Examining realism & its limitations in international relations

Abstract

Realism has long been regarded as the cornerstone of international relations (IR) theory, tracing its roots back to ancient thinkers such as Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Kautilya. Yet, this perception is not only historically dubious but also analytically misleading. When examining the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the emergence of new actors such as China and India, and research on “Cold War 2.0,” realism theory dominates the discussion in international forums on topics of power, security, survival, and state strengthening. However, my ambition in this essay is to offer an analysis of the readings by Mehmet Tabak, Jonathan Kirsher, and Alexander Vidman on Realism. Their book needs to be analysed in the forum of intellectual tradition, such as the Realism paradigm, Realism in IR, Realism in Foreign Policy, and its shortcomings, which they attempt to rewrite on Realism. This essay is divided into three parts. First, I examine Tabak’s position of realism as a disarrayed tradition both philosophically and in scientific traditions. He analyses Realism in International Relations, and forcefully challenges the so-called “consensus view” that reflects realism as a unified, ancient, and self-contained school of thought. Secondly, I then discuss Kirsher realism in an uncertain world, emphasising the realism and its basis for the American world order. Thirdly, I analyse Vidman’s folly of realism in relation to the “realist” philosophy of US foreign policy in Russia and Ukraine. As this essay will demonstrate, realism’s disjointed evolution, contested foundations, and practical failures expose it not as a timeless doctrine but as a backfilled, unstable tradition that continues to construct more confusion than consensus.