I don't know when "realist" became the socially acceptable synonym for "amoral", but it's past time to recognize it and stop treating these so-called "realists" as respectable experts who have something constructive to contribute to the discussion..
The weird thing is, they're not even realists, or at least realists as I picked up back when I did securities studies classes.
A realist might say something like
"Russia has an interest in establishing a sphere of influence in states immediately to its west as a buffer zone. But similarly, those states have it in their interests to not be sucked into the Russian sphere of influence. Personal morality doesn't really have anything to do with this".
But it always seems to be pro-putin apologetics. Hell, I could take a neorealist stance and say
"It is in America's interests to see a weakened Russia. Right now, through an unforced policy error, Russia finds itself mired in a war with Ukraine. Supporting Ukranian martial efforts allows for further weakening of Russia at a tremendously cheap price and doing so is in American interests even before you get into knock-on effects of reinforcing European security in a broader sense. Personal morality has nothing to do with this."
But it always seems to be appeasers and Putin fellators for some reason.
The US is draining a formerly believed ‘Near Peer’ Military and political Adversary for the cost of military aid (along with NATO) and no danger to our troops. That’s what a sociopath like Kissinger would call Realpolitik.
They're realists in the sense that Neville Chamberlain might have been considered a realist, i.e. he convinced himself that if the dictators were allowed to expand to their "natural" limits, they'd stop and everyone else would have peace. Chamberlain's attitude seems to have been based on a naïve confidence in human goodness and a fear that the horrors of the First World War could return otherwise. I can't image what motivates these people; they seem to simply be apologists for dictators.
To be fair, Chamberlain wasn't nearly as feckless as popular history depicts him as. Everyone remembers Munich. What most people forget is that in the weeks after Munich, Chamberlain pushed for almost tripling the UK defense budget. At least in that particular instance, I'm pretty sure the reasoning was "stall Hitler until we have time to get our defense setup in order", despite saying peace in our time.
He was too late in coming to that conclusion, but was an intelligent man, and a good one. I think that Churchill described him fairly at his death. I doubt that any of the people we're talking about will merit that kind of eulogy.
I don't know when "realist" became the socially acceptable synonym for "amoral", but it's past time to recognize it and stop treating these so-called "realists" as respectable experts who have something constructive to contribute to the discussion..
The weird thing is, they're not even realists, or at least realists as I picked up back when I did securities studies classes.
A realist might say something like
"Russia has an interest in establishing a sphere of influence in states immediately to its west as a buffer zone. But similarly, those states have it in their interests to not be sucked into the Russian sphere of influence. Personal morality doesn't really have anything to do with this".
But it always seems to be pro-putin apologetics. Hell, I could take a neorealist stance and say
"It is in America's interests to see a weakened Russia. Right now, through an unforced policy error, Russia finds itself mired in a war with Ukraine. Supporting Ukranian martial efforts allows for further weakening of Russia at a tremendously cheap price and doing so is in American interests even before you get into knock-on effects of reinforcing European security in a broader sense. Personal morality has nothing to do with this."
But it always seems to be appeasers and Putin fellators for some reason.
The US is draining a formerly believed ‘Near Peer’ Military and political Adversary for the cost of military aid (along with NATO) and no danger to our troops. That’s what a sociopath like Kissinger would call Realpolitik.
They're realists in the sense that Neville Chamberlain might have been considered a realist, i.e. he convinced himself that if the dictators were allowed to expand to their "natural" limits, they'd stop and everyone else would have peace. Chamberlain's attitude seems to have been based on a naïve confidence in human goodness and a fear that the horrors of the First World War could return otherwise. I can't image what motivates these people; they seem to simply be apologists for dictators.
To be fair, Chamberlain wasn't nearly as feckless as popular history depicts him as. Everyone remembers Munich. What most people forget is that in the weeks after Munich, Chamberlain pushed for almost tripling the UK defense budget. At least in that particular instance, I'm pretty sure the reasoning was "stall Hitler until we have time to get our defense setup in order", despite saying peace in our time.
He was too late in coming to that conclusion, but was an intelligent man, and a good one. I think that Churchill described him fairly at his death. I doubt that any of the people we're talking about will merit that kind of eulogy.