For years, realist thinkers have been banished to academia or ignored. …
Every single example of the “realists” in this paragraph have them being the ones telling politicians to avoid war and expansionism, the exact opposite of the “strong bullying the weak”! I think it is kind of insane how this is how “realism” is characterized in liberal media. And that too as a “strong bullying the weak” ideology! Liberals have unironically become full on bush-era Neo-cons.
George Kennan argued against NATO expansion in these pages in 1997, predicting that it would inflame Russian militarism and undermine Russian democracy.
Damn, I didn’t know people predicted the Ukraine war that far in advance.
What’s brought about this turn? In part, it is insecurity, the motivation of all bullies.
Day 1041 of me painfully begging people to stop psychoanalyzing their enemies.
Even so, the United States and its allies are stronger than Team Russia and China if they stand together.
I’m beginning to think that when this author decries “realism”, they think “realism” means “being in touch with reality”.
While Mr. Trump embraces some elements of realism — giving in to the strong and sacrificing the weak — his tariff wars and threats against peaceful neighbors could end up being as costly as the military adventurism of the previous liberal order. Rajan Menon, a professor emeritus at the City College of New York, told me that people who expect the Trump administration “to follow the playbook of realism” by showing restraint “are going to get very disappointed.”
Other than the continued use of nonsense categories like “strong” and “weak”, I actually agree with this paragraph.
After Athens sacked Melos, word of its brutality spread. Its allies turned against it. Athens lost the war. Noble ideas, it turns out, do matter.
I know nothing about the history of war but I would be surprised if this is how it actually played out.
Lmao, fucking bootling simps.
When NYT is swapping the narrative you know what time it is. TheHill was a month ahead ;)
It’s hilarious to watch this happen in real time. I’m guessing in a few months time they’ll be openly talking about the need to end the proxy war.
Some editor ran this piece through a shredder. The main content is good, but the headline and intro are terrible.
Here are the highlights:
One reason this administration is so disorienting is that U.S. foreign policy has been guided for decades by the opposite of realism. The key fights in Washington, especially in recent decades, were between neocons who wanted to spread democracy through war and liberals who wanted to spread democracy through soft power like U.S.A.I.D. contracts to bolster civil society.
…
While Mr. Trump embraces some elements of realism — giving in to the strong and sacrificing the weak — his tariff wars and threats against peaceful neighbors could end up being as costly as the military adventurism of the previous liberal order. Rajan Menon, a professor emeritus at the City College of New York, told me that people who expect the Trump administration “to follow the playbook of realism” by showing restraint “are going to get very disappointed.”
…
To Mr. Trump, America is a great power that Russia wouldn’t dare attack, and Ukraine is a pawn that can be sacrificed. But here’s the thing about great powers: They all decline eventually. Neanderthal realism doesn’t save them. After Athens sacked Melos, word of its brutality spread. Its allies turned against it. Athens lost the war. Noble ideas, it turns out, do matter.
The main fallacy there is the idea that the west is a force for good in the world. The harsh reality is that liberal democracy being portrayed as the sole legitimate form of governance amounts to nothing more than modern-day marketing for colonialism, serving as a pretext for Western invasions and global atrocities masquerading as benevolent civilizing missions. This is precisely what the author laments under the guise of “noble ideas”.
… But the leaders of Melos were braver than me. They chose to fight. The result? The men were slaughtered, the women and children were enslaved, and the island was colonized. Were they heroes or fools? If you think of them as heroes, you are a liberal internationalist, who believes that peace and security depend on just governments that abide by enlightened rules. If you think they were fools, you’re a realist.
i used to think boudica was a great example of prevailing sentiments at how we see realism and idealism. in the past she was as regarded as a example of the price you pay for liberal idealism, like melos; but now she’s regarded as an inspiring story that typifies the idealism that drives our world today.
