Waltz also made an important point about the balance of power dynamic, which was that smaller states will eventually side with the weaker rising power and will band together in order to protect themselves from the stronger hegemonic power. Those smaller states who do in fact side with the stronger hegemonic power are actually in it to accrue power for themselves and in a sense take advantage of the policy of world hegemony while it is possible. Some of the smaller states in recent years who did in fact side with the stronger hegemonic power – and one must note that there are not many of them – are Ukraine, Israel, Afghanistan, and South Korea.
Thus, the general rule is that smaller states will band together against the stronger hegemonic power and will eventually side with the weaker rising power in order to protect and secure themselves from the stronger hegemonic power, as Waltz argued. One might also be interested in knowing where the policy of global hegemony on the part of Washington even comes from. We mentioned polarization as a byproduct of a policy of global hegemony on a number of occasions in the past, and as we have noted, the origins of polarization are largely mysterious. But if there were an identifiable surface origin or source for polarization in a society, the source would be the policy of global hegemony on the part of the European colonial power who is imposing the policy from the top. Hence, when we talk about a policy of global hegemony emanating out of Washington, we are talking above and beyond just Washington.
In turn, many of the best and brightest in society are drawn towards what can be considered “The Great Game” which happens to be the aim or focus of a policy of global hegemony. Because so much of the society’s energy and resources are directed by the state towards “The Great Game” as a result of a policy of global hegemony, the most educated and experienced people in society and the ones who think most deeply are then drawn towards the state and its policy of global hegemony. Moreover, and as we have discussed before in our discussion about Western penal theory, a certain level of criminality is required for the “Great Game.”
In short, if a criminal mindset and risk aversion can be used for the intents and purposes and the designs and schemes of the state and its policy of global hegemony, then the criminality is permitted and it is given the green light. But if one were to commit petty crimes, then the hammer comes down. And when one combines education and experience with a criminal mindset and with risk aversion, you get a president or a former president or a prime minister as well as the top brass of a military and intelligence service.
In short, criminality exists on all levels of the social hierarchy, and in fact, a certain level of criminality is expected and is totally normal. Criminality exists on both the state level and the societal level. In turn, there is no beautiful criminality on one hand or ugly criminality on the other hand. Criminality is criminality. But it happens to be that one level of criminality and one set of criminals are permitted and are sanctioned by the state, while the other level and another set of criminals are demonized and trivialized. Why is this the case? For one, many people do not have the education or the experiences to transform their criminal mindset and risk-averse behavior for the intents and purposes and designs and schemes of global hegemony. Another issue is that the state does not have the resources anymore to invest in everyone as required by international law. Also, the state cannot co-opt everyone for a policy of global hegemony and for the “Great Game.” That would be utterly impossible, both logically and logistically. Moreover, the “Great Game” is not turning out in Washington’s favor, and the reasons for why the “Great Game” is not turning out in Washington’s favor are both complex and diverse.