Post

To be fair, the Trump regime and fascist Russia are examples of why Realism has a place. Mearsheimer and Kissinger are just bad at game theory or trapped in corners. Realism alone cannot be the foundation of a doctrine. Otherwise there would not be any progress. The UN is progress (yet toothless).

I disagree. Both are good examples why 'realism' is fake - especially with current wars in mind. At best it is claiming obvious facts, which anyone with a brain can, but it underestimates how much structural and internal weakness of big players matters and ignores importance of smaller ones.

It can't be fake when actions are clearly grounded in it. Yet, it is 'empty as an doctrine' because it reduces policy to action and reaction. And that's where you are correct: by that reduction, people like Maersheimer are denying things like internal struggle or the importance of 'small' actors.

I can agree with that conclusion. I'd only claim my votum separatum when it comes to 'fakeness'. I would still call it fake because it is so much detached from reality that relationship with true, existing facts is at least casual or very, very basic.

The FT asked for my b'day so I'm not able to register & read this gift. Also, please post here much more frequently and please 🛑 posting on Xitter. We all should stay off the Musk platform - he is killing Ukrainians. Also, if you post here more often it will help to make this platform less silly 🙏

A “realism” that always lands on Moscow’s side isn’t realism. A real realist would look at Russia’s losses, its burning refineries and its strained budget, and push harder. Instead Washington is waiving sanctions. That’s not realism. It’s preference.

Realism is surrender with footnotes. Moscow supplies the talking points, the think tanks supply the Latin, and Ukraine gets told to be "pragmatic" about its own amputation.

Personally I consider 'realism' as a manifest of intentional ignorance and intellectual laziness. "Big countries matter, smaller ones should submit" so people should not care about internal situation of big players and should not even learn about all those 'small' countries.

It is worse. Appeasement was born from trauma of the 1st WW. 'Realism' is basically return to imperialism with complicated justification, which actually means: 'big countries are right, others have to submit'. Except it NEVER worked and 'small' countries do not submit, and often bring big ones down

Marxism was a class-based model with the motto, “Workers of the world unite!” Today’s motto should be “Models of the world unite!!” Can a society made up entirely of models really function?

This statement, though, very well could encapsulate #trumpRussia motivations: "big powers seek to dominate their regions — in Putin’s case, the former Soviet world; for America, the western hemisphere. Internal politics are irrelevant."

Quite right. Any paradigm of world politics that excludes domestic politics and the complicating “reality” of the interactions and intersections of global and domestic forces and structures is bound to fail. Good riddance!

Also for the lazy ones. After all 'realists' claim smaller countries do not matter, even if the 'small' ones are like Ukraine - the biggest country wholly in Europe. If 'small ones' do not matter there is no need to learn about them. It is worse than child's perception of grand strategy.

Putin wants to ruin NATO, so Trump wants to ruin NATO. Putin wants to take over Ukraine & attacked it, then Trump blames Ukraine & supports Russia. Putin is a war criminal with a warrant out for his arrest. Trump invites him to the US & is trying to get him back into G8 & G20 meetings. Traitor.