Realpolitik: The Game of Practical Politics
The Origins and Core Ideas
The term Realpolitik is German, combining "real" (practical) and "Politik" (politics). It was coined in the mid-1800s by a German writer named Ludwig von Rochau. He observed that laws and governments weren't built on lofty ideas alone, but on the raw reality of power—who had the military, economic, and social force to make and enforce rules. This idea became a guide for leaders, especially during the unification of Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Instead of following romantic notions of a unified German people, Bismarck used wars, alliances, and clever diplomacy to create a powerful new nation state[1].
Realpolitik rests on a few key assumptions about how the world works:
The main goal of a state practicing Realpolitik is to survive and increase its security and influence. It views the international system as an arena where states compete, much like players in a game where there is no supreme referee. This is often called the "balance of power." A simple way to model a balance of power is to think of a seesaw. If one state (or alliance) becomes too powerful, others will naturally team up to balance against it and prevent being dominated.
Realpolitik vs. Idealistic Politics
To understand Realpolitik better, it helps to contrast it with its opposite: idealistic or moralistic politics.
| Aspect | Realpolitik (Pragmatic) | Idealistic Politics |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Guide | National interest and power calculus. | Ethical principles, ideology, or moral law. |
| View of Human Nature | Often pessimistic; states are self-interested. | More optimistic; cooperation for common good is possible. |
| Alliances | Flexible, based on current interests ( "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"). | More permanent, based on shared values or ideologies. |
| Use of Force | A legitimate tool if it serves national interest. | Only justified for self-defense or morally "just" causes. |
| Example | Shaking hands with a dictator to get access to oil. | Refusing to deal with a dictator due to human rights abuses. |
A Realpolitik leader might argue that an idealistic approach is naive and dangerous because it ignores how the world really works. An idealist might counter that Realpolitik is cynical and leads to endless conflict and injustice. Most actual foreign policy is a mix of both, but Realpolitik often provides the underlying framework.
Realpolitik in Action: Historical Case Studies
Let's look at two clear examples from history where leaders put pragmatic national interest above all else.
1. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939): This was a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union[2]. Ideologically, these two states were fierce enemies—Nazism hated Communism. However, both leaders, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, saw a practical benefit. Hitler wanted to avoid a two-front war when he invaded Poland. Stalin wanted time to build up the Soviet military and also gain territory. So, despite their hatred for each other's ideologies, they made a deal. They even secretly agreed to divide Eastern Europe between them. This is pure Realpolitik: a temporary alliance with an ideological enemy for immediate security and territorial gain. Of course, the pact didn't last—Germany eventually invaded the USSR in 1941—but it served the short-term interests of both at the time.
2. Nixon's Visit to China (1972): For decades, the United States refused to recognize the Communist government of the People's Republic of China, considering it an illegitimate regime. President Richard Nixon, a strong anti-communist, shocked the world by visiting Beijing and opening diplomatic relations. Why? Pure pragmatism. The U.S. was stuck in the costly Vietnam War and was in a Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. By engaging with China, Nixon drove a wedge between the two communist giants, putting pressure on the USSR. It was a brilliant strategic move that changed the global balance of power, even though it meant dealing with a regime America opposed ideologically. National interest trumped ideology.
Tools of the Realpolitik Practitioner
How do states practice Realpolitik? They use a toolkit of strategies, all aimed at maximizing power and security.
Diplomacy: This is the first tool—negotiating, making deals, and forming alliances. A Realpolitik diplomat is not there to make friends, but to advance interests. They might offer economic aid in exchange for military bases, or threaten to withdraw support if a smaller country doesn't vote a certain way in the United Nations.
Military Power: The ultimate backstop. The threat or use of force is a direct way to secure interests. The concept of deterrence is a Realpolitik idea: "If you attack me, the cost will be too high, so don't do it." This can be modeled simply: if the cost (C) of an action is greater than the benefit (B), a rational actor won't do it $(B - C < 0)$. A strong military makes the potential cost $(C)$ very high for any adversary.
Economic Statecraft: Using money and trade as weapons. This includes sanctions (punishing a country by cutting off trade), tariffs (taxes on imports to protect domestic industries), and offering loans or investment to gain influence. Controlling key resources, like oil or rare minerals, is a classic Realpolitik move.
Important Questions
Q: Is Realpolitik just another word for being selfish and immoral in politics?
A: Not exactly. Practitioners of Realpolitik would argue they are being realistic, not simply selfish. Their primary moral duty, they believe, is to ensure the survival and security of their own nation and citizens. Making decisions based on emotion or distant ideals could put their people at risk. However, critics say that by ignoring morality entirely, Realpolitik can justify terrible actions, like supporting brutal dictators or starting wars of conquest. The debate is about whether good outcomes can come from amoral methods.
Q: Can individuals or companies use Realpolitik thinking?
A: Absolutely. The core idea—focusing on practical power dynamics rather than ideals—applies anywhere. A company might form a short-term partnership with a competitor to break into a new market, despite seeing them as a rival. An individual might choose to work with someone they don't personally like on a project because that person has the skills needed to succeed. The key is assessing the balance of power (resources, influence) and acting to advance your core interests.
Q: Does Realpolitik always lead to war?
A: No. In fact, a key goal of Realpolitik is to avoid unnecessary wars that would waste a nation's power. A realistic assessment might show that war is too costly or risky. The long peace of the Cold War, where the U.S. and USSR never fought directly, was partly a result of Realpolitik deterrence—both sides knew a war would be mutually destructive. Realpolitik can lead to stability when all major powers correctly calculate that conflict isn't worth it.
Footnote
[1] Nation State: A political unit where the state (the government) and the nation (a group of people with a common identity) are aligned. Example: France, Japan.
[2] USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The official name of the Soviet Union, a communist state that existed from 1922 to 1991.