‘Russia is dangerous because it is weak’

Robert Keohane was one of the first to challenge the theory of “hegemonic stability,” where power is no longer the monopoly of a hegemonic country, but is diffused through the interdependence of states. The professor emeritus at Princeton University talks to Kathimerini and explains how the war in Ukraine has undermined the power of international institutions. Is the decline of Russian power the factor that makes Russia even more dangerous?

“We do not have coherent, strong multilateral institutions,” says Professor Keohane. “Even if we put aside the countries of the South, which may have very different interests, there is not an encompassing organization in which the United States, China and Russia can work together effectively.”

International institutions function where member-countries have strong common interests. The professor observes: “Look at the European Union. It has been extraordinarily strong and has repeatedly defied predictions of its collapse, including with the Greek crisis, which it managed – very tough for Greece but it succeeded.”

We ask Keohane if, 30 years after the end of the Cold War, he thinks the balance of power between the Eastern and Western blocs has shifted again.

“The big difference with 1990 is that China is a powerful country. It was a very weak, poor and dependent country. And now it still depends a lot on trade with the West. It has lots of vulnerabilities, but it has got many strengths and it is very strong technologically,” Keohane replies. “The second big difference is that Russia is much weaker with a small economy. It is about the size of California. It has nuclear weapons, but also a military that after the war in Ukraine we realize is quite ineffective and misguided by a bad governance system. Russia is very clumsy. It has atavistic notions of its role in the world and these make it a dangerous actor, not a strong one. In world politics, the most dangerous actors are the weaker ones,” he notes, citing a powerful historical example: “Austria-Hungary was a dangerous actor in 1914, not because it was strong, but because it was desperately trying to maintain its multiethnic empire and therefore willing to take chances. Russia is dangerous because it is weak. China is dangerous because it is strong.”

According to Professor Keohane, this picture also reflects the theory of “hegemonic stability”: “Robert Gilpin’s view is that when you have the rise of a great power from a formerly subordinate situation to a strong situation, that is a point of danger in the system. The emerging power has not only lost its status but also its territory, so it has been taken advantage of. When it becomes strong again, it wants to restore its status.”

Could this insecurity lead Russia to use nuclear weapons? “I am always afraid whenever we have states with nuclear weapons that are losing a war,” he explains. “You have to be worried, but it is very hard to see how they could gain by using nuclear weapons. They could use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy part of the Ukrainian Army, but their problem with Ukraine is that they cannot govern. Russia should realize that there is no way they can control all of Ukraine.”

How could a new, post-war balance be found? “Together with Joseph Nye, we said that asymmetric interdependence is a source of power. That means that if you are more dependent on me than I am on you, then you are vulnerable to actions. Why didn’t the Germans read this book (‘Power and Interdependence’) every year? Why didn’t Merkel memorize our book? She did not do it and they made a huge blunder as they became dependent on Russian gas. They did not learn the lesson. They foolishly pursued wealth without concern for vulnerability.

Thus, the big lesson is that if you want to prevent new conflicts, you should always ask yourself about the asymmetries of interdependence. And if you find some which are against you, ask: Am I vulnerable or am I just sensitive? Europe was just sensitive to oil dependence, but it was vulnerable to its dependence on gas because it had no alternatives.”