Realism in Action: Why State Survival Remains the Core of International Politics

Realism in international relations argues that states exist in an anarchic world. No higher authority guarantees their safety. Each state must fend for itself. Survival and security are the main goals. As one analyst notes, “the survival of the state remains the paramount priority” in a self-help system. In reality, power often outweighs ideals. Military strength matters more than noble principles. Economic ties and international laws collapse when life or territory is threatened. China’s attempt to limit U.S. military presence in East Asia is one example. America’s effort to contain China is another. Both are driven not by ideology but by the pursuit of relative strength.

Source: Democracy Now

Russia’s response to NATO expansion illustrates how security concerns influence state behavior. Faced with a Western military alliance advancing closer to its borders, Moscow saw a direct threat to its influence and survival. Its reaction was not sudden but the outcome of years of growing distrust. This culminated in the 2022 war in Ukraine, which forced Russia to seek stronger partnerships elsewhere. The most significant was its deepening strategic embrace with China. Both powers, despite long histories of rivalry, found common ground in opposing U.S. dominance and countering Western pressure. Their cooperation now extends across energy, defense, and diplomacy. President Vladimir Putin stressed that Russia had long sought constructive dialogue with the West. He said Moscow supported the idea of an equal and indivisible security system. But instead of cooperation, Russia faced broken promises and double standards. NATO expanded right up to its borders. New missile defense systems were deployed in Europe and Asia. For Putin, these actions proved the West was less interested in partnership and more focused on containing Russia’s power.

These events highlight a central truth in international politics. Even in the nuclear age, great powers act with the instincts of predators and prey. They calculate every move in terms of survival, advantage, and influence. Friendships are rare; interests dominate. States build alliances not from affection but from necessity. For Russia and China, the bond is driven by a shared quest for security and balance against the West. This pattern echoes throughout history: when survival is at stake, ideals and rhetoric give way, and raw power dictates choices. The enduring logic of realism remains visible in every such turn.

Survival First: Pakistan’s Realist Path

History shows how states act when survival is at stake. In 1974 and then in 1998, India carried out surprise nuclear tests. Pakistan saw an existential threat. Within weeks, Islamabad answered with its own tests. Balance had to be restored. Deterrence mattered more than sanctions or lectures. This was realism in action. During the Cold War, the same logic appeared. Pakistan allied with the United States. The two were different ideologically. Yet Pakistan needed weapons, aid, and protection. Security came before principles. Aligning with Washington, balanced threats from India and the Soviet Union. The lesson is clear. States do not move by ideals. They move to survive. Even today, Pakistan continues to face the same task. It sits at a crossroads between great powers. It must deal with China, America, and others with care. No camp can be trusted fully. Overdependence is dangerous. Balance relations bring safety. Pakistan’s leaders often stress this point. National survival is the first duty. No ideology, no pressure, and no foreign demand can override it. Realism is not a theory for Pakistan. It is the rule that guides every critical decision.

You May Like To Read: FO: Future of Refugees ‘Up to Pakistan,’ Says Spokesperson

Realism in Pakistan’s Security Doctrine

For Pakistan, realism is an integral part of its daily statecraft. Officials put sovereignty and defense above lofty ideals. Nuclear weapons are described as “defensive in nature.” Missiles are meant only to “defend sovereignty and preserve peace and stability” in the region. The logic is simple. Pakistan does not build weapons for conquest. It builds them out of fear of aggression. Military power is an instrument of deterrence, not expansion. Whenever tensions rise with India or along its borders, security is the top priority. Pakistan’s Foreign Office makes this clear. Strategic capabilities exist for one purpose: to protect territorial integrity and to ensure survival.

These priorities go back to the country’s birth. Muhammad Ali Jinnah warned that Pakistan’s very existence was fragile and emphasized the need for unity and security above all else. Since then, every major crisis has been judged through that lens. Insurgencies, wars, or cross-border clashes prompted leaders to set aside rivalries and strengthen their armies and nuclear defenses. Even now, budgets and diplomacy reflect this focus. Endurance of the state comes first. In the realist view, Pakistan can work with the world on trade, climate, or development. But such cooperation has limits. It must never weaken defense. If global norms conflict with national interests, Islamabad chooses survival. This principle is constant. Realism is not an abstract theory in Pakistan. It is the foundation of its politics and foreign policy.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s history and policies reveal a clear pattern: survival comes before everything else. From Jinnah’s early warnings to nuclear tests in 1998 and the balancing of alliances during the Cold War, each choice has been shaped by the need to secure sovereignty. Today, as great-power rivalries sharpen and regional tensions persist, Islamabad continues to follow the realist path. Defense and deterrence remain central, while cooperation with global actors is pursued only when it does not compromise core security interests. For Pakistan, realism is not theory but practice, and national survival will always guide its place in world politics.

You May Like To Read: Pakistan Condemns Israel’s Plan to Forcibly Displace Palestinians