What is Realism in Global Politics? This video looks at the Global Politics and International Relations theory of Realism, advanced by Political Scientists such as John Mearsheimer, that believes state power is of the utmost importance. Realists believe that because you can’t trust any of the states around you, taking care of your own interests, and focusing on the growth of your power should be of the utmost importance.
Sources:
Global Politics Guide, 2017, International Baccalaureate.
Heywood, Andrew. Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Mearsheimer, John J. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19, no. 3 (1994): 5-49. Accessed April 21, 2020. doi:10.2307/2539078.
Murphy, Robert, and Charles Gleek. Global Politics: Supporting Every Learner across the IB Continuum. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2016.
Sens, Allen. “Balance of Power.”
Images:
John Mearsheimer,
Merkawa Mark IV Tank, By MathKnight and Zachi Evenor – Own work, CC BY 3.0,
Flags by freeflagicons.com
source
Check out some more of my Global Politics videos here!
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-MZyeaK_bhvgZfBQ_AfjizWO27-YzXeB
I like your videos a lot because in very short time you explain the main ideas. But I must said that even you are not bad looking your teeth creates an ugly distraction. Please invest some money in that. You deserve it.,
Hi Mr.Korczyk, I am your student from John. G. Diefenbaker high school, I remember you was my social studies teacher back to 2019 or sometimes before Covid, and I was followed this channel at that time. Few years after I became a junior student in the UofC studying International Relations. I study the history and global politics all day. Just wanted to say thanks to you and this channel, it played a very important role to helps me learning politics and history, whatever from high school or in the college, helps me creating lot interest to my major. Everything you post in this channel is related to my major class! Btw I am very happy to see you even after so many years, that feeling is amazing, when I see your face it led my memories back to high school but hearing the knowledge of my major.
The reality in politics is the realization that God did not create this world in the complete perfection…
And this is achieved by the realization that interdependency and cooperation makes perfection and power…
You can not impose a policy where one does not have the same capabilities as you are…
Not every nation were created in the manner that what you have, are the same things we have…It is in sharing these gifts and developing it. To benefit everyone would be most ideal…Is that liberalism.to a certain degree…
Leadership of course are for those nations are capable and equipped to lead and acquire power….
why do you vapid academics always look so effeminate? that really says alot about why you are threatened by genuine masculinity because masculinity actually gets shit done. femininity only armchairs and talks.
I really appreciate your efforts. The video was really helpful.
Thankyou
Fantastic analysis and easy to understand. I am gladly going to come back and watch your videos to help myself with my geopolitical studies 👍
ur goood
Hi sir! im your new subscriber!
realism is rooted in paranoia.. I'm a second year political science student at the University of Western Ontario and I really appreciated this video, thank you
Thank you well explained
Oh so Texas is our big risk then. They even sell there own tea in the enemy state of Oklahoma they are also a huge state and the only one allowed to fly there flag at the same height. Thought to be had there.
Sadly, although Realism might not explain international politics perfectly, I think it is the most accurate theory that explains why states behave the way they do.
Preparing for exam and your explanation helped a lot. Thanks.
Realism should probably be rooted in reality. But then why is it a theory built entirely in academia? And how can Mearsheimer criticizes the reality of US policy on the basis of realism? Probably because realism (the theoretical objective optimal strategy) is not the only source for decision making. The only interesting subject is why. I see a number of reasons:
1) Politics (domestic and international) is not only a zero-sum game. It is not like chess.
– If it was a zero-sum game, it would be stable. Clearly, it is not.
– in a zero-sum game, everything should be objective: every actor should have the same information, the same analysis, etc
– Is nuclear deterrence – often used by Mearsheimer – a zero sum game?
2) Domestic and International politics interfere with one another (at least in democracies) and different segments of the population, lobbies, …need to be taken into account. It is not inconceivable that traitors, corrupt decision makers or "useful idiots" (wink wink, nudge nudge) also need to be taken into account.
3) As soon as we plan for the future, we are taking a risk as nobody knows the future
4) When taking a risky decision, risk sensitivity must be taken into account, including the possibility that the information is corrupt and/or the models you use are flawed
5) An element of chance will always remain. History is deterministic to a certain level, but certainly not entirely.
–
In the end, it is rather obvious that adequate decision making should take into account facts (realpolitik). This does not seem a groundbreaking concept.
But, the problem is that reality is complex, especially when there other agents are also at play. This is the premise of international relations that makes it interesting. Even physics is not considered purely deterministic today; how could international politics be?
–
So, in conclusion:
1) "realism" should be rebranded "naïve realism".
2) politics is not exactly like chess (sequential perfect information game); it is a complex mix between at least chess and go, backgammon, bridge and poker. Diplomacy is a good model of that game with very simple rules and endless possibilities.
3) Mearsheimer should behave like an academic to analyse and try to explain (as a genuine realist) what happened and why, rather than declare that what happened should not have happened on the basis of his subjective version of realism.
–
As a reminder, I hope Mearsheimer's infamous interventions in the media will follow him forever:
1) Ukraine should yield to Russia's demands of self-destruction because realistically, it has no chance of winning the war. War is bloody, so you should only go to war when sure of winning.
2) The US, NATO and the 141 UN countries that voted against Russia's illegal invasion should recognize "realistically" their demands will never have any influence. International law and institutions are not realistic, they have no merit and are useless.
3) The US and NATO should always yield to Russia's threat because it is in their best interest to believe that Russia could blow up the planet if they don't. Realistically, you should always yield to nuclear powers.
4) Nonetheless, the US should treat China as an enemy and go to war if needed because realistically they are catching up.
Great video – writing an essay on US–China relations and this helped me formulate a concise idea of how Realism can be applied when analyzing US/China. Thanks so much!
this was very very easy to understand now that I watched your video, thank you!
Thank you!
Thank you sir. Night before LLM exam…you saved
https://youtube.com/shorts/QENgmAQ_xpw?feature=share
Cheers for this, got an essay due that's about how useful Realism is when studying The Ukraine/Russia conflict and this is very helpful
👍
Sir please does realist believe that war is rooted in human nature?
Great video. Really distilled out the essence. Thank you.
seems like a facet of materialist analysis
I propose the idea of a continental order of independent system
I like the idea of a continental order