To start this piece, firstly, I want to refer to one of the quotes from John J. Mearsheimer, who writes: “In the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi.” At first, reading that line might seem strange. Thoughts coming into our heads on: Why do we even have to choose between Godzilla and Bambi, or are Godzilla and Bambi the only options? Are there no other options?
While that quote raises some questions, it might be relevant in today’s world. It is because that question implied an important message: in a world without a global police force and no higher authority capable of reliably protecting every country, what happens to those who cannot protect themselves?
Consider what the world has shown us recently. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has continued to reorder security thinking across Europe and beyond. In the Middle East, the scale of suffering in Gaza and the continuing violence caused by Israel have kept the region unstable and have intensified debates about international law and human rights. In East Asia, Taiwan faces sustained pressure due to the rising tension with China. Then, there is a more shocking phenomenon that recently entered the news. The “capture” of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro by the US military operation.
While the discussion of human rights, international law, and sovereignty is important, these phenomena have starkly shown how the strong can act as they wish, and the weak often can only accept their fate. This hence resonates with the old dictum from Thucydides that said “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”
To be fair, the post-World War II order, supported by rules, trade, alliances, and global organizations, helped reduce barriers, expand markets, and improve living standards in many places around the world.
The long-run data support real progress. The World Bank shows that from 1990 to 2025, the number of people worldwide living in extreme poverty declined from approximately 2.3 billion to approximately 831 million, although progress has slowed in the last decade. Moreover, life expectancy also rose strongly across the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, driven by public health and medical advances.
Read More: What Does the Capture of Venezuela’s President Mean for the World Order?
Of course, that progress matters. It should never be dismissed. Yet it did not erase the basic structure described by the realist school of International Relations: the international system is anarchic; it lacks a central authority capable of enforcing rules equally against all powerful states at all times. This led to a situation in which, when major powers see their core interests at stake, they will break the rules. It is exemplified by various means, including the use of force, sanctions, surveillance, covert action, and economic pressure.
Hence, this is where the Godzilla and Bambi lesson becomes relevant. “Being Godzilla” should not be interpreted as implying recklessness, brutality, or expansionism. That approach produces enemies and invites pushback. Furthermore, it also corrodes domestic accountability. Rather, a better interpretation is simpler: a state needs enough power and competence to avoid becoming an easy “Bambi” target by the “Godzillas.”
Becoming a Godzilla requires at least several parts. First, security. A country needs credible deterrence. Deterrence is the process of dissuading harmful behavior through the threat of significant punishment. It does not necessarily imply the largest army or the highest level of spending. It means clear planning, modern training, capable intelligence, and the ability to make aggression costly.
Second, economic resilience. Countries that rely on a single export, a single lender, or a single market can be pressured quickly. Diversification is important. It reduces the risk that sanctions or trade disruptions will undermine the state’s ability to meet basic economic needs.
Third, diplomacy and partnerships. A state that stands alone is easier to isolate. A state with active diplomacy can broaden its options, build support, and reduce the likelihood that a stronger actor will impose a one-sided outcome.
Fourth, internal legitimacy and governance. A country’s foreign policy strength depends on its domestic capacity. If institutions are captured by narrow interests, if corruption is routine, or if public trust collapses, the state becomes vulnerable. Hence, external actors can then exploit internal division.
Read More: Selective Globalization: The Fall of Alliances and Erosion of Balance
Fifth, information and technology. Power today includes cyber capability, surveillance, influence operations, and control over supply chains for critical technologies. Countries that treat these issues as secondary often learn the lesson too late.
If a country is unable to become the Godzilla, it must be prepared to become the Bambi prey of the Godzillas. The Venezuela reference reflects a “Bambi” situation by illustrating vulnerability in two ways. Economic collapse and institutional erosion has weaken the country from within. Moreover, geopolitical tensions with “Godzilla” then compound the damage through sanctions, isolation, and finally direct intervention.
So, Mearsheimer’s quote raises an important question for many states around the globe, especially in the current period of global instability. Should they choose to become a Bambi or a Godzilla? Because what happened to the “Bambi” of Venezuela might also happen to another “Bambi” in another place. Hence, in the meantime, countries that want to protect their people need strength that is disciplined, accountable, and focused on survival. It may sound cruel, evil, ruthless, vicious, and remorseless, yet it is the reality we are facing.
*The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Diplomatic Insight.
Bintang Corvi Diphda
Bintang Corvi Diphda is Research and Development Substance Officer in the United Nations Association In Indoneisa, and a researcher in the field of international political economy. His work is primarily focused on the economic dynamics of the ASEAN region, analyzing issues such as regional trade integration, foreign direct investment flows, and the geopolitical factors shaping Southeast Asia's economic landscape.
