As an expert in the field of international relations theory, I'm well-versed in the nuances of various perspectives, including offensive and defensive realism. Here's a detailed comparison of the two:
Offensive Realism and Defensive Realism are two distinct schools of thought within the broader framework of realism, which is a major paradigm in international relations theory. Both theories are rooted in the belief that the international system is inherently anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to maintain order or enforce rules. However, they diverge significantly in their predictions and explanations of state behavior.

Offensive Realism posits that states are fundamentally power-maximizing entities. This school of thought, often associated with scholars like John Mearsheimer, argues that in the absence of a global government, states are constantly seeking to increase their power relative to others. The primary goal of a state, according to offensive realism, is to achieve security through domination and hegemony. This is because power is the ultimate currency in an anarchic system, and having more of it provides a buffer against potential threats.

Offensive realists believe that the structure of the international system compels states to act aggressively. They argue that even states with no inherent desire for expansion will be driven to increase their power because doing so is a rational response to the inherent insecurity of the system. In this view, the pursuit of power is not just a choice but a necessity for survival.

On the other hand, Defensive Realism offers a more nuanced perspective. While it acknowledges the anarchic nature of the international system, it argues that states are not necessarily power-maximizing. Instead, they are security-seeking entities. This school, which has been developed by scholars like Jack Snyder, posits that states primarily want to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Defensive realists argue that states will only pursue power to the extent that it is necessary to deter potential threats. They are not interested in achieving global dominance or hegemony unless they feel that their very survival is at stake. This perspective suggests that the behavior of states is more restrained and influenced by the specific security concerns they face.

The key difference between the two lies in their assumptions about the nature of states and their behavior in the international system.
Offensive realism assumes a more aggressive and expansionist stance, while defensive realism takes a more cautious and conservative approach to state behavior.

In summary, while both offensive and defensive realism share the view that the international system is anarchic, they differ in their understanding of how this affects state behavior. Offensive realism sees a more aggressive, power-seeking approach as the norm, whereas defensive realism believes that states are more likely to act in a way that is proportionate to their security needs.

read more >>

Defensive neorealism is a structural theory derived from the school of realism in international relations theory. ... In contrast, offensive realism assumes that states seek to maximize their power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony.read more >>