I struggle to see Putin's invasion of Ukraine as a realist initiative. If anything, it was fueled by a romantic notion of Russkiy Mir and (in hindsight) ludicrously over-optimistic assessments of the ability of Russian military forces to trigger regime change.
Quite apart from the charnel house of the ossifying front line, the huge cost of sanctions and the unhealthy Russian dependence on China, it has led to Sweden and Finland joining NATO and an unprecedented buildup in European defense spending. Hardly a strategic win. The idea that the West somehow pushed Vladimir over the edge seems like the weirdest form of gaslighting.
Realism at its best doesn't preclude the development of win-win alliances or interdependence through economic collaboration. It doesn't ignore the importance of public opinion or idealism in determining the policies of democratic societies. It simply recognizes that nations have interests and actions have consequences. When we don't have a diplomat like George Kennan to lay out a strategy with sufficient clarity, we can become increasingly unrealistic in our military adventures.
The potential development of a prosperous, democratic Ukraine on Russia's border posed a substantial risk, not to Russia's national security — Ukraine was never going to attack Russia! — but to the security of the Putin regime, as seeing their fellow Slavs living better could give Russians ideas. In this regard, invading Ukraine was a realist undertaking.
Also, there are natural resources in the Donbas.
What you say about the Russkiy Mir is not wrong, but there are realist elements to the Kremlin's thinking as well.
It's not just foreign policy, Trump also sees domestic politics as an amoral struggle for power. Though his current approval ratings don't exactly suggest "being very clear-eyed about one's strategic position."
" . . . the struggle to justify oneself ideologically—a step that the contemporary proponents of so-called realism are almost entirely forgoing." One could challenge that statement. Trump has traded The Rule of Law for The Law of The Jungle. His Department of Justice no longer dispenses justice but doles out Lawfare Retribution through its newly energized Long Arm of the Law. Might one consider Lawfare Retribution to be an ideological concept? At least if one ascribes to The Law of The Jungle. Stephen Miller, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin all idealize "realism" which basically is The Law of The Jungle.
I think that Sam Kahn underrates international liberalism. NATO had a pretty good track record until Trump came along. Yes, the U.S. and Europe have been slow to awake to the fact that the Cold War has resumed, but the response of the so-called “rules based order” was quite effective until 1989. There seems to be a slow reawakening of purpose at present. Furthermore, the growth in world trade offers a second route by which aggressive nations can be constrained. It’s worth remembering that even in the 5th century B.C. It was the Achaean League, not the Athenians, who won the Peloponnesian War.
Trump's only problem is that he expects rational behavior from people that are not rational. That is a business brain. Iran is controlled by religious fanatics that are frankly a death cult. Democrats are feminized and are a bundle of emotional dysfunction. Trump appeals to the electorate that are like him... see the world from a perspective of rational assessment, cost-benefit, risk-reward... and are good with making short-term pain choices to serve long-term goals for improvement. But his enemies are frustrating to him because they don't operate on the same cognitive wavelength. He makes judgement mistakes because he just cannot accept that some people in positions of power and control don't make rational decisions... and are willing to destroy themselves and everything around them for reasons that are really just resentfulness and jealousy of others. Trump does not really understand the world of malcontents.
I struggle to see Putin's invasion of Ukraine as a realist initiative. If anything, it was fueled by a romantic notion of Russkiy Mir and (in hindsight) ludicrously over-optimistic assessments of the ability of Russian military forces to trigger regime change.
Quite apart from the charnel house of the ossifying front line, the huge cost of sanctions and the unhealthy Russian dependence on China, it has led to Sweden and Finland joining NATO and an unprecedented buildup in European defense spending. Hardly a strategic win. The idea that the West somehow pushed Vladimir over the edge seems like the weirdest form of gaslighting.
Realism at its best doesn't preclude the development of win-win alliances or interdependence through economic collaboration. It doesn't ignore the importance of public opinion or idealism in determining the policies of democratic societies. It simply recognizes that nations have interests and actions have consequences. When we don't have a diplomat like George Kennan to lay out a strategy with sufficient clarity, we can become increasingly unrealistic in our military adventures.
The potential development of a prosperous, democratic Ukraine on Russia's border posed a substantial risk, not to Russia's national security — Ukraine was never going to attack Russia! — but to the security of the Putin regime, as seeing their fellow Slavs living better could give Russians ideas. In this regard, invading Ukraine was a realist undertaking.
Also, there are natural resources in the Donbas.
What you say about the Russkiy Mir is not wrong, but there are realist elements to the Kremlin's thinking as well.
It's not just foreign policy, Trump also sees domestic politics as an amoral struggle for power. Though his current approval ratings don't exactly suggest "being very clear-eyed about one's strategic position."
" . . . the struggle to justify oneself ideologically—a step that the contemporary proponents of so-called realism are almost entirely forgoing." One could challenge that statement. Trump has traded The Rule of Law for The Law of The Jungle. His Department of Justice no longer dispenses justice but doles out Lawfare Retribution through its newly energized Long Arm of the Law. Might one consider Lawfare Retribution to be an ideological concept? At least if one ascribes to The Law of The Jungle. Stephen Miller, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin all idealize "realism" which basically is The Law of The Jungle.
I think that Sam Kahn underrates international liberalism. NATO had a pretty good track record until Trump came along. Yes, the U.S. and Europe have been slow to awake to the fact that the Cold War has resumed, but the response of the so-called “rules based order” was quite effective until 1989. There seems to be a slow reawakening of purpose at present. Furthermore, the growth in world trade offers a second route by which aggressive nations can be constrained. It’s worth remembering that even in the 5th century B.C. It was the Achaean League, not the Athenians, who won the Peloponnesian War.
Trump's only problem is that he expects rational behavior from people that are not rational. That is a business brain. Iran is controlled by religious fanatics that are frankly a death cult. Democrats are feminized and are a bundle of emotional dysfunction. Trump appeals to the electorate that are like him... see the world from a perspective of rational assessment, cost-benefit, risk-reward... and are good with making short-term pain choices to serve long-term goals for improvement. But his enemies are frustrating to him because they don't operate on the same cognitive wavelength. He makes judgement mistakes because he just cannot accept that some people in positions of power and control don't make rational decisions... and are willing to destroy themselves and everything around them for reasons that are really just resentfulness and jealousy of others. Trump does not really understand the world of malcontents.
This is the best explanation of realism out there, everyone needs to read the originator of this policy: Morganthau!