Lhe war in Ukraine has accentuated the already tenacious tendency to caricature what the “realism” in foreign policy. Many analysts claim this label to call for moderation in the face of Russian aggression. The trial in “lack of realism” targets both the alleged origins of the conflict and its conduct and prospects for an exit.
Before the war, it was the absence of “realism” which would have allowed the expansion of NATO, which would have “provoked” President Putin, who would have only defended his interests by attacking Ukraine, for which he is, therefore, almost excused. During the war, it is still in the name of the “realism” that we should not support the Ukrainians too much and provide an honorable way out for the Russians. And, after the war, the same “realistic” invite us to quickly normalize our relations with Moscow.
In this sense of the word, the realist is a kind of impartial observer of the balance of power, for whom there would be no “neither nice nor bad” – Russia and Ukraine are sent back to back – but only rational actors defending their interests. denouncing “hysterization” of the debate, wanting to embody reason against passion, this realist makes it a point of honor to exclude moral questions from his analysis.
What realism is not
Except that this position is not realism. This is what, more than half a century ago, the philosopher Raymond Aron (1905-1983) called the “false realism”, that is to say in reality cynicism. The realist matrix certainly shares several postulates with this attitude: taking into account the constraints of reality, recognizing the balance of power, being wary of abstractions and judging the value of a proposal by its feasibility, without having any illusions about the will or the ability of actors to respect the principles they invoke, to understand that States seek to maximize their national interest and are more often in conflict than in harmony, etc.
But, and this is a major difference, realism is not for all that amoralism. Ignoring or underestimating moral questions is not being realistic, since these questions arise and are part of ” reality “. They even arise more and more, because the normative pressure on the actors of international relations – States, organizations, companies, individuals – is constantly increasing: on the conduct of war, arms sales, the nuclear weapons, human rights, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.
You have 60.52% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.