seems like the flick of a switch, so many of our frameworks of cooperation, conflict management and geopolitical problem solving were rejected, dissolved or simply disrespected into oblivion.
Conflict scaffolding and frameworks which we could have sworn were universally recognized and practically effective were shown to be not much more than amulets to make us feel better about any serious conflict – comforting but essentially useless. The liberal world order, the rules-based foundations of geopolitics, multilateralism, rational and responsible counterparts and a general order to things all seemed to have been weak foundations upon which we have been building our world. It seems as if the established world order has tilted on its axis, and in many practical respects it has done just that.
The old rules, whether real or imagined, have changed drastically, power alignments have changed and are being rebuilt, and it even feels as if geopolitical time itself has sped up. The stakes are high, national survival and prosperity are at stake, and there is absolutely no time for indecisiveness or errors in the conflict strategies that need to be crafted and applied. In this world of designer chaos and uncertainty, new guidelines, philosophies and operating principles are necessary. There is no room for experimentation.
Much of the involved good geopolitical conflict advice of a decade ago, of five years ago, should now be approached with great caution, suspicion even. It is in this new world, and in this new search for such guidelines and efficient conflict management principles that we should be refocusing on the geopolitical conflict theory of realism. I hope to show in this article that, as imperfect a system of conflict management as realism may be, it is the least worst of the alternatives, it is practical, it describes reality as we find it, and it also provides South Africa with a dynamic and flexible theory and praxis in order to shape and establish our best place in the creation of the new world that will be happening in the next few years.
A slightly wider lens
The chaos of 2025 of course should not be seen as the particular creation of the second Trump administration alone. The policies and decisions of that administration so far, however one wishes to view and describe them, were largely caused by or made possible by earlier weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the geopolitical world order, and the corrosion and collapse that we are experiencing is simply the rather inevitable result of those pre-existing conditions now being exploited and abused. President Trump simply placed that last bit of weight on the rickety furniture of international relations and conflict systems, and it collapsed.
As I discuss at greater length in my 2023 book Hamlet’s Mirror: Conflict and Artificial Intelligence, the world has already slowly become involved in great power realignments, in what can be described as the Cold War 2.0, and much of what we are now experiencing on the global canvas is simply the results of earlier seismic shifts and new realities. The groundwork for 2025 was established years earlier. In assessing the content and practical value of realism then, both in general and from a purely South African perspective, we should bear this wider canvas in mind.
Realism – a brief summary
Realism reminds me somewhat of chess – the rules of the game can be explained in ten minutes, but the potential and nuances involved in fully understanding and applying those rules to maximum benefit can take a lifetime to master. Realism as a formal geopolitical conflict theory has been around since just after the Second World War, with people like EH Carr and Hans Morgenthau variously being credited for the earliest use of the term in this sense.
While the second Trump administration can therefore not be credited with its creation, their way of approaching international relations and foreign policy during 2025 certainly caused the rise of this concept, one that is often ignored during more stable and peaceful times. Realism acknowledges that international relations, diplomacy, agreements and even strong alliances are always a heartbeat away from war, violence and the disruption that power politics can bring. It acknowledges the historical facts that peace is not a given, and that nations and groups often succumb to the temptation to sweep away all rationality, compassion and political politeness in the use of power.
The geopolitical conflict realist is not surprised when the rules-based order deteriorates and collapses. She simply nods in acknowledgement when might-is-right political rhetoric starts making a comeback on the world stage. Anarchy and chaos, by accident or design, will follow human political engagement all the days of our lives, according to the realist, and no level of organization, moralizing or societal progress will rid us of its inherent dangers and risks, so we should factor that into our plans, our expectations, and our conflict strategies. Realism seeks to balance global political engagement, its needs and goals, its alternative methods of resolving competing interests with the application of raw power, and to in that pragmatic way balance conflict, power and survival.
It is sensitive to doing so in a way that includes moral foundations for its approaches and points of view, so as to not simply become a dressed-up law of the jungle. It understands, and within limits, supports using material and even coercive force to get what a nation needs to protect and foster its own interests. Realism is maybe the original “America First” program. No-one is coming to save us, and we need to prepare ourselves to do so ourselves. Some eggs are going to be broken in the making of our omelette. Geopolitical realism is often accused of being pessimistic, and this is understandable. It acknowledges, even expects, order to turn into anarchy, peace into war. But that accusation speaks to presumed motive, and it does not detract from what we experience on the world stage.
Realism guards against moralism for its own sake – not all issues can, or should, be reduced to questions of right and wrong. This is a terribly unpopular and politically incorrect thing to say. But again, realism simply deals with the world as it is, not the world as we want it to be. In summarized form, realism reminds us that the world is a dangerous, even treacherous place, and that we need to design and implement our geopolitical strategies accordingly, that we must look after our own interests at all times, and that this should be our main conflict operating principle.
Realism – its limitations as a working theory
Realism as theory has offended so many people of good consciousness, especially towards the left side of the spectrum, that nowadays it all but concedes the problems and shortcomings it suffers from. Realism is not very predictive as far as the specifics of global conflict are concerned. Other than saying “trouble is heading this way, we best prepare”, it requires further skills and conflict awareness to be able to implement specific strategies.
Realism is often accused of being amoral or even immoral. Again, best to accept the charge as far as the amorality is concerned. We are here to look after our own best interests. Us or them if it boils down to that. This is about the survival and the pursuit of one’s own people’s best interests. Does that sound terrible and unfriendly? Yes. Does it change the fact that this is what nations experience and strive for? No.
But it is here where, to reluctant adherents like myself, realism does its best work, and where its starkness develops a beauty and integrity to its harsher framework. It is not immoral. Around these harsh-sounding, rather politically incorrect principles, realism draws a strict boundary of moral and ethical limitations. Military power and the realistic threat of violence is tempered, in classical realism, by a balancing act. Power and the threat of violence is an important currency on the world stage, but with limitations. The managing of geopolitical conflict is a harsh, often messy affair, and power has to be used in ways that may be frowned upon at a tea party, but that use of power has limits. Limits of decency, of morals, of international law, of alliances and friendships, of economic realities, of trust built and broken. Push against those guardrails as you must, but when they break there will be prices to pay by those in breach thereof.
Again, as stark as this may sound, is it not simply a reflection of geopolitical conflict realities? In this way, realism must never be an excuse for unconstrained violence and imperialism. Respecting and acknowledging power must not become an adherence to it for its own sake. This thin dividing line means that amoral machtpolitik can never be a part of realism, as often as it is misunderstood to be. Might is right politics will find those boundaries, and be destroyed thereby every time.
Realism – its benefits
To be a modern-day realist does not make of you a warmonger, quite the contrary. Carrying a gun does not mean that you want to use it. Realism is not a sword, but a shield. To look after your own people, you must prepare for the bad things that will probably happen. That does not mean that you need to become a perpetrator of those bad things. Defending against imperialism and authoritarianism, for example, does not make you any of those things. Once we make peace with the unpleasantness of realism, we should never be caught unawares. Our alliances and friendships are never absolute defences, we accept that we are here to primarily look after ourselves.
Promises and treaties are approached differently, and we are not surprised or prejudiced when they bend or break. It allows a government to approach the world as it is, to not be tied to a particular philosophy or Right Answer. It builds into the system a healthy dynamism that may be cynical, but always alert, always prepared, always bluntly seeking your own best interests. With this bluntness, if managed correctly, comes trust, integrity and a range of conflict negotiation benefits.
Alternatives to realism, and their limitations
Conflict studies offer us many alternatives to realism. Most of these certainly sound better, more hopeful, more optimistic that war and conflict will one day be overcome. They are more polite. Voters love to hear more about them. They are Plans For Better People. Examples would include liberal internationalism, Marxism, post-colonialism and other attempts at escaping realism.
Through these alternatives we run into topics that we would prefer not to discuss, topics that we would hate to be dependent on. Here we have to face our reliance on others and the limitations thereof, a deterioration of military capabilities when we are friends with each other, the remaining threat of nuclear capacities, what happens when trade dependencies go awry, what has egalitarianism done for us lately, and so on. The dismal failure of disarmament, even the monitoring of disarmament, gives us red flagged clues as to where mankind and the eventual resolution of conflict lead us.
Processes and world bodies such as international law, various world courts, bodies such as NATO, the EU, and a range of others are often used as alternate solutions to the acceptance of realism, and to an extent hope and harder work on these solutions are indeed in opposition to a limited understanding of realism. But once we understand that realism is simply an approach to the world as it is, we understand that realism is in no way opposed to the creation or limitation of these solutions. Realism properly understood says “Great, let’s build them, let’s improve them. And prepare for when they fail.” The limitations of the popular world court idea, as an example of these alternatives, become apparent when we dissect some of the regular criticisms against realism.
The Nuremberg trials, for example, is not a good example of an alternative approach or a solution. It was the end product of the processing of a defeated juggernaut, and as a system of conflict management it offered nothing at all. In modern geopolitical conflict the warrants for the arrest of leaders of Russia, Israel, Hamas and others are stark reminders of the shortcomings of those systems, those processes in which most of us set such high hopes in the beginning. Here again, realism says “Yes, no surprise, what are we going to do about that?” And there are no great alternatives outside of the so-called Western paradigms of conflict. Realism is as much designed to deal with geopolitical conflicts involving China as it involves those involving the US.
Realism – the roadmap for South African international relations The South African government, despite its many domestic shortcomings, deserve a lot more credit for their advanced understanding of realism, geopolitical conflict and the management thereof than what they at times receive from a variety of interests and pundits internally. Not having a good grasp of realism means that the “US uber alles” mantra seems logical to you. When Mark Carney’s January 2026 speech in Davos attract deserved cheers and enthusiasm, our government had already been implementing most of the practical implications of those principles, or lack thereof, for two or three years prior to this moment in world history.
Our skepticism of the so-called rules-based world order, often as victims of that legal fiction, made us early customers of the realist product. When Patrick Porter explains realism as
Realism prescribes realpolitik—the recognition that to defend a desired political system at home, we must do what is necessary to shield it from the dangerous system of international politics
he simply describes an early reality that the South African government had to contend with.
The gradual shift from a unipolar world to multipolarity being acknowledged even by the US has placed medium powers like South Africa in an incredibly complex and challenging diplomatic position. The shifting of the tectonic plates of power are becoming more defined, and in this first phase of this new power realignment, these countries are, quite by design, increasingly having to face irreconcilable conflicts of interests, loyalty tests, carrots and sticks.
To demand, as so many of our local pundits do, that our best interests are somehow automatically protected by fealty to the US, is as unhelpful as it is outdated and naïve, as so much of 2025 showed us all. Applying the benefits and practical dictates of realism to the challenges faced by the South African government provides them with a dynamic, well-tested framework to be able to navigate the incredibly difficult waters of geopolitical conflict in the next few years. This our government has, to some extent, done so far.
They have walked the tightrope set by others for us, and they have managed to realise for us many of the sparse fruit that grow here, and that are available for now to these medium countries. It allows us to maintain alliances and relationships with countries that are not popular at present, it allows us to be sceptical of conventional wisdoms in geopolitical circles that have served their purposes, and that are receding as these new changes take place. Above all, it allows us to fiercely follow one single goal in all of these complications and shifting sands: our own best interests, abroad and locally. It is a modern, conflict competent way of dealing with a developing new world order that has already destroyed so many of the old paradigms and conventions. The concept of balancing is what we see in action, as we seek to replace lost or minimized or threatened alliances, economic pressures and the pursuit of our best interests.
It recognizes our sovereignty, it allows us to be and to work at our best interests in a dignified, competent manner in the new world. In the process our government has also made a series of mistakes. Tellingly, these mistakes occur when they steer away from the principles of realism. When they become too complacent about being everyone’s friend, we self-destroy our military capabilities. When we try to keep everyone happy, we get into trouble with everyone.
When we try to build these difficult relationships in the dark, without owning our realism, we end up with misunderstood messes like the recent naval exercises fiasco. Internally, our government has struggled with the messaging of realism. Even a quick look at social media will show us the old arguments built on the so-called self-evident merits of the US against the equally self-evident horrors of being seen to practice realism with China, Russia, Iran and other countries deemed to be off-limits and harmful to our national interests. This is largely a self-inflicted wound, although even the strongest opposition parties are still singing from some pretty outdated IR and geopolitical hymn sheets.
This is a political and national debate which the government should stop hiding or compromising on. Realism is wonderfully apolitical in the correct hands. This is not about being a commie or a Westerner. This is about that stark, simple, terrible question: what is in our best interests?
Even that is a dynamic question that shifts with geopolitical realities. It does not force a choice between the US and China. It is not neutral. It does not compromise. It creates its own reality, its own place in this new world being born around us. When properly understood and applied, it is a policy, a conflict strategy, that should inspire all South Africans of goodwill. It still leaves open much to debate, much to strategize about, but it removes the old, harmful, cyclical arguments that tie us into zero-sum arguments that 2025 has shown us are already of little more than academic value.
Far from sitting there wide-eyed about all that is happening in this new world, waiting for a Big Country saviour, realism places the wheel in our hands. It demands cold control, an ongoing and escalating level of political and other skills, it promises both expensive consequences for failure and crucial benefits for success. It does not jettison the values that make all of this worthwhile – trust, prosperity, international friendship, local growth and the effective addressing of our many challenges – all of these goals remain, they are simply seen not as slogans but as actual building blocks in our foreign policy.
The charge that our government has cost us our sound relationship with the US through their IR choices and alliances is unfounded. While a few incidents and messaging opportunities have certainly been mismanaged spectacularly, that relationship was already not all that healthy, and the destruction of what remained simply serves an agenda for which we should not be blamed for, and which can be managed in its own good time. Again, that is exactly what realism tells us: the fragility of international friendships, the threats and isolation, the non-negotiable need to prepare to look after yourself.
This is not isolationism. Realism does not in any way tell us to isolate ourselves. It does show us, through eloquent historical examples, that geopolitical alliances are necessary, and to be pursued, but that they have their limitations, their risks, and that our friends and allies do not always act in any way other than their own best interests. For context in assessing our own journey, remember that the US approach to geopolitics have, despite efforts to hide or deny this, always been exactly the pursuit of their own best interests (see my article on this below). Why should our own foreign policy be built on different foundations?
In an excellent August 2024 article (see link below), Zane Dangor, South Africa’s director-general of DIRCO, understandably tries to reach beyond realism, in its most martial and aggressive form, understood as a framework for expansion and imperialism, towards multilateralism. This is to see realism in its limited, often misunderstood role as a philosophy condoning, even encouraging, violence and war. That, as international experts such as Paul Porter (link below) show in recent studies, is to deprive ourselves of the real reach and potential of realism.
Realism does not condone or encourage war or conflict, it simply points out that we have not managed to resolve it in human engagement, and then starts to work towards dealing with it effectively. It is then heartening to see that on this wider, upgraded view of realism, the goals of multilateralism, of effective protection and pursuit of our South African local and global goals all become clear, supported and more manageable. For our government, it remains a policy safety net that realism is not a standalone solution. We must still combine it with pragmatism, nimble diplomacy and elite conflict skills. All the hard work and the difficult decisions still need to be executed, and failure is always a strong possibility.
An imperfect, arguably controversial conflict roadmap, but the best of the lot, in my view, and one which, as we have seen, the South African government has already begun to implement, with much success.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. For an excellent primer on realism, including a very balanced and fair treatment of its critics, I unconditionally recommend Paul Porter’s How to survive a hostile world, Stanford University Press (2025).
2. The text of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s address to the WEF on the 20th January 2026, at Davos, can be accessed at “Principled and pragmatic: Canada’s path” Prime Minister Carney addresses the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting | Prime Minister of Canada
3. For an explanation of my views on how SA should walk the tightrope of international relations in the time of Trump, see https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/walking-the-tightrope-the-south-africa-us-conflict
4. Zane Dangor’s article at Beyond Realism: How the Global South Can Shape a More Moral Internationalism - FPIF 5. My article on the US following a policy pursuing its own best interests in its relationship with South Africa at https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/going-back-to-the-future-origins-of-the-south-africa-us-conflict
5. Relevant articles for related conflict work, such as identity conflicts, and their source material, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.)
(c) Andre Vlok
January 2026