Глава 1
The Global Chessboard: How Nations Wage War and Seek Peace
In the tumultuous landscape of international relations theory, few works have maintained their relevance and intellectual vigor like Kenneth Waltz's "Man, the State, and War." Published in 1959 but conceived in the early 1950s, this groundbreaking text revolutionized how we understand the persistent problem of war. While most international relations texts fade into obscurity as world events render them obsolete, Waltz's framework has shown remarkable staying power, becoming required reading in university courses worldwide. The book's genius lies in its elegant organization of Western political thought into three "images" or levels of analysis: human nature, state structure, and international anarchy. What makes this framework so compelling is not merely its classification system but Waltz's critical evaluation of each perspective's strengths and limitations. Even celebrities and public intellectuals like Angelina Jolie and Elon Musk have cited Waltz's framework when discussing global conflicts, with former President Obama reportedly keeping the book on his nightstand during foreign policy crises. The work's cultural impact extends beyond academia, influencing how journalists, policymakers, and citizens understand the fundamental question: Why, despite our desires for peace, does war persist throughout human history?
Глава 2
The First Image: Human Nature as the Root of Conflict
Why do nations go to war? The first image suggests the answer lies within ourselves. According to this perspective, wars result from selfishness, misdirected aggression, and human stupidity. If only we could improve humanity's moral or psychological condition, peace would naturally follow. This view has ancient roots but remains powerfully influential today.
The prescriptions offered by first-image thinkers vary dramatically. Some advocate education as the solution, believing that enlightened people would naturally reject war. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow captured this sentiment when he wrote that if people truly understood war's horrors, they would never start another. Others believe moral transformation is necessary, with religious groups like the Quakers arguing that spiritual renewal would eliminate conflict. Still others suggest channeling aggressive energies into constructive alternatives-William James famously proposed a "moral equivalent of war" through challenging civic projects.
Within this first image, an important distinction emerges between optimists and pessimists. Optimists believe human nature can be improved to eliminate war, while pessimists see human flaws as permanent fixtures. Philosophical pessimism views reality as fundamentally flawed, while optimism sees society as basically harmonious with only superficial problems requiring correction.
Reinhold Niebuhr exemplifies the pessimistic view, criticizing utopian theories for overlooking humanity's capacity for evil. For Niebuhr, human pride and self-interest inevitably corrupt all advances in knowledge and technology. This perspective has deep philosophical roots in St. Augustine's observations about self-preservation and Spinoza's philosophy, where all actions serve self-preservation. Spinoza argued that rational self-interest would ideally lead people to cooperate without needing political authority, as mutual assistance serves individual preservation.
However, the first image suffers from a critical weakness: attributing political problems to human nature creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis where evidence can be selectively interpreted to support predetermined conclusions. When we focus too much on this "primary" cause, we move away from realistic political analysis. Even Niebuhr acknowledges that "the particular plight of modern civilization is in a sense not caused by the sinfulness of human nature." The real opportunity for peace comes from understanding "secondary causes"-the social and political structures that can be modified.
This insight leads us to a fascinating paradox: whether one believes humans can be made good or are inherently flawed, both positions ultimately direct our attention toward social and political structures as the necessary focus for addressing conflict.
Глава 3
Behavioral Science and the Peace Problem
The behavioral sciences approach to international peace represents a modern manifestation of the first image, but it suffers from fundamental flaws in practical application. While scholars like Neal Miller, T.H. Pear, and Margaret Mead propose solutions based on scientific knowledge of human behavior, they fall into what we might call the "rationalist fallacy"-assuming that knowing how to end war means we've solved the problem. The challenge is primarily one of implementation, not knowledge.
This approach faces three insurmountable obstacles: First, the extraordinary time required for cultural change (despite Pear's naive claim that "culture-patterns can be changed quickly"); second, the political challenge of instituting change within resistant societies; and third, the coordination problem across independent states.
Many behavioral scientists propose working through political leaders. Fritz Borberg, for example, suggested psychological screening to prevent "mentally unfit" individuals from gaining power. But this raises impossible questions: Who would implement such screening globally? What happens when a "new Hitler" slips through another country's screening process?
Other proposals depend on prior international agreement or world government. Georges Gurvitch wanted to eliminate distortions through "international action," while Gordon Allport argued that changing expectations about war would eliminate it-but only when people are "fully confident that international organizations can eradicate war." These approaches effectively place all difficulties in "if" clauses, making their solutions viable only after the core problem is already solved.
When behavioral scientists recognize political realities, their solutions often become more political than psychological. Mark May notes that peace emerges from contradictory psychological attitudes and concludes that social psychology offers little hope among sovereign states-a centralized authority becomes the "psychological" foundation for peace. Similarly, Paul Lazarsfeld and Herta Knupfer argue that "concrete international authority" is needed before other techniques can work.
The fundamental problem is that many behavioral scientists transfer domestic insights to international relations without the "suitable reorientation" needed to account for political contexts. Without proper political framing, their insights remain "like pearls lying around loose"-potentially valuable but largely unusable. Those who do account for political realities make more modest and sensible contributions to peace, recognizing the structural constraints of international politics.
Глава 4
The Second Image: How States Shape Conflict
While the first image examines human nature as the primary cause of conflict, the second image recognizes that states as containers shape how human nature manifests in international relations. Just as water can become steam or explosive depending on its container, human behavior varies based on political frameworks.
According to this perspective, the internal organization of states is key to understanding war and peace. This view takes various forms: war may be deliberately sought to promote internal unity (as Jean Bodin noted about Romans); despotic governments may channel domestic tensions into foreign adventures; or structural defects in otherwise good governments may impede effective foreign policy.
The liberal tradition offers a particularly influential version of the second image. Beginning with Thomas Hobbes's conception that individuals would exist in perpetual conflict without government, nineteenth-century English liberals rejected his pessimistic view of human nature while maintaining his individualism. They believed that individual initiative drives society and competition in free markets regulates it. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill saw individuals as the source of social progress, while Jeremy Bentham believed people become more virtuous over time.
Liberals limited government on principle, while utilitarians limited it by the test of efficiency. The liberal "good state" was thus the limited state, responsible primarily for providing security to persons and property. However, liberals gradually recognized limitations in laissez-faire ideology. Mill acknowledged that unregulated competition could lead to "the tyranny of capital" when powerful businesses could drive out smaller competitors, leading to his later "socialism," which sought conditions for fair competition rather than abandoning markets altogether.
In international relations, liberals applied their assumption of an objective harmony of interests. Mill believed "the good of no country can be obtained" except through means benefiting all countries. The free-trade argument formed the core of liberal international theory: just as Michigan and Florida both benefit by trading automobiles for oranges, nations gain through free exchange rather than conquest or protectionism. This led liberals to oppose colonialism and territorial expansion as economically irrational. War, they argued, could never pay because it destroyed rather than created wealth.
Глава 5
When Liberal Theory Meets International Reality
The liberal view of international relations faced significant practical challenges. Richard Cobden's optimism that free trade would "alter the relations of the world for the better" and Immanuel Kant's belief that wars would exhaust nations and hasten republicanism proved insufficient against the persistence of the war system.
Non-interventionist liberals like Cobden, John Bright, and William Jennings Bryan would only use force to defend their own nations against direct invasion. Their position depended on several assumptions: that good examples would influence other nations, that conquest often leads to weakness rather than strength, and that a nation's power derives more from its people's spirit and economy than military might. These assumptions were plausible for geographically isolated nations like the United States and Britain in the 19th century but became dangerous when universalized.
The fundamental problem for non-interventionists was articulated by Giuseppe Mazzini: "What sense does it make to preach laissez faire in international relations when not all states will practice it?" This raised broader questions about whether evolutionary forces toward democracy were moving quickly enough, or even in the right direction, to prevent the triumph of "Evil."
Just as liberals moved from advocating a minimal state to supporting necessary state action domestically, many shifted from non-intervention to intervention internationally. While Cobden and Bright would use force only for national defense, interventionist liberals like Thomas Paine, Mazzini, and Woodrow Wilson sought to actively make the world democratic through force.
The liberal theory faces a fundamental problem: even if peace requires "good" states, how can we ensure these states will truly act peacefully? Liberals advocated minimal international organization with public opinion as the primary sanction, believing disputes could be settled rationally without political manipulation-essentially applying the anarchist ideal to international relations.
This approach reveals two critical misunderstandings. First, many liberals misconceived politics, believing international disputes could be settled like private disputes. They failed to recognize that domestic courts work because they combine reason with force-defendants don't voluntarily enforce judgments against themselves. Second, they applied inconsistent logic between domestic and international affairs, wanting the benefits of law without the necessary enforcement mechanisms.
Глава 6
The Third Image: International Anarchy as the Permissive Cause
In an anarchic international system, there is no automatic harmony or inherent stability. States employ force when they value their objectives more than peace, and since each state serves as the ultimate judge of its own cause, all states must maintain readiness to counter force with force or accept a position of vulnerability. This fundamental condition shapes not only state actions but the entire framework of international relations, influencing everything from alliance formation to economic cooperation.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy provides crucial insights into understanding the third image. Unlike Spinoza (representing the first image) who focuses on human nature, or Kant (representing the second image) who emphasizes institutional arrangements, Rousseau examines the structural framework within which states operate. His analysis begins with the profound transformation that occurs when humans transition from nature to civil society. In the state of nature, individuals are governed primarily by instinct and physical impulses, with their liberty constrained only by their individual strength and capabilities. The establishment of the civil state brings not only material benefits but a fundamental moral transformation: natural liberty yields to civil liberty, and mere physical possession evolves into legitimate property protected by law.
Rousseau extends this analysis to international relations by drawing a parallel between states in the international system and individuals in the state of nature. His perspective differs significantly from Spinoza, who simply assumes states act as unified entities representing all members' interests. Instead, Rousseau offers a more sophisticated analysis, distinguishing between states as they actually exist (where sovereigns often act from personal ambition, vanity, and greed rather than genuine state interest) and states as they ought to be constituted. He argues that true state unity emerges only when conditions allow for the actualization of the "general will" - collective decisions that represent what is genuinely best for all members of the political community.
The third image has profound and far-reaching implications for international politics. In a world where nations must be prepared for potential extermination by rivals, all states are compelled to maintain military preparedness. Even naturally peaceful countries must arm themselves when others demonstrate willingness to use force. The absence of an overarching authority means that even well-intentioned states may find themselves resorting to force to protect their interests. Wars occur not merely because of evil intentions or specific disagreements, but because there exists no reliable mechanism to prevent them. The anarchic nature of the international system means that, ultimately, significant conflicts may only be settled through force or the credible threat of force.
This structural condition creates what we might call the security dilemma: actions taken by states to enhance their security often make other states feel less secure, leading to arms races and potential conflicts. Even defensive measures can be interpreted as offensive threats, creating a spiral of mutual suspicion and military buildup. This demonstrates how the anarchic structure of the international system can generate conflict even when no state actively seeks war.
Глава 7
How Anarchy Shapes State Behavior
The logic of international anarchy can be illustrated through compelling examples from economics and politics. In domestic economics, when competition produces harmful results, law and regulation step in to substitute for unregulated behavior. Adam Smith astutely noted he had "never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." This principle manifests clearly in price controls - appeals to entrepreneurs to voluntarily hold down prices inevitably fail because cooperation by the majority would only serve to enrich non-cooperating minorities. The 1970s oil crisis demonstrated this dynamic, as voluntary price restraints proved ineffective without binding enforcement mechanisms.
Similarly in international affairs, expecting countries to formulate economic policies benefiting all states is fundamentally utopian. Each state's pursuit of individual advantage ultimately disadvantages all states collectively, including itself - a classic prisoner's dilemma scenario. In anarchy, rational individual calculations don't automatically produce harmony - the framework of action matters as much as the actions themselves. The European Union's struggles with coordinated fiscal policy illustrate how even closely allied states prioritize national interests over collective benefit.
The tariff example powerfully demonstrates this logic. When one country adopts protectionist measures to maximize economic welfare, others invariably follow suit, creating a destructive spiral of trade restrictions. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 triggered precisely such a cascade of retaliatory measures, deepening the Great Depression. Even when economists universally agree that reduced trade barriers would benefit all countries in absolute terms, states remain preoccupied with relative gains - whether competitors might benefit disproportionately more. In an anarchic system, relative gain consistently matters more than absolute gain, as demonstrated by ongoing trade tensions between major powers.
The balance of power concept isn't merely theoretical but has profound practical implications that shape daily international relations. While basic survival may be one state goal, it competes with others like economic welfare, territorial integrity, or maintaining particular social and political systems. As Carl von Clausewitz astutely noted, social institutions and diplomatic frameworks may moderate competition for power, allowing states to cooperate despite competitive pressures. The Concert of Europe (1815-1848) exemplified such moderation through institutional cooperation. Nevertheless, a state ignoring balance-of-power considerations while others embrace them is like a game player refusing to join coalitions - a perilously dangerous position when coalitions form precisely to prevent any single player's ascendancy.
This analysis reveals balance of power as more than a mere "delusion" and provides crucial context for understanding allegations about statesmen's immorality in international affairs. Unlike card games where players can simply quit if dissatisfied, states cannot opt out of participating in international politics. Modern leaders, like their historical counterparts, often face impossible choices between behaving "immorally" to preserve the state or abandoning their fundamental moral obligation to ensure state survival. The Cuban Missile Crisis exemplified such a dilemma, where leaders had to balance moral considerations against existential state interests.
Глава 8
Historical Lessons and Modern Applications
The third image's logical construction gains powerful historical support across different eras and civilizations. Niccolo Machiavelli's political philosophy, developed during the tumultuous period of Renaissance Italy, emphasizes that internal order and external security are fundamental prerequisites for freedom and decency, making politics the most crucial field of study. He vividly describes Italy as "a country without dykes or banks" to protect against foreign incursion, arguing that proper protective measures and unified political structures could have prevented the devastating invasions and internal conflicts that plagued the Italian peninsula.
Realpolitik emerges as a method necessary when security is sought under conditions of international anarchy, most commonly associated with balance-of-power politics. While Thucydides, in his analysis of the Peloponnesian War, foreshadows balance-of-power concepts more clearly than Machiavelli, both recognize fundamental principles of international relations that persist today. The Melian Dialogue, where Athens confronts the neutral island of Melos, particularly illustrates these dynamics. Despite critics who consider balance-of-power politics outdated, especially in the nuclear age with its doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the fundamental dynamics persist despite technological and distributional changes in military capabilities.
Historical examples dramatically demonstrate these principles in action. The pre-WWI alliance system, initially proclaimed as security-enhancing, ultimately created a rigid two-bloc system where military mobilization meant inevitable war. By 1914, even seemingly minor matters like the crisis in Serbia involved both the prestige and security of opposing alliances, creating a situation where Russian reaction to Austrian aggression necessitated German intervention, forming what historians term a "vicious and tragic circle." The complex web of alliances transformed local conflicts into continental catastrophes. Similarly, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy in the 1930s, attempting to learn from WWI by avoiding rigid alliance systems, failed to recognize that appeasing Nazi Germany might dangerously increase its relative strength against Britain and upset the European balance of power.
Balance-of-power politics remains inherently risky, but historical evidence suggests that ignoring it proves even riskier. As Carl von Clausewitz warned in his military treatise "On War," excessive pacifism may invite aggression that a more assertive posture might deter. The Munich Agreement of 1938 serves as a classic example of this principle. Yet excessive belligerence, as demonstrated by Germany's aggressive posturing before both World Wars, can provoke preventive war from threatened states. The third image reveals there's no simple prescription for how belligerent or peaceful a state should appear - each state's optimal strategy depends on the strategies adopted by all other states in the system.
Modern applications of these principles can be seen in contemporary international relations, from NATO's collective security arrangements to the complex multipolar dynamics emerging between the United States, China, and Russia. The enduring relevance of balance-of-power politics is evident in ongoing debates about nuclear proliferation, regional security architectures, and the role of international institutions in managing interstate conflicts.
Глава 9
Integrating the Three Images
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, Norman Angell argued that war doesn't pay-a proposition increasingly accepted under "the balance of terror" created by modern warfare technology. Yet while it's true that war redistributes rather than creates wealth, war continues to recur. Peace programs, whether based on diplomacy, armed intervention, moral appeals, or cultural adjustment, reflect our assumptions about war's causes. These assumptions shape both scholarly models and statesmen's policies.
No single image is ever adequate. Otto von Bismarck's skepticism about alliances with Russia partly reflected concerns about internal instability, while John Stuart Mill justified England's inaction in Italian independence by citing Austria's value as an ally against France and Russia. Both considered multiple images, though each emphasized different perspectives-Bismarck focused more on Europe's "chessboard," Mill on the qualities of peoples and governments, the "chessmen."
The third image reveals how partial analyses can be misleading. While the Soviet Union may have posed the greatest threat of war during the Cold War, its disappearance wouldn't guarantee peace among remaining states. Wars existed centuries before the Soviet Union. The framework of the state system itself conditions action-what might be morally good for an individual could invite war when performed by a state.
Rousseau provides the definitive explanation of war's origins within the nation-state system. War occurs not because of accidental causes like human irrationality or state defects, but because the framework permits it. Like bank robbery increasing when law enforcement weakens, wars occur "because there is nothing to prevent them." The structure creates the conditions for war without directly causing any specific conflict.
The immediate causes of particular wars are found in the first and second images-the reasoning of policymakers and the internal conditions of states. But focusing solely on improving men or states neglects two crucial points: removing just one cause won't eliminate an effect with multiple causes, and addressing one cause while neglecting others may worsen the situation (as when Western democracies' peace inclinations emboldened Hitler). The international environment serves as the permissive cause that enables specific conflicts to become wars.
Fear of modern weapons alone cannot establish peace. Each major technological advance in warfare has found prophets proclaiming war's end-from Nobel's dynamite to Franklin's balloon-yet all proved false. Even atomic weapons may nurture peace wishes in some while tempting others toward preventive war. When the issue becomes who shall dominate the world, reasonable solutions without force become impossible.
As Alexander Hamilton and John Jay explained in the Federalist Papers, international anarchy is the explanation for international war. Jay asked what would happen if the thirteen states formed several confederations instead of one union, concluding they would "always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them." Hamilton added that men are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious" and that expecting harmony between independent sovereigns "would be to disregard the uniform course of human events."
