The Oligarchic Fallacy: Why Mearsheimer and Sachs Miss the Mark on Western Foreign Policy
A Materialist Critique of State-Centric International Relations Theory
Introduction: The Problem with Smart People
John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs are brilliant scholars. Their critiques of American foreign policy—challenging NATO expansion, questioning Israeli actions in Gaza, warning against great power conflict with China—place them far outside the mainstream. They face professional risks for their heterodoxy. And yet, despite their intellectual courage and analytical rigor, both men operate within a fundamentally flawed modeling framework that undermines their predictive capacity and explanatory power.
The flaw is simple: they treat states as unitary decision-making entities. "America decides," "Russia perceives," "Israel calculates"—this language pervades their analysis. But states don't decide anything. Oligarchies decide. Specific networks of capital, operating through state institutions, make the decisions that get labeled "national interest." When you model the decision-maker incorrectly, everything downstream becomes polluted data. Garbage in, garbage out.
This essay argues that Western foreign policy becomes comprehensible only when analyzed through the lens of oligarchic class interest rather than national interest. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza—the very cases Mearsheimer and Sachs analyze most extensively—illustrate how a materialist model outperforms state-centric realism in both explanatory and predictive power.
The Realist Model and Its Discontents
Mearsheimer's structural realism posits that states, operating in an anarchic international system, rationally pursue security and power. NATO expansion threatened Russia's security interests; Russia responded predictably. This is elegant, parsimonious theory. It's also wrong.
The problem emerges when we ask: whose security interests? The average American worker gains nothing from NATO expansion into Ukraine. The average European benefits even less—indeed, German deindustrialization and energy poverty suggest they're paying catastrophic costs. So whose interests were served?
Follow the money. NATO expansion serves:
Defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman) who sell weapons to new member states
US energy exporters who benefit from European dependence on expensive American LNG rather than cheap Russian pipeline gas
Financial capital (BlackRock, JP Morgan) positioning to acquire Ukrainian assets during post-war "reconstruction"
The foreign policy establishment whose institutional relevance depends on maintaining the threat that justifies NATO's existence
These aren't national interests. They're oligarchic class interests operating through state institutions.
Sachs gets closer to the truth. He identifies the "deep state"—the continuity of foreign policy regardless of which party controls the White House. He recognizes that American interventionism serves elite interests rather than common citizens. But he doesn't complete the analysis. He still speaks of "America" doing things, of "US policy" as if it were a collective national project rather than oligarchic class war waged through state machinery.
The Western Political Religion
Before proceeding to the case studies, we must address the ideological superstructure that obscures these material realities. Western political culture functions as secular religion, complete with articles of faith that cannot be questioned without heresy charges.
Consider the sacred tenets:
"Democracy promotion" (spreading the particular political-economic system that facilitates Western capital penetration)
"Rules-based international order" (rules written by and for Western oligarchies)
"Humanitarian intervention" (military action to install compliant regimes)
"Defense" spending (subsidies to defense contractors)
Even self-proclaimed atheists and rationalists operate within these frameworks. The language is secularized but the structure is religious: appeals to abstract universal values, demonization of heretics (Putin, Xi, anyone who resists), apocalyptic narratives (existential threats, axis of evil), and most critically, the transformation of material self-interest into cosmic moral drama.
This religious dimension isn't incidental—it's functional. Oligarchic resource extraction requires ideological cover. You cannot tell American workers "we're impoverishing you to enrich defense contractors and energy companies." You must tell them: "We're defending freedom against tyranny."
Mearsheimer and Sachs, to their credit, see through much of this. But they don't fully recognize how deeply the religious framing penetrates their own analytical categories. "National interest" itself is a mystification—a way of universalizing oligarchic particular interests as collective goods.
Case Study: Gaza and the Gas Fields
Let's apply the materialist model to Gaza.
The Mearsheimer Analysis: Israel faces security threats from Hamas. The October 7th attack was catastrophic. Israel's military response, while disproportionate and tragic, follows from rational security logic. He criticizes the impossibility of defeating Hamas and warns of regional escalation, but frames this within traditional security studies.
The Sachs Analysis: Gaza represents a colonial project—the continuation of 150 years of Anglo-American intervention in Palestine. He identifies the denial of Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. He critiques Trump's "peace plan" as colonial trusteeship. This is much better. But it remains incomplete.
The Materialist Analysis: Start with the resource. The Gaza Marine natural gas field contains an estimated 1+ trillion cubic feet of natural gas, worth tens of billions of dollars. Who stands to profit?
Genie Energy—a company whose strategic advisory board has included:
Dick Cheney (former US Vice President, former Halliburton CEO)
Rupert Murdoch (media oligarch)
Lord Jacob Rothschild (banking dynasty)
James Woolsey (former CIA Director)
Larry Summers (former Treasury Secretary)
This isn't conspiracy theory. These are publicly disclosed board positions. The same financial networks that facilitated the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild promising British support for "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine) continue to profit from the colonial project a century later.
Now the Gaza policy becomes explicable. The depopulation and destruction of Gaza isn't irrational—it's perfectly rational resource acquisition by specific oligarchic networks. The ethnic cleansing serves the material function of securing territorial control over hydrocarbon reserves.
But here's where the analysis gets interesting: Hamas understood this dynamic. The Abraham Accords were creating a normalization process between Israel and Arab states that would permanently foreclose Palestinian statehood. Once Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states formally recognized Israel without resolving the Palestinian question, the colonial consolidation would be complete and irreversible. The gas fields would be secured through diplomatic fait accompli rather than military conquest alone.
The Al-Aqsa Flood operation of October 7th was strategically timed to disrupt this trajectory. By forcing a crisis that made the Palestinian question impossible to ignore, Hamas successfully derailed the Abraham Accords normalization process at the critical moment. From a strategic perspective, this was sophisticated political-military calculation, not irrational violence.
Israeli workers—those dying in military operations, those living under rocket fire, those bearing the moral weight of genocide—gain nothing from this. Palestinian civilians are murdered for it. American taxpayers fund it. But Genie Energy's investors profit handsomely.
"Israel's policy" is a mystification. The correct formulation: Specific financial interests operating through the Israeli state apparatus pursue resource acquisition rationalized through security discourse.
Hamas, despite Western narratives of their "defeat," continues effective military operations—destroying Israeli armor, inflicting casualties, demoralizing the IDF. The Trump negotiations have nominally conceded to Hamas's original demands. Whether these concessions will stand remains uncertain, but Hamas has achieved its core strategic objective: preventing the permanent erasure of the Palestinian question through the Abraham Accords.
Case Study: Ukraine and the Energy War
Apply the same model to Ukraine.
The Mearsheimer Analysis: NATO expansion eastward threatened core Russian security interests. Russia's invasion, while condemnable, was a predictable response to Western provocation. He advocates for a negotiated settlement recognizing Russian security concerns—Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions, demilitarization.
The Sachs Analysis: The war was provoked by NATO expansion and aggressive US policy toward Russia. He warns of nuclear escalation and advocates for diplomacy. He identifies neoconservative ideology and the military-industrial complex as drivers of confrontation.
Both analyses have merit. Both are incomplete.
The Materialist Analysis:
Energy: European dependence on cheap Russian pipeline gas threatened US energy exporters. American LNG, requiring expensive liquefaction and shipping, cannot compete with Russian pipeline gas on price. The Nord Stream pipelines represented an economic integration between Germany (Europe's industrial core) and Russia that would diminish American economic leverage over Europe.
Nord Stream was destroyed in September 2022. The official story (Russian self-sabotage) is laughable. Seymour Hersh's reporting points to US involvement. Regardless of attribution, the result is clear: Europe now buys expensive American LNG, German industry deindustrializes, and US energy companies profit enormously.
Defense: The $113 billion in US "aid" to Ukraine isn't charity. It's a subsidy to American defense contractors. The money goes to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics—who manufacture weapons that get shipped to Ukraine. The Ukrainian people receive bombs; American oligarchs receive profits.
Agriculture: Ukraine possesses some of the world's most fertile agricultural land. Western financial firms are already positioning to acquire assets during "reconstruction." BlackRock has signed agreements with Zelenskyy's government. Land that currently feeds Europe and Africa will likely end up consolidated into holdings controlled by Western capital.
Who benefits from prolonged war?
US energy exporters: ✓
US defense contractors: ✓
Financial capital acquiring Ukrainian assets: ✓
The DC foreign policy establishment: ✓
Who loses?
Ukrainian workers (dying in trenches, fleeing as refugees, infrastructure destroyed)
Russian workers (casualties in a war that serves oligarchic interests on both sides)
European workers (energy poverty, deindustrialization, inflation—the primary economic victims)
American workers (inflation, opportunity costs of military spending)
Here's the critical observation that strengthens the materialist analysis: the Western sanctions regime has catastrophically backfired—but only if you mistakenly believe it was designed to weaken Russia.
The Russian economy has not collapsed into "sanctions-induced poverty" as Western media predicted. Instead:
Russia reoriented trade toward China, India, and the Global South
Import substitution developed domestic industries
High energy prices generated enormous revenues
GDP growth outpaced most Western economies
Meanwhile, Europe has been economically devastated—German industry faces existential crisis, energy costs cripple manufacturing, inflation ravages working-class purchasing power. If the goal was to weaken Russia, the sanctions failed spectacularly. But if the goal was to break European-Russian economic integration, force Europe into dependence on expensive American energy, and weaken European industrial competitors—then the sanctions succeeded perfectly.
This is the smoking gun of oligarchic class interest overriding national interest. European workers pay catastrophic costs for a policy that benefits American energy oligarchs and weakens European capital in competition with American capital. "Allied solidarity" becomes comprehensible as intra-oligarchic negotiation where European elites accept subordination to American elites, while both extract wealth from their respective working classes.
The war isn't a "mistake" from this perspective. It's highly profitable for the oligarchic networks making policy. Mearsheimer is right that Russia perceived NATO expansion as threatening—but he doesn't ask why NATO expanded despite these predictable consequences. Sachs identifies the neocon ideology and deep state—but doesn't fully connect it to specific material interests.
If Western policy were determined democratically by working populations:
Would Americans vote to spend $113 billion arming Ukraine while infrastructure crumbles? No.
Would Germans vote to deindustrialize their economy to spite Russia? No.
Would Europeans vote to impoverish themselves via energy sanctions? No.
But working populations don't make these decisions. Oligarchies do.
The Predictive Advantage
A model's value lies in its predictive power. The materialist oligarchic model outperforms state-centric realism.
Prediction 1: Gaza ethnic cleansing will continue until territorial control over gas resources is secured.
The realist model suggests Israel should accept a ceasefire once security is established. The materialist model predicts continued depopulation regardless of Hamas's military capacity, because the goal isn't security—it's resource acquisition.
Hamas recognized this dynamic, which explains the strategic timing of Al-Aqsa Flood: the Abraham Accords were creating an irreversible normalization that would leave Palestinians with no state and no leverage. By forcing a crisis, Hamas successfully disrupted this trajectory. Despite Israeli claims of "destroying Hamas," the organization continues effective military operations—destroying armor, inflicting casualties on the IDF, and maintaining territorial control. Hamas has achieved its core strategic objective: preventing the permanent foreclosure of Palestinian statehood through the Abraham Accords normalization process. The Trump negotiations have nominally conceded to Hamas's original demands, though whether these concessions will stand remains to be seen.
Current reality: Ethnic cleansing continues, driven not by security needs but by resource acquisition imperatives, even as Hamas demonstrates it has not been militarily defeated.
Prediction 2: Ukraine war will not end until either (a) Russia achieves its territorial goals, or (b) Western populations force their governments to stop the resource transfer.
The realist model suggests rational negotiation once costs become prohibitive. The materialist model predicts continuation as long as defense contractors profit and European energy dependence continues, regardless of Ukrainian or European suffering.
Current reality: Despite catastrophic casualties and economic damage to Europe, Western arms shipments continue. The policy that "failed" to weaken Russia succeeded in weakening Europe and enriching American energy and defense oligarchs.
Prediction 3: Western foreign policy will continue to contradict expressed popular will.
The realist model struggles to explain why democracies pursue policies their populations oppose. The materialist model predicts this as the default: oligarchies pursue class interests through state machinery regardless of popular preferences.
Current reality: Consistent polling shows American opposition to Ukraine spending and Israeli actions in Gaza; policy remains unchanged.
The Methodological Path Forward
From a modeling perspective—the kind taught at Georgia Tech in advanced analytics courses—the oligarchic model is operationalizable.
Network Analysis:
Map corporate board interlocks between defense contractors, energy companies, financial firms, and government positions
Track personnel movement between private sector and "public service"
Identify central nodes in decision-making networks
Financial Flow Analysis:
Follow aid money: who are the ultimate recipients?
Track lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions
Map ownership stakes in conflict-zone resources
Predictive Modeling:
Identify resource locations and values
Map oligarchic financial interests to those resources
Model expected policy based on profit maximization for connected actors
Compare predictions to outcomes
This is what Michael Hudson does in economics, what C. Wright Mills did in sociology, what the better Marxist analysts have always done: follow the money through the system to see who benefits.
Addressing Counter-Arguments
Counter-Argument 1: "Even if oligarchs run the show, they must respond to geopolitical realities. Russia would still perceive NATO expansion as threatening regardless of who makes US policy."
Response: The "geopolitical realities" themselves are partly constructed by oligarchic interests. NATO expansion wasn't structurally determined—it served specific class interests in profit from weapons sales and European energy dependency. Alternative security architectures (OSCE expansion, European-Russian economic integration) were possible but rejected because they didn't serve oligarchic interests.
Counter-Argument 2: "This is just Marxist reductionism—reducing everything to economics ignores ideology, culture, religion, genuine security concerns."
Response: The materialist model doesn't deny that ideology matters—it asks whose ideology and whose interests does it serve? Yes, evangelical Christian Zionism influences US policy toward Israel. But why does this particular religious ideology achieve such political influence while others don't? Because it aligns with oligarchic material interests in Middle East resource control. Ideology is real and consequential, but it becomes politically effective when it serves powerful material interests.
Counter-Argument 3: "If oligarchs controlled everything, they'd simply install dictatorships rather than maintaining the complicated facade of democracy."
Response: Democratic facades serve multiple functions: (a) ideological legitimation—easier to extract wealth when it appears consensual, (b) pressure release—elections allow discontent to be channeled into harmless participation, (c) factional competition among oligarchs—different elite factions compete for state power while collectively excluding working-class interests. The question isn't dictatorship vs. democracy but which class rules under either system.
Why Mearsheimer and Sachs Don't Go Further
Both scholars are constrained by their institutional positions and disciplinary training. Mearsheimer built his career on structural realism; abandoning state-centric analysis means abandoning his life's work. Sachs operates within development economics and UN institutions; a fully Marxist analysis would threaten his continued access and influence.
Moreover, both men likely suffer from a form of Dunning-Kruger effect inverted: they're so expert in their particular domains that they over-estimate the applicability of their models to all cases. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a realist IR scholar, everything looks like balance-of-power politics. When you're a development economist, everything looks like policy failure.
But more generously: both men do essential work in challenging the dominant narrative. They oppose militarism, advocate for diplomacy, and face professional consequences for their heterodoxy. They're allies in any movement for peace. The materialist critique doesn't invalidate their contributions—it builds on them.
Conclusion: Toward a Political Economy of War
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza—like Iraq before them, like the coming conflict over Taiwan—become comprehensible when we abandon the fiction of "national interest" and examine which specific actors profit from conflict.
This isn't cynicism. It's materialism. It's the recognition that war, like any other human activity, involves costs and benefits distributed unequally across classes. Those who make war policy are rarely those who die in trenches. Those who profit from war rarely send their children to fight.
The analytical task is straightforward:
Identify the decision-makers (not "states" but specific oligarchic networks)
Map their material interests (resources, contracts, strategic positioning)
Predict their behavior based on profit maximization
Expect ideology to be deployed as rationalization
The political task is harder:
Build working-class consciousness of these mechanisms
Organize to assert democratic control over foreign policy
Create institutional structures that represent popular interests rather than oligarchic interests
Mearsheimer and Sachs have done valuable work in steps one and two of the analytical task. But they stop short of the full materialist analysis—perhaps because completing it would require abandoning their theoretical frameworks, perhaps because it would threaten their institutional positions, perhaps because they genuinely don't see the class dimension beneath the state-centric surface.
But the logic is inescapable: if you model the decision-maker incorrectly, your predictions will fail. States don't decide. Oligarchies decide. Until our analytical models reflect this reality, we'll continue to be surprised when "national interest" consistently aligns with elite profit—when wars opposed by majorities are waged anyway, when policies that immiserate populations are pursued regardless, when the same financial networks profit from 150 years of continuous colonial extraction.
The materialist model has superior explanatory power, superior predictive power, and superior moral clarity. It's time to complete the analysis that Mearsheimer and Sachs have begun but not finished.
Follow the money. Identify the oligarchs. Model their interests. Predict accordingly.
Everything else is mystification.
Written in the spirit of Mills, Hudson, and the better angels of materialist analysis—with respect for Mearsheimer and Sachs as allies in the struggle against imperial war, and as an invitation to complete the theoretical journey they've courageously begun.
The following link is to a project from this past summer related to the topic of western self-perception and perception of the west around the world: Concordance: People of the Book
