Through a range of case studies spanning the post-Cold War period in Iraq, Moldova and Serbia, this innovative book breaks new ground in its study of asymmetric conflicts where warring sides exhibit vast power differentials. It uses multiple theories to examine the different pathways that encourage minor powers to engage in both offensive and defensive wars that they are likely to lose, analysing domestic crisis as a key catalyst and considering ways to mitigate conditions that drive conflict. The author provides an important framework that can be applied to contemporary conflicts elsewhere.

Using case studies spanning the post-Cold War period in Iraq, Moldova and Serbia, this book breaks new ground in its study of asymmetric conflicts where warring sides exhibit vastly different power differentials.

Through a range of case studies spanning the post-Cold War period in Iraq, Moldova and Serbia, this innovative book breaks new ground in its study of asymmetric conflicts where warring sides exhibit vast power differentials. It uses multiple theories to examine the different pathways that encourage minor powers to engage in both offensive and defensive wars that they are likely to lose, analysing domestic crisis as a key catalyst and considering ways to mitigate conditions that drive conflict. The author provides an important framework that can be applied to contemporary conflicts elsewhere.

"A superb book.…Mearsheimer has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the behavior of great powers."—Barry R. Posen, The National Interest The updated edition of this classic treatise on the behavior of great powers takes a penetrating look at the question likely to dominate international relations in the twenty-first century: Can China rise peacefully? In clear, eloquent prose, John Mearsheimer explains why the answer is no: a rising China will seek to dominate Asia, while the United States, determined to remain the world's sole regional hegemon, will go to great lengths to prevent that from happening. The tragedy of great power politics is inescapable.

Formal and empirical explanations of peace and war

This book develops the idea that since decolonisation, regional patterns of security have become more prominent in international politics. The authors combine an operational theory of regional security with an empirical application across the whole of the international system. Individual chapters cover Africa, the Balkans, CIS Europe, East Asia, EU Europe, the Middle East, North America, South America, and South Asia. The main focus is on the post-Cold War period, but the history of each regional security complex is traced back to its beginnings. By relating the regional dynamics of security to current debates about the global power structure, the authors unfold a distinctive interpretation of post-Cold War international security, avoiding both the extreme oversimplifications of the unipolar view, and the extreme deterritorialisations of many globalist visions of a new world disorder. Their framework brings out the radical diversity of security dynamics in different parts of the world.

While the United States and its allies put their military focus on the post-9/11 challenges of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency, Russia and China put their military focus onto the United States and the risks of regional wars that they came to believe they might have to fight against the United States. Their first priority was to put their intellectual houses in order-that is, to adapt military thought and strategic planning to the new problem. The result is a set of ideas about how to bring the United States and its allies to a "culminating point" where they choose to no longer run the costs and risks of continued war. This is the "red theory of victory." Beginning in the second presidential term of Obama administration, the U.S. military focus began to shift, driven by rising Russian and Chinese military assertiveness and outspoken opposition to the regional security orders on their peripheries. But U.S. military thought has been slow to catch up. As a recent bipartisan congressional commission concluded, the U.S. intellectual house is dangerously out of order for this new strategic problem. There is no Blue theory of victory. Such a theory should explain how the United States and its allies can strip away the confidence of leaders in Moscow and Beijing (and Pyongyang) in their "escalation calculus"-that is, that they will judge the costs too high, the benefits to low, and the risks incalculable. To develop, improve, and implement the needed new concepts requires a broad campaign of activities by the United States and full partnership with its allies.