"I believe it is still true that conflicts among major powers usually stem from geopolitical rivalries but rarely from economic competition"
About this Quote
Kagan’s line is a provocation aimed at a comforting liberal reflex: the idea that trade binds great powers into peace. He’s not denying that economics matters; he’s demoting it from prime mover to instrument. The intent is corrective, almost prosecutorial, pushing readers to stop treating market interdependence as an antidote to conflict and start seeing power politics as the default setting.
The subtext is blunt: when major states clash, it’s usually about security, status, and spheres of influence, not who sells more cars or controls a supply chain. “Geopolitical rivalries” is Kagan’s tidy label for the old obsessions - borders, buffer zones, naval chokepoints, alliance systems, regime survival - the stuff that makes leaders feel exposed. Economic competition, in this framing, is a proxy fight at most: sanctions, industrial policy, and resource access become tools used in service of strategic goals rather than autonomous causes.
Context matters because Kagan has spent a career arguing against the post-Cold War expectation that globalization would dissolve hard power. Written in the long shadow of Iraq, NATO expansion debates, and the rise of China, the quote reads like a warning flare to Washington and Europe: don’t misdiagnose the problem and then prescribe the wrong medicine. If you think Beijing’s ambitions are mainly commercial, you’ll respond with tariffs and market access demands; if you see them as geopolitical, you’ll think in terms of deterrence, alliances, and credibility.
It works because it punctures an attractive myth with a simple hierarchy: prosperity may sweeten peace, but insecurity still drives war.
The subtext is blunt: when major states clash, it’s usually about security, status, and spheres of influence, not who sells more cars or controls a supply chain. “Geopolitical rivalries” is Kagan’s tidy label for the old obsessions - borders, buffer zones, naval chokepoints, alliance systems, regime survival - the stuff that makes leaders feel exposed. Economic competition, in this framing, is a proxy fight at most: sanctions, industrial policy, and resource access become tools used in service of strategic goals rather than autonomous causes.
Context matters because Kagan has spent a career arguing against the post-Cold War expectation that globalization would dissolve hard power. Written in the long shadow of Iraq, NATO expansion debates, and the rise of China, the quote reads like a warning flare to Washington and Europe: don’t misdiagnose the problem and then prescribe the wrong medicine. If you think Beijing’s ambitions are mainly commercial, you’ll respond with tariffs and market access demands; if you see them as geopolitical, you’ll think in terms of deterrence, alliances, and credibility.
It works because it punctures an attractive myth with a simple hierarchy: prosperity may sweeten peace, but insecurity still drives war.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Robert
Add to List
