Contemporary Geopolitics Through a Machiavellian Lens

The year isn’t even finished with its first month and it has already produced a few international episodes that are hard to read through anything other than the logic of power. A U.S. military operation in Venezuela resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to the United States to face criminal charges, prompting intense debate over sovereignty, legality, and precedent. In parallel, statements and pressure from the United States about Greenland’s status have strained relations with Denmark and raised questions about how far great powers will push territorial and security demands with allies. These, among other on-going conflicts, highlight how force and legal norms are in tension across multiple theaters of global politics.

This post is not an attempt to adjudicate every claim or rehash each event in detail. It is an attempt to use Machiavelli as a framework for thinking clearly about a recurring pattern: the tension between force and law, effectiveness and legitimacy, and institutions and contingency.

About Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) was a Florentine civil servant, diplomat, and political thinker active during the Italian Renaissance, a period marked by intense instability, foreign invasions, and fragmented city states. He served the Florentine Republic in various administrative and diplomatic roles, gaining first hand exposure to warfare, alliance building, and the conduct of rulers across Europe. His career ended in 1512 when the Medici family returned to power in Florence, leading to his dismissal, brief imprisonment, and political marginalization.

During his exile from public office, Machiavelli turned to writing, producing the works for which he is best known. The Prince (written in 1513, published posthumously) is a concise treatise on rulership that examines how power is acquired, maintained, and lost. In contrast, his Discourses on Livy offers a longer and more complex analysis of republican government, civic virtue, and institutional stability, drawing heavily on Roman history.

Machiavelli wrote in a context where moral authority, religious legitimacy, and legal norms frequently failed to prevent violence or political collapse. Rather than proposing a moral philosophy, he tried to describe the mechanics of power as he observed them, emphasizing contingency, conflict, and human behavior. His writings have since been interpreted in radically different ways: as cynical endorsements of cruelty, as sober analyses of political necessity, or as warnings about the costs of power divorced from ethical restraint. This ambiguity is central to his enduring relevance and to the controversies surrounding his name.

Many people associate Machiavelli with evil, but this reputation obscures more than it explains. Machiavelli was not primarily concerned with moral good or evil; he was a political realist writing in a period of extreme turmoil, violence, and betrayal. The survival of the Italian city states depended on strategies that were often brutal, unstable, and unforgiving, and Machiavelli took those conditions seriously rather than wishing them away.

Another common misconception is that Machiavelli advocated power at all costs. In reality, his focus was narrower and more demanding: state survival, political stability, and effectiveness under constraint. He was less interested in the celebration of power than in the conditions under which power fails. His work repeatedly warns that recklessness, excess cruelty, and the erosion of legitimacy ultimately undermine the very authority they are meant to secure.

Machiavelli’s Framework

Political Realism

For Machiavelli, politics was not primarily a moral exercise, but a practical one. He rejected the idea that political actors consistently behave according to ethical ideals, arguing instead that they act according to interest, fear, ambition, and necessity. Power, in this view, is not an aberration of politics but one of its central features.

This does not mean Machiavelli denied morality altogether. Rather, he separated moral intention from political outcome. A ruler who governs according to ideals alone, while ignoring how power actually operates, risks not only failure but the collapse of the state itself. His realism was descriptive before it was prescriptive: it sought to explain why states fall and why rulers lose power, not to glorify domination.

In modern geopolitics, this perspective sits uneasily with rules based international orders that assume shared norms and restraint. Machiavelli would likely treat such systems as fragile unless backed by credible power and credible enforcement.

“Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation.” — Machiavelli, The Prince

Virtù and Fortuna

One of Machiavelli’s most distinctive concepts is the tension between virtù and fortuna. Fortuna represents chance, uncertainty, and forces beyond human control. Virtù refers not to moral virtue, but to a ruler’s capacity for judgment, adaptability, decisiveness, and strategic foresight.

Machiavelli argued that while fortune cannot be eliminated, it can be managed. Leaders who anticipate change, act decisively, and adjust to shifting circumstances are more likely to preserve stability. Those who rely on luck, tradition, or inherited power without adaptation invite disaster.

Applied today, this framework highlights the difference between calculated strategy and reactive overreach. Actions taken under the banner of strength may still fail if they lack prudence, timing, or an understanding of second order consequences.

“I judge that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if one wishes to master her, to beat and strike her.” — Machiavelli, The Prince

Ends and Means

Machiavelli is often summarized as endorsing the idea that “the ends justify the means,” though he never used this phrase explicitly. What he did argue was more limited and conditional: when the survival of the state is genuinely at risk, rulers may be forced into choices that would otherwise be morally unacceptable.

Crucially, Machiavelli did not argue that all ends justify all means. He repeatedly warned that cruelty, deception, and violence must be measured and purposeful. Excessive brutality, he believed, breeds instability, resentment, and eventual collapse. The test was not moral purity, but political sustainability.

In contemporary contexts, this raises difficult questions about proportionality, necessity, and long term legitimacy. Machiavelli’s framework allows these questions to be asked without assuming that power itself is inherently illegitimate, or that legality always aligns with stability.

“In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court to appeal to, one looks to the end. Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honorable.” — Machiavelli, The Prince

Diplomacy and Force

Machiavelli viewed diplomacy with skepticism, not because it was useless, but because it often reflected underlying power relations rather than transcending them. Treaties, alliances, and negotiations were only as strong as the interests and capabilities that sustained them.

Force, in his analysis, was never far from diplomacy. Agreements held when incentives aligned and collapsed when they did not. A ruler who relied solely on goodwill or legal assurances without the capacity to defend them was, in Machiavelli’s view, dangerously naive.

Modern international relations are built on institutions designed precisely to move beyond this logic. Yet moments of crisis reveal how quickly diplomacy can revert to coercion when power asymmetries dominate. Machiavelli’s insight here is not that force should replace diplomacy, but that diplomacy divorced from power realities is fragile.

“Good laws do not exist without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws will inevitably follow.” — Machiavelli, The Prince

Points of Convergence in Modern Geopolitics

Power vs Legal Constraint

Modern international norms, including the UN Charter and principles of sovereignty, emphasize non interference and legal process. Yet the early January U.S. operation in Venezuela, which involved strikes and the capture of Nicolás Maduro followed by his transfer to the United States for trial, has been widely criticized as a breach of sovereignty and an alarming precedent. Supporters framed it as a targeted law enforcement style action against a leader accused of serious crimes, while critics treated that framing as insufficient given the scale and symbolism of the operation.

• Machiavellian view: A state may act outside formal norms if it perceives existential threats or strategic opportunities, and if it believes it can absorb the costs.
• Modern norms: International law prioritizes sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, and non violent enforcement, with limited and contested exceptions.

Coercion vs Negotiation

The Greenland crisis shows a different kind of pressure: coercion through rhetoric, economic leverage, and strategic framing rather than immediate force. U.S. statements about securing permanent access or control have been met with firm rejection from Denmark and Greenland, and have pushed NATO and European leaders to emphasize territorial integrity and Arctic security. Even where the end goal is presented as security, the method looks like a test of how far alliance relationships can be bent under asymmetric power.

• Machiavellian view: Coercive diplomacy is a tool in great power competition, especially when norms are treated as secondary to strategic advantage.
• Modern norms: Sovereignty and consensual diplomacy are core principles, and legitimacy often depends on process as much as outcome.

Effectiveness vs Legitimacy

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (beginning 2022) illustrates the clash between military effectiveness and international legitimacy. Force can seize territory and impose costs, but it can also trigger long term strategic punishment through sanctions, isolation, and counter balancing coalitions. At the same time, coalition support for Ukraine reflects an attempt to combine effectiveness with legal and moral justification, even when the practical constraints and political tradeoffs are visible.

• Machiavellian view: Effectiveness in securing state interests often matters more than moral argument, but imprudence can make even powerful states bleed strategically.
• Modern norms: Legitimacy and alliance credibility are treated as assets that shape durable outcomes.

Institutions vs Contingency

International institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and regional bodies were created to manage conflict and stabilize relations. Yet they are strained by geopolitical competition: alliances shift, security councils deadlock, and agreements are bypassed when power interests dominate. This does not prove that institutions are useless. It does show that their effectiveness is contingent on the willingness of powerful states to treat institutional commitments as binding, not optional.

• Machiavellian view: Institutions are tools and arenas of power, not guarantors of peace.
• Modern norms: Institutions express collective commitments to rules and conflict mitigation, even if enforcement is uneven.

Counterpoints and Tensions

To avoid reductionism, it is important to introduce several points of tension that complicate a straightforward Machiavellian reading of modern geopolitics.

First, Machiavelli’s thought cannot be reduced to The Prince alone. In his Discourses on Livy, he expressed a clear preference for mixed constitutions, civic participation, and institutional checks on power. He believed that republics, when properly structured, were more stable and resilient than principalities over the long term. Far from celebrating domination for its own sake, Machiavelli was deeply concerned with internal decay, corruption, and the erosion of civic virtue. His realism applied not only to rulers, but to institutions and societies as a whole.

Second, modern democratic norms and international institutions can be understood as historical responses to the very instability Machiavelli described. The rise of constitutional government, international law, and multilateral organizations reflects an attempt to mitigate the destructive cycles of power politics that characterized early modern Europe. In this sense, these norms are not a rejection of Machiavellian realism, but an effort to manage its consequences. They acknowledge power while seeking to constrain it through rules, legitimacy, and collective enforcement.

Third, realism in international relations has evolved significantly beyond Machiavelli’s context. Thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger systematized realism into a theory of international relations that accounts for state behavior within an anarchic international system. Unlike Machiavelli, who focused on the agency of rulers, modern realism emphasizes structural constraints, balance of power, and strategic interdependence among states. Power is not merely wielded; it is shaped by systems, alliances, and economic realities.

Finally, there is a crucial distinction between using Machiavelli as an analytical lens and using him as a justification. Machiavelli helps explain why states act as they do under pressure, but explanation is not endorsement. To confuse the two risks turning realism into cynicism, and analysis into apology. Machiavelli himself warned that imprudence, excess cruelty, and the erosion of legitimacy ultimately weaken states rather than secure them.

Taken together, these tensions suggest that while Machiavelli remains a valuable guide for understanding political behavior under constraint, his framework must be applied with historical awareness, theoretical humility, and a clear separation between description and approval.

Personal Remark

Machiavelli helps us describe some mechanics of power in contemporary geopolitics — not to validate them. Indeed, at a moment when global politics appear increasingly determined by force, it is striking how often modern leaders seem to forget some of Machiavelli’s own most important warnings.

Excessive force and cruelty are self-defeating. This is one of the most misunderstood points in Machiavelli’s work. He does not advocate unlimited violence. Cruelty, when used, must be rare, purposeful, and constrained. Persistent brutality erodes loyalty and breeds instability; while fear may secure obedience, hatred guarantees collapse. Recent U.S. actions illustrate this tension. The use of coercive power has strained relations with long-standing allies. Europe, which for decades relied heavily on the United States for security, is increasingly pursuing autonomous strategic and defense arrangements. While this may ultimately strengthen collective security within NATO, it also reflects declining trust. Transatlantic confidence appears to be at a low point, and even Canada, historically the United States’ closest partner, has begun diversifying its alliances, moving closer to Europe and deepening engagement with China. These shifts suggest not a rejection of cooperation, but a recalibration driven by uncertainty and overreach.

“And we have something else. We have a recognition of what’s happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.”
— Mark Carney, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026

Institutions are fragile but necessary. Despite his reputation, Machiavelli valued institutions, laws, and civic structures, especially in republics. Personal rule is inherently unstable. Durable power requires institutionalization. Corruption, not conflict, is the real enemy of republics. Conflict, when structured, can strengthen a polity; decay destroys it. Modern international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO reflect this insight. They are imperfect, slow, and often constrained by power politics, but they remain essential mechanisms for managing conflict and preventing escalation. Their weaknesses do not invalidate their necessity; rather, they underscore how difficult it is to restrain power once institutional credibility erodes.

Prudence matters more than purity. Machiavelli elevates practical judgment above moral consistency. The same action can be wise or disastrous depending on timing and context. Rigidity is a liability in unstable environments. Adaptation is not betrayal; it is survival. Recent geopolitical decisions illustrate failures of prudence on multiple fronts. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated how force, applied without credible legitimacy or strategic restraint, can trigger long-term isolation and economic damage. Similarly, U.S. actions taken without sufficient consideration of allied confidence or institutional processes have produced strategic costs that outweigh short-term gains. Machiavelli’s lesson here is not restraint for its own sake, but foresight.

Explanation is not justification. Perhaps the most important modern lesson. To explain why political actors behave brutally is not to excuse them. Machiavelli separates analysis from approval, description from endorsement, realism from cynicism. Confusing these distinctions has had tangible consequences. Russia’s justifications for the invasion of Ukraine failed to convince not only Western states but also many of its traditional partners, resulting in diplomatic isolation. In Venezuela, the removal of an authoritarian leader was initially welcomed by segments of the population, yet the failure to dismantle entrenched power structures quickly undermined that legitimacy. Likewise, proposed justifications for the attempted annexation of Greenland have found little support, even within the United States itself.

For readers who engage carefully, Machiavelli does more than describe the mechanics of power in his time. He also warns, repeatedly, about the consequences of abusing it. While his work may appear provocative or even unsettling, its enduring relevance lies precisely in this tension. Power can secure order, but only temporarily. Without prudence, legitimacy, and institutional restraint, power sows the conditions of its own undoing. In a world marked by widening power imbalances, Machiavelli reminds us that stability is not achieved by force alone — and that those who forget this lesson rarely escape its consequences.