WALTZ A GREȘIT. LA FEL ȘI MEARSHEIMER. DAR FARMECUL RELAȚIILOR INTERNAȚIONALE ȘI NEVOIA DE REALISM RĂMÂN INTACTE
Waltz Was Wrong. So Does Mearsheimer. But the Charm of International Relations and the Need for Realism Remain Intact

Summary/Abstract: In 2012, Kenneth N. Waltz has published, in Foreign Affairs magazine, the article “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” claiming that nuclear balancing would mean stability and that power begs to be balanced. Ten years later, other proponent of offensive realism, John Mearsheimer, claims that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the West’s fault. The two scholars, with an otherwise excellent reputation and present in all university bibliographies, were harshly criticized for their positions. The abyss between reality and theory was invoked, allusions were made (yet unfounded and unverifiable) to various ideological affinities and the two were said to either invalidate their own theory – maximizing power to eliminate security threats – or that the two they are theoretically and ideologically frozen. This essay is looking both to prove the utility of realism and to shed some light on the two scholars’ approaches, by explaining why they are simultaneously wrong and right. Typically, this sort of stock-taking is an afterthought, taken defensively or as a late inoculation against anticipated criticism. But such an explanation is necessary both to calm blazing spirits and to convince the audience that the theories of international relations are not an asymptotic convergence towards the truth, but a necessary tool for both, researchers and decisional factors.

• Details
• Contents