Realism (international relations) Puns

I’m fascinated by international relations. The two major schools (epistemologies or interpretations of the world) seem to be liberalism and realism.

Introductions to the two can be found below:

Realism: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ

Liberalism: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbDMUaqwE8

Realism and liberalism and all the IR theories that I have been exposed to look on how war starts/preventing war. But I’d argue that lack of war doesn’t necessarily equate peace and prosperity. So why aren’t times of peace studied as heavily?

Please help me to make sure that I understand 'realpolitik' or political realism correctly. l don't mean the historical origins of it, I mean the mindset behind it with regards to contemporary political decision making.

It is my understanding that political realism is being used to describe the idea, that rather than taking a normative or ideology based approach, politics requires a realistic understanding of the circumstances, e.g. who to form an alliance with and who to oppose, the potential effects of political decisions, etc.

All based on the idea that countries are competing for a limited amount of resources everybody requires to keep their own nation on the top. Coercion might be used if it is considered to have no / little repercussions from other actors. Basically international politics are perceived as a zero sum game.

Did I get that roughly right? The term is being thrown around so much, I just want to know if this is what is meant by it.

Thanks! My student days are long over and I only took foundation classes in political science before I switched my major. So any help is appreciated!

A note from the author (me). Skip this if you're not an IR weeb.

There was some good criticism and discussion on the previous post. I appreciate it, keep it coming. A lot of those came down to disagreements with how I classified the state – yes, it's a contested concept, and I didn't do the discussion of it justice, but it's functional for now and I only have so much space. Others came from my choice of which schools to represent and why I chose that structure in the first place. I think this ordering is the one that is easiest to understand if you have no familiarity of the subject considering the space I have, in particular because I will be referencing these functions of the state, both internally and externally, throughout this series. I will be including the 'great debates' as well, starting from this post. Constructivism will make an appearance, don't worry.

Another note (from me too thanks, don't skip this one though): Take heed of the fact that to some degree, the classifications of the schools and who belongs to which one is arbitrary. Few IR scholars will lock themselves into a single school. Particularly for the schools outside Liberalism and Realism there's disagreement over whether something's a school at all. This is even moreso the case for politicians. Consider the economics motto; All models are false, but some are useful.

#Post 2: Realism#

“Politics is the struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action” (Morgenthau, 1965).

Realism is the first school we will be looking at. But why Realism first? A few reasons:

Realism was the dominant school of thought in IR for most of its (short) history, and it could be argued it still is. It's certainly the largest when counting heads. Realism is easily the most popular school in the U.S, where most of you come from. If you talk to an IR student where you're from, large chance he/she's a Realist (see the FAQ for some discussion on why this is). (neo)Realism is a positivist and some would say reductionist school. Because of this it has some nice hot takes that fit into a single paragraph for you to annoy your friends with.

A Realist History and the first Great Debate

I mentioned in the previous post that the formal beginning of the study of IR came with Woodrow Wilson getting a chair named after him. Wilson was a utopian liberal (des

First, I don't think that any single theory can be 100% accurate in the social sciences. Nonetheless, I think the one theory that gets it right most of the time in IR is realism. Realism's basic tenets are

1. States are the primary actors in international politics

2. The international system is anarchic

3. All states are rational actors who seek to maximize their self-interests

4. States value security above all else

More specifically I believe that John Measheimer's offensive realism is the most accurate. Mearsheimer argues that states seek to maximize power in order to ensure their security.

I think that realism is the most accurate because historically it's how states behave. Even when people state realism is dead, as they did at the end of the Cold War, it always seems to come back as it has recently with events like Crimea. I also think that non-realist states get out-competed by realist ones which forces them to act realist.

Finally, in talking to actual foreign policy makers they seem to mostly fall in the realist camp, especially those who have been in the game for a long time. If anarchy is what states make of it, they have decided to make it realist.

> This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please ***read through our rules*. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to ***message us***. Happy CMVing!

Is there research on that? Obviously, Donald Trump does not seem to value absolute gains, instead he believes international relations are a zero sum game in which others can't win unless he loses. I can't really see how a center or left-wing party would agree with that.

Kissinger subscribes to realism and constructivism it seems, Bernie seems to be his own kind. Are there academics who are promoting a new paradigm of international relations?

I'm back, and with good news! One of my favorite blogs, Worldbuilding Workshop, has decided to pick up this series. New articles will be uploaded there first, then posted here a week afterwards. Here's the link for this week's post, and the next one---on law and order---will be up soon.

Also, I’d like to announce a new series I’d like to start: For Your Enchantment. At the start of every post, I mention that these are only to address real-world characteristics. Fantastic elements like magic and monsters can change things dramatically, and I don’t want to make these posts longer than they already are. However, people have consistently requested that I talk about these aspects, so For Your Enchantment will revisit every post from the original series and discuss how these might change in fantasy.

This post will talk about political dynamics within and between nations. You may notice I dropped “premodern” from the title. This particular topic is one of a few I’ve been asked to tackle that require this kind of treatment. Sometimes, it’s hard to find things that premodern societies all had in common that separate them from modern ones. This is one of those fields. There’s a lot of variation in governments and international relations, and what few things premodern civilizations had in common with one another are things that modern civilizations also share.

Because of that, I’ll be using general theory to address these areas. This should effectively cover most societies you’ll be designing.

Our sections will be internal power, international anarchy, trinity of war, and diplomacy.

Internal Power

• This section is largely inspired by Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s “selectorate theory,” which you can learn about through three methods. The book The Dictator’s Handbook contains a lot of great information on power within and between countries. You can also see the same material in its original, scholarly form in The Logic of Political Survival, or the more accessible YouTube video The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey
• There are two questions you should ask yourself when thinking about power dynamics wit

I was thinking today which IR theory (realism, liberalism, or constructivism), best explains the causes of the AUKUS agreement formed between the Anglophone nations, with respect to China's growing aggressiveness in the Indopacific.

Hi! I am currently a freshman taking an IR degree and I am having a hard time "absorbing" the knowledge to fully understand major theories of IR and I was hoping you guys can recommend some books for me to read :)

I'm currently learning for an exam in IR and I can't wrap my head around the thing I have to learn. Not in a way that I don't understand it, but in a way that I don't get the level of discrepancy between theory and reality.

Everything is about peace-making and -keeping, so-called just war (ius ad bellum and ius in bello) and all the major international organizations like the UN (SC) that are supposed to prevent war, war crimes as well as human rights violations. But the reality is that western nations constantly go to war in so called third world countries to supposedly bring democracy, when it's mostly about bringing them capitalism, oppress people and increase the sphere of economic and political influence. Thing like the Guantanamo Bay camp exist for almost decades without major intervention and popular theory of International Relations is just silent about it, as well as western nations or the UN SC.

Why am I not learning anything about this? Why do I learn about some theories, that appear okay-ish and little to now real criticism of the actual implementations or rather the non-implementation? I don't get it and I can't learn those things and know about how fucked up the reality is without getting angry!

Maybe it's a problem with Political Science in general, in which I observed this more or less everywhere, but it's even worse in IR. Do you guys experience something similar and if so how do you cope with it? Is this going to change after the Bachelor and do you perceive Political Science as uncritical as I do?

Hello,

I am a pol sci major/undergraduate and I've gotten very interested in IR theory and I think it would be fun and educational to have a group to talk about it with. Anyone interested in doing a book club/ reading group? We could meet by zoom. I think it would be cool to do it chronologically, so start with classical realism for example Politics Among Nations by Morgenthau then go to Neo Realism with the work of Kenneth Waltz Probably Theory of International Politics and then do Neoliberal Institutionalism and Constructivism. That is just one idea I am open to anything

Studying in London supposedly has a massive advantage for international relations students because of events and opportunities the capital provides sin the field. Should i go to a lower ranked uni like queen mary’s or royal holloway ininof london or go to a higher ranked uni like uni of manchester?

Hi everybody.

I'm a graduate student in an international affairs program in Washington DC, and this past semester in one of my classes we had an international crisis simulation centering on the Aegean dispute between Turkey and Greece, and actions by Turkey in Varosha and incursions into Cyprus's EEZ.

In the simulation, some students were members of the UNSC, others were American cabinet officials, and then others were representatives from the countries in question. I got to be the Foreign Minister of Cyprus, which was a great role to have, and for about a month I had the opportunity to learn about the region, Cyprus, and its unique relations with all the major powers.

My background is on China/U.S.-China relations, but I'm actually considering doing a thesis on Cyprus from this point of view because I think it's so fascinating. There are still a lot of questions I have about Cyprus and its international relations though, and after looking at this subreddit and seeing that there are a number of people here who like to talk politics and give their opinion about this, I was wondering if people would be willing to help me understand a few things better.

My questions are:

-Military-build up: Is it in Cyprus's interest to develop militarily? In 2019, Congress ended its arms embargo on Cyprus to support the energy/security alliance of Greece-Cyprus-Israel-U.S.. I assume that Cyprus would want arms to protect itself from Turkey, but it would be seen/portrayed as provocative by Turkey/Turkish Cypriots. So does the current government want this?

-UN peacekeeping force: How much does Cyprus and its people want the peacekeeping force to leave? It its continued presence on the island in Cyprus's interest, or does Cyprus see it in some ways as impeding an end to the island's division? Or would Cyprus rather it be expanded, say, to include Varosha?

-Relations with the UNSC: If I understand it correctly, while the UNSC is often divided over most issues, every member is on the same page when it comes to the "Cyprus Question" -- but not enough to actually do implement or enforce its resolutions against Turkey. Which one would be most supportive of Cyprus? Russia, the UK? And which one would be least supportive? The U.S., China?

-Relations with China: So relations with China, I understand, go back to the early Cold War when Cyprus was one of the earliest members of the non-aligned movement, and Makarios even visited China and met with Mao and Deng a few mon

I'm also looking at schools in Australia for the same. Which country's universities are better in terms of programs and job opportunities? Are there any other countries that have better programs?

I was going through some old saved posts and I stumbled upon this post by written by /u/Cal_Ibre where he attempts to detail the differences between "Western" and "Chinese" IR theory.

I was really interested by the post and the idea that the Chinese IR curriculum was broadly different from the West, and was wondering if anyone here has any insight into how IR is taught in China and how Chinese IR theories influence academics and even policymakers more generally.

Are the differences real are overstated?

I’m a junior in high school and would be applying as an American. I just visited Dublin and TCD a couple weeks ago for Christmas. And I absolutely fell in love with the city and Ireland in general. Honestly, I would love to study here but I’m interested in majoring in international relations and religion. I haven’t heard a lot about this online and just searching on the internet. Does anyone have some insight about this?

If possible, I'd like to learn the concept of realism (that is, the international relations theory) and how it could be used as an approach to explain the Cold War.

Likewise, what kinds of realist theories are there? What is the difference between classical realism and neo-realism/structural realism?

I would appreciate any information that could be simplified regarding this topic!

I'm back, and with good news! One of my favorite blogs, Worldbuilding Workshop, has decided to pick up this series. New articles will be uploaded there first, then posted here a week afterwards. Here's the link for this week's post, and the next one---on law and order---will be up soon.

Also, I’d like to announce a new series I’d like to start: For Your Enchantment. At the start of every post, I mention that these are only to address real-world characteristics. Fantastic elements like magic and monsters can change things dramatically, and I don’t want to make these posts longer than they already are. However, people have consistently requested that I talk about these aspects, so For Your Enchantment will revisit every post from the original series and discuss how these might change in fantasy.

This post will talk about political dynamics within and between nations. You may notice I dropped “premodern” from the title. This particular topic is one of a few I’ve been asked to tackle that require this kind of treatment. Sometimes, it’s hard to find things that premodern societies all had in common that separate them from modern ones. This is one of those fields. There’s a lot of variation in governments and international relations, and what few things premodern civilizations had in common with one another are things that modern civilizations also share.

Because of that, I’ll be using general theory to address these areas. This should effectively cover most societies you’ll be designing.

Our sections will be internal power, international anarchy, trinity of war, and diplomacy.

Internal Power

• This section is largely inspired by Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s “selectorate theory,” which you can learn about through three methods. The book The Dictator’s Handbook contains a lot of great information on power within and between countries. You can also see the same material in its original, scholarly form in The Logic of Political Survival, or the more accessible YouTube video The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey
• There are two questions you should ask yourself when thinking about power dynamics wit

I'm back, and with good news! One of my favorite blogs, Worldbuilding Workshop, has decided to pick up this series. New articles will be uploaded there first, then posted here a week afterwards. Here's the link for this week's post, and the next one---on law and order---will be up soon.

Also, I’d like to announce a new series I’d like to start: For Your Enchantment. At the start of every post, I mention that these are only to address real-world characteristics. Fantastic elements like magic and monsters can change things dramatically, and I don’t want to make these posts longer than they already are. However, people have consistently requested that I talk about these aspects, so For Your Enchantment will revisit every post from the original series and discuss how these might change in fantasy.

This post will talk about political dynamics within and between nations. You may notice I dropped “premodern” from the title. This particular topic is one of a few I’ve been asked to tackle that require this kind of treatment. Sometimes, it’s hard to find things that premodern societies all had in common that separate them from modern ones. This is one of those fields. There’s a lot of variation in governments and international relations, and what few things premodern civilizations had in common with one another are things that modern civilizations also share.

Because of that, I’ll be using general theory to address these areas. This should effectively cover most societies you’ll be designing.

Our sections will be internal power, international anarchy, trinity of war, and diplomacy.

Internal Power

• This section is largely inspired by Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s “selectorate theory,” which you can learn about through three methods. The book The Dictator’s Handbook contains a lot of great information on power within and between countries. You can also see the same material in its original, scholarly form in The Logic of Political Survival, or the more accessible YouTube video The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey
• There are two questions you should ask yourself when thinking about power dynamics wit

Why is Realism so dominant in International Relations Theory?

I already have a pretty general understanding of Realism (Human Nature, Anarchy, Security Dilemma), however I do not know how to make the connection to Realism's dominance in International Relations. Is it cause Humans/ States are inherently rational and only make decisions that would benefit them?

I'm back, and with good news! One of my favorite blogs, Worldbuilding Workshop, has decided to pick up this series. New articles will be uploaded there first, then posted here a week afterwards. Here's the link for this week's post, and the next one---on law and order---will be up soon.

Also, I’d like to announce a new series I’d like to start: For Your Enchantment. At the start of every post, I mention that these are only to address real-world characteristics. Fantastic elements like magic and monsters can change things dramatically, and I don’t want to make these posts longer than they already are. However, people have consistently requested that I talk about these aspects, so For Your Enchantment will revisit every post from the original series and discuss how these might change in fantasy.

This post will talk about political dynamics within and between nations. You may notice I dropped “premodern” from the title. This particular topic is one of a few I’ve been asked to tackle that require this kind of treatment. Sometimes, it’s hard to find things that premodern societies all had in common that separate them from modern ones. This is one of those fields. There’s a lot of variation in governments and international relations, and what few things premodern civilizations had in common with one another are things that modern civilizations also share.

Because of that, I’ll be using general theory to address these areas. This should effectively cover most societies you’ll be designing.

Our sections will be internal power, international anarchy, trinity of war, and diplomacy.

Internal Power

• This section is largely inspired by Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s “selectorate theory,” which you can learn about through three methods. The book The Dictator’s Handbook contains a lot of great information on power within and between countries. You can also see the same material in its original, scholarly form in The Logic of Political Survival, or the more accessible YouTube video The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey
• There are two questions you should ask yourself when thinking about power dynamics wit

I'm back, and with good news! One of my favorite blogs, Worldbuilding Workshop, has decided to pick up this series. New articles will be uploaded there first, then posted here a week afterwards. Here's the link for this week's post, and the next one---on law and order---will be up soon.

Also, I’d like to announce a new series I’d like to start: For Your Enchantment. At the start of every post, I mention that these are only to address real-world characteristics. Fantastic elements like magic and monsters can change things dramatically, and I don’t want to make these posts longer than they already are. However, people have consistently requested that I talk about these aspects, so For Your Enchantment will revisit every post from the original series and discuss how these might change in fantasy.

This post will talk about political dynamics within and between nations. You may notice I dropped “premodern” from the title. This particular topic is one of a few I’ve been asked to tackle that require this kind of treatment. Sometimes, it’s hard to find things that premodern societies all had in common that separate them from modern ones. This is one of those fields. There’s a lot of variation in governments and international relations, and what few things premodern civilizations had in common with one another are things that modern civilizations also share.

Because of that, I’ll be using general theory to address these areas. This should effectively cover most societies you’ll be designing.

Our sections will be internal power, international anarchy, trinity of war, and diplomacy.

Internal Power

• This section is largely inspired by Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s “selectorate theory,” which you can learn about through three methods. The book The Dictator’s Handbook contains a lot of great information on power within and between countries. You can also see the same material in its original, scholarly form in The Logic of Political Survival, or the more accessible YouTube video The Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey
• There are two questions you should ask yourself when thinking about power dynamics wi