their defense budgets, signaling a paradigm shift from political liberalism to realism.

Some political analysts also argue that the very nature of war could also be explained

by realism.

So, what is political realism in international relations?

Let's find out with PAA.

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to what people also ask, where I search something seemingly

obvious and share with you some of its PAA, aka People Also Ask, which is a feature telling

you what other people are searching on Google that relates to your query.

Today's keyword is Political Realism, we will talk about what it is, its basic assumptions,

principles, and critiques.

So What does realism mean in international relations?

According to an article published on the official website of Mount Holyoke College which is

a private liberal art college in South Hadley, Massachusetts, Realism is an approach to the

study and practice of international politics.

It emphasizes the role of the nations and makes a broad assumption that all nations

are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.

According to Wikipedia's Realism entry and an article titled “Introducing Realism in

International Relations Theory” published on E-International Relations which is an open-access

website covering international relations and international politics., Realism encompasses

a range of concepts that seem to center around a few fundamental assumptions: 1.State-centrism

The first assumption of realism is that the nation is the principal actor in international relations.

Other bodies exist, such as individuals or organizations, but their power is limited.

2.Nations live in a context of anarchy.

The international political system is anarchic, as there is

no supranational authority to enforce rules; The often-used analogy of there being

'no one to call' in an international emergency might help to underline this point.

Within our own countries, we typically have police forces, militaries, courts, and so

on.

There is an expectation that these institutions will "do something" in the event of an emergency.

However, there is no clear expectation of anyone or anything 'doing something ' on

a global scale because there is no defined hierarchy.

As a result, nations can only rely on themselves in the end.

3.Rationality and egoism. Decision-makers are rational actors in the sense that rational

decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest, and nations act in their

rational self-interest within the international system.

4.Power Politics.

Realists believe world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict

among nations pursuing wealth and power, and nations desire power to ensure self-preservation.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles that can be used to guide the behaviors

of all nations.

Instead, a nation must be constantly aware of the acts of its neighboring countries and

take a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they emerge.

A lack of trust in each other's motives leads to mistrust and competition between nations.

Realism does not favor any particular moral philosophy, nor does it consider ideology

to be a major factor in the behavior of nations.

However, realists are generally critical of liberal foreign policy, which we will discuss

later in this video.

Some figures frequently cited as realists include Thucydides, Niccol Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Max Weber.

So What are some examples of realism?

The aforementioned article published on E-International Relations provides some examples explaining

international relations with realism.

One example is the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union during World War II

and Cold War.

During World War II in 1939–1945, the United States and the Soviet Union were allies because

they both perceived a rising Germany as a threat and tried to balance it.

However, within a few years after the war's end, the nations had become bitter enemies,

and the balance of power began to change once more when new alliances were formed during

the Cold War.

Another example is the conflict between the West, Arabic countries and the Islamic State

Group.

The article argues that nations count on self-help for guaranteeing their own security.

Within this context, realists have two main strategies for managing insecurity:

the balance of power and deterrence.

Deterrence relies on the threat or use of substantial force, whereas the balance of

power relies on strategic, flexible alliances.

In this example, both are in evidence.

The United States, Russia, and France — rely on a variety of fair-weather alliances with

regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.

And, deterring the enemy with overwhelming, superior force or the prospect of doing so

was seen as the quickest way to reclaim control of Islamic State-controlled territory.

On the other hand, from a realistic point of view, the Islamic State organization is utilizing

the few resources at its disposal to offset Western influence in Iraq and Syria by spreading

terror.

Because, first, it would exacerbate anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East by making local

inhabitants the target of foreign attacks.

Second, the sense of injustice fostered by these assaults allows for the spontaneous

recruitment of militants eager to die to further the group's objectives - this is true both

for individuals in the immediate region and for those who are exposed to Islamic State

propaganda on the internet.

Realists often argue that realism is called realism for a reason since it's more realistic

and seems to be a more reliable model to describe, explain, and predict events in international relations.

Or is it?

So What are some critiques of political realism?

It should come as no surprise that political realism received a number of academic critiques;

I've compiled a list of the major critiques of Political Realism from PAA articles as

follow: 1.Encourage War and Conflict Realism's critics argue that realists can perpetuate

the violent and confrontational world that they describe.

By assuming the uncooperative and egoistic nature of humankind and the absence of hierarchy

in the state system, realists encourage leaders to act in ways based on suspicion, power,

and force.

As a result, realism might be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Realists, on the other hand, believe that leaders face endless constraints and limited

opportunities for collaboration.

As a result, they have few alternatives for escaping the realities of power politics.

For a realist, facing the reality of one's situation is prudent and rational.

Realists also often argue that realism actually encourages the leader to be extremely cautious

when deciding where and when to use military power and only use it when it serves your

national interests.

For example, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, undertaken as part of the Global War on Terror,

was opposed by most leading realists in the US as a misuse of power that would not serve

the US national interests.

2.Democratic peace theory Democratic peace theory claims that realism does not apply

to democratic state-to-state relations because studies show that democratic states do not

go to war with one another.

Realists and proponents of other schools, on the other hand, have criticized both this

claim and the studies that appear to back it up, claiming that the definitions of "war"

and "democracy" need to be tweaked to achieve the desired result to support the democratic

peace theory.

3.Inconsistent with non-European politics. Scholars have argued that realist theories,

particularly realist conceptions of anarchy and power balances, have not characterized

East Asian and African international systems.

4.State-centrism. Realist theories of international relations have been criticized for assuming

that nations are fixed and unitary units.

One analogy is that it sees states as solid pool balls bouncing around a table, never

pausing to examine what's inside each one and why it moves the way it does.

5.Fail to predict or explain the more recent transformation of the international system.

The conclusion of the Cold War between the United States of America and the Soviet Union

in 1991 is one such example.

When the Cold War ended, international politics shifted quickly, pointing to a new period

of less state competition and significant potential for collaboration.

As a result of this transition, an optimistic vision of international politics emerged,

dismissing realism as "old thinking."

6.Associate with Appeasement. It might sound weird that a theory focusing on the competing

nature of international relations is associated with appeasement, but remember I mentioned

earlier, realism actually encourages the leader to only use military force when it serves

their national interests and generally opposes liberal interventionism, an idea propose that

liberal international organizations and nations can intervene in other nations in order to

pursue liberal objectives.

As a result, In the mid-20th century, realism was seen as discredited in the United Kingdom

due to its association with appeasement in the 1930s.

It re-emerged slowly during the Cold War.

So since we mentioned liberalism, I think it's a good time to talk about it as an

opposing theory of realism.

So What are the differences between realism and liberalism in international relations?

According to Wikipedia's entry of Liberalism, International liberalism is a school of thought

in international relations theory that is based on three ideas: 1.It calls into question

realism's security/warfare foundations by rejecting power politics in international relations.

2.Emphasis Mutual benefits and international cooperation 3.Recognize the role of international

organizations and non-governmental actors in shaping state preferences and policy choices

Supporters of liberalism often believe in the spreading of democracy through cooperation.

However, a more radical form of liberal interventionism believes liberal international organizations

or countries can intervene in other states in order to pursue liberal objectives, sometimes

even through military intervention.

International Liberalism sounds like a good idea in general, after all, who doesn't

want to live in a world where all countries are democratized, as well as living peacefully,

cooperating, and prospering together.

Some argue, however, that International Liberalism, especially liberal interventionism might be

a form of idealism that fails to recognize the reality of power politics and if decision-makers

make decisions solely based on liberalism, it could lead to many unintended consequences.

One article published on Foreign Policy titled “The World Wants You to Think Like a Realist”

written by Stephen Walt who is an American political scientist at Harvard University

argues that if you think like a realist many confusing aspects of world politics will become

easier to understand.

And if you think like a realist, you are more likely to act with a degree of prudence, and

you'll be less likely to see opponents as purely evil or see your own country as

wholly virtuous and less likely to embark on open-ended moral crusades.

And he argues, Ironically if more people thought like realists, the prospects for peace would

actually go up.

I do not 100% agree with his idea but I highly recommend reading this article, I will put

the link in the description.

Okay, let's recap.

Today we learned what is Realism in International Relations, some examples and critics of realism,

as well as its comparison with the opposing theory of liberalism.

If you made it to the end of the video, chances are that you enjoy learning what people also ask on Google.

But let's face it, reading PAA yourself will be a pain.

So here's the deal, I will do the reading for you and upload a video compiling some

fun PAAs once a week, all you have to do is to hit the subscribe button and the bell icon

so you won't miss any PAA report that I compile.

So just do it right now.

Bye!