ographic ▁variable . ▁He ▁critic izes ▁M ear she imer ' s ▁reasoning ▁according ▁to ▁which ▁the ▁" sto pping ▁power ▁of ▁water " ▁prevents ▁a ▁great ▁power ▁from ▁ach ieving ▁global ▁h eg em ony ▁as ▁this ▁constraint ▁does ▁not ▁seem ▁to ▁apply ▁to ▁the ▁case ▁of ▁an ▁emer ging ▁rival ' s ▁capacity ▁to ▁exercise ▁influence ▁beyond ▁its ▁own ▁neighborhood . ▁As ▁L ay ne ▁states , ▁" app ar ently ▁water ▁stops ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁from ▁impos ing ▁its ▁powers ▁on ▁others ▁in ▁distant ▁regions , ▁but ▁it ▁does ▁not ▁stop ▁them ▁from ▁threaten ing ▁American ▁prim acy ▁in ▁the ▁Western ▁Hem is phere ". ▁Moreover , ▁he ▁finds ▁off ensive ▁real ism ' s ▁classification ▁of ▁regional ▁h eg em ons ▁as ▁status ▁qu o ▁powers ▁difficult ▁to ▁recon cile ▁with ▁the ▁theory ' s ▁emphas is ▁on ▁great ▁powers ▁as ▁rel ent less ▁power - maxim izers . ▁In ▁this ▁sense , ▁L ay ne ▁questions ▁the ▁ability ▁of ▁the ▁water ▁constraint ▁to ▁transform ▁a ▁power - maxim izing ▁state ▁into ▁a ▁status ▁qu o ▁power ▁and ▁contradict s ▁M ear she imer ▁by ▁arg uing ▁that ▁a ▁regional ▁h eg emon ▁remains ▁subject ed ▁to ▁the ▁quest ▁for ▁security , ▁thereby ▁st riv ing ▁to ▁att ain ▁global ▁h eg em ony . ▁ ▁A ▁second ▁group ▁of ▁criticism ▁addresses ▁the ▁issue ▁of ▁off ensive ▁ne ore al ism ' s ▁restrict ive ▁focus es . ▁Sch ol ars ▁have ▁critic ized ▁M ear she imer '