Realism and Space Exploration: Power Competition in the New Frontier
The realist theory of international relations, which focuses on power, competition, and the anarchy of the international system, offers a strong lens for analyzing space policy. From the realist perspective, space is not a "neutral" area of exploration and cooperation, but a new field of competition, where states strive to secure their power and survival. This dynamic closely mirrors the Age of Exploration, when European states struggled for control over new territories, trade routes, and resources.
Space as the New "Frontier of Anarchy"
According to classical realism (Morgenthau, Waltz), the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning the absence of a supreme authority regulating relations between states. The same applies to space: although there are conditions such as the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, these lack enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, powerful states act based on their national interests rather than a common code of ethics.
This dynamic is reflected in the modern militarization of space, such as:
The establishment of the U.S. Space Force in 2019.
Anti-satellite (ASAT) tests conducted by the U.S., Russia, China, and India.
The development of offensive and defensive space systems.
Just as the naval empires of the 15th-18th centuries used powerful naval forces to secure dominance over sea routes, today, states compete for control over orbital corridors, lunar regions, and space communications.
Space Policy as a Strategic Advantage
Realist thinking views space exploration not as a "neutral" scientific activity but as a mechanism to enhance a state's power. Space offers strategic, technological, and economic advantages, which can be used for:
Geopolitical prestige: Countries like China and India promote their space development as a symbol of power and international influence.
Military superiority: Military observation satellites and communication technologies provide advantages in modern warfare.
Economic benefit: The exploitation of space resources, such as asteroid mining, can lead to massive economic gains.
Get Athanasios Piperidis’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This competitive framework reflects the core realist rule of zero-sum politics, where the gain of one state implies the loss of another.
Space "Colonialism": A Repetition of History?
One of the key questions is whether space will follow the logic of historical colonialism. Realism suggests that, just as in the Age of Exploration, powerful states will seek exclusive access to resources and strategic advantages, creating exclusion zones or even privatized space sectors through companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the China National Space Administration (CNSA).
The U.S. Artemis Accords, which foresee cooperation among their allies for the Moon, are not signed by Russia and China, as both countries develop their own alliance for the Lunar Base (ILRS).
Countries with strong space capabilities (U.S., China, Russia) may create de facto "colonial zones" in space, excluding weaker states.
This brings us to a security dilemma, similar to the one that led to wars and tensions in the past. Any country that sees another expanding in space will feel compelled to strengthen its own presence, leading to a new form of space competition.
Emerging Multipolarity in Space
Space exploration is shifting from U.S. dominance after the Cold War, when they held a significant lead, to a multipolar model, where various players shape the landscape:
The U.S. leads through the NASA-led Artemis Program.
China is developing an independent lunar and space strategy (Tiangong space station, ILRS).
Europe (ESA) is trying to find a role among the superpowers.
Russia is distancing itself from the West and cooperating with China.
Private entities (SpaceX, Blue Origin) are creating new parametric threats in interstate competition.
This multipolarity strengthens realist predictions that space will not be a "neutral" area of cooperation but a new geopolitical battleground for conflict and power.
From the realist perspective, space exploration is less of a "global mission" and more of a showdown between states trying to secure territorial and technological advantages. Realism explains why, despite international agreements, powerful states continue to seek unilateral benefits and strategic control in space, much like the historical colonial discoveries. Instead of a "Peaceful Astronomical Organization," space increasingly resembles a "New International Theater of Power."
