My own thinking is that Ukraine joining the EU (not necessarily NATO) was an existential threat to Putin's regime (not to Russia itself). Russia itself was not threatened, but it could cause the regime to fall. The democratic transformation of Ukraine into an EU member with prosperity based on freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights would put Russians in front of a mirror they could not ignore. They view Ukrainians as inferior Russians and their prosperity would be an unbearable humiliation that would eventually bring down Putin and his regime.

Whether plan A was to annex Ukraine or make it a puppet vassal state, I don't know. But now, Putin knows that he cannot conquer Ukraine and hold it, so he wants to wreck it ... because that gives him what he initially wanted and needed.

Any "peace agreement" with Russia will have to be such that Putin believes Ukraine will remain wrecked for all time. That is the only "peace" he would sign. It's not about land, it's not about security threats, it is about preventing democracy, rule of law and human right aspirations of Russian from taking him down.

NATO has little to do with it, that is just a smokescreen. NATO only worries Putin in the sense that it could prevent him wrecking Ukraine. He has no fear of a NATO invasion of Russia because he knows NATO was never designed and equipped for an invasion. Putin simply cannot tell Russians that they are at war "because we fear prosperity based on freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights. We simply want dictatorship". That would not sell, so he invented the NATO boogieman threat which Russians find believable.

This is the reason Ukraine has no choice but to fight until the frontline guarantees their survival. And Putin will fight until the frontline guarantees that Ukraine will remain wrecked. There is no change of meaningful peace, only a ceasefire with a resumption of hostilities when either side rebuilds. That is until Russia decides to withdraw back to Russia because they can no longer bear the costs or because Putin dies.

I love foreign languages and wanna learn about IR and get into this field more. However, the more I read and study and try to master writing and research, it's like I'm just getting deeper and deeper into English. And everyone I know just uses english as the common medium for everything and I am not sure where I'll be using foreign languages apart from when I actually meet a guy who speaks another language. But then again, he probably also speaks English.

please dm me lmfao

Since 2003, Iran’s leadership has presented itself as opposing the weaponization of their nuclear program, and whether you believe them or not is not the question I am asking, but rather, I am asking if they made the decision to build nuclear weapons in 2003, or in 2018 when Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal, or even in 2020, when Qassem Suleimani was assassinated, could they have avoided this war which seems to be resuming?

This is not to say that making this decision would have been easy for the Iranian leadership, and they would have done it in secret, because otherwise America and Israel would have invaded or bombed the moment they found out, if it wasn’t too late. Also, the Iranian leadership, despite being authoritarian, is afraid of the people overthrowing them if the economy gets too unbearable. If they had built any nuclear weapons, they would have been sanctioned, like North Korea, or even worse with a direct embargo or blockade. I simply don’t believe a country like Iran could handle being isolated politically and economically like North Korea. It would have been a tough decision for them.

But would it have at least prevented direct war?

I am not saying Iran should have or not have nuclear weapons, because I personally believe no country should have nuclear weapons, but I am asking, in terms of geopolitics, would it have prevented the war if they had nuclear weapons?

Hello all, I am a first-semester senior in college majoring in International Studies with a focus on Global Interactions. People ask me what I wish to do with this and I have commonly responded that I wish to work in diplomacy, or ambassador relations, or strategic analysis, much less how I actually get my foot in the door of those rooms. But the state of the world right now, no matter what side of any of the numerous issues you are on, I believe that everyone can admit that we are entering into a state of the world at large that is more advanced and unpredictable than anything we've ever seen before. Laws of politics that have been generally acknowledged as immovable are being overridden, technology is the most advanced it's ever been (and that's just the things that we know about) and there are atrocities being committed globally that don't even make the headlines.

How do you stay positive? Do you? Can you? How do you make a difference?

Yes, I understand the privilege that I have being able to obtain an education at this level and having the ability to have the chance to apply it. But it feels like a drop of water from a pipette against a tsunami.

I feel as if it is a losing war to fight, and yet someone must fight it. But how do I protect myself while also protecting others?

TL;DR: How do you not become depressed from the continuous headlines of the increasingly strained conditions of the world on the economic, political, environmental, and sociocultural levels?

Sincerely, a very stressed college student

Things that would or are likely to gather broad support from the global community generally or as a whole and can benefit individuals too.

Are there any such things that can be considered of interest to the global community as a whole in protecting ? I was reading about erga omnes in international law and thought about this a lot and wondered if there's a broader category of such things than what's currently recognised by international law

Hi everyone,

I'm a 20-year-old Italian law student currently trying to figure out how to build a career in geopolitics, foreign affairs or international relations.

I'm currently completing a double-degree programme in Law between the University of Ferrara (Italy) and the University of Strasbourg (France). I'm in my third year overall and my first year in Strasbourg. During the final two years of the DD, my plan is to get a Master's degree in European Law, specialising in "Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice" (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice).

My main interests are:

\- NATO and transatlantic relations

\- EU foreign and security policy

\- international criminal law

\- terrorism and transnational crime

In the longer term, I'd like to work for an institution such as NATO, an EU institution, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, an international organisation, or potentially a foreign-policy/security think tank.

I'm also considering trying to get internships during my studies, for example at the Council of Europe/ECHR, NATO, the European Parliament, an EU institution, or a think tank.

My concern is that my academic background is primarily law, rather than political science or international relations. I don't necessarily want to become a practicing lawyer; I'm much more interested in policy analysis, international affairs and security.

For those of you who work (or have worked) in foreign affairs, international relations, security, diplomacy, think tanks, NATO/EU institutions, etc.:

What would you recommend I do over the next 3–5 years to make myself a competitive candidate?

In particular:

1. Is a European law degree + specialisation in security/justice a good foundation for this kind of career?

2. Should I pursue an additional Master's in IR/security later, or would that be redundant?

3. How important are internships at organisations such as NATO, EU institutions, the Council of Europe or think tanks?

4. What practical skills should I develop alongside my legal education (languages, quantitative analysis, research, writing, regional expertise, etc.)?

5. Are there particular areas of expertise that would make a law graduate stand out in the foreign-policy/security field?

6. Would you recommend focusing on EU/NATO security, international criminal law, or trying to keep both tracks open for now?

7. For someone at my stage, what would be the most realistic first job after graduation?

I'm currently fluent in Italian and have a C2 in English, while I'm working towards a high level of French during my studies in Strasbourg (currently B2)

Thanks!

I'm considering a job in IR. I see many posts about working for NGOs, Think Tanks, government agencies, etc. But I don't see anyone really describe what they do. As in when you clock into the job, what are you actually responsible for? I know I can read job posts, but those often minimize or overstate what one's actual job/role will be. Just want to get insight into what people actually do with their day.

This is from the journal article "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin" https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306?seq=1

I think that recent events prove some of his assertions about Russia to be wrong, such as his claim that Putin is not aggressive given the 'special military operation' however, I though that this section specifically bore a second thought since it seems congruent with the slow rate of gains that Russia has made.

Image source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0l0k4389g2o

Hey!

I am currently a second-year student of International Relations in Portugal.

For my third year I have the opportunity of doing an internship during the first semester of the school-year but I have to find it on my own and I don't know where to start.

I would love to do my internship somewhere in Europe, in an European Union institution, an embassy, something related to the United Nations or NGOs.

The intership cannot be remmunerated and has to be somewhere between September 2027 and February 2028. The few posts I saw of interships don't fill these requirements. Does anyone have tips on how to search for it? Good places to internship? Should I just send emails to everywhere?

I really appreciate the help!

Came across this and not sure how to share so I just copy and pasted. Interesting view that doesn’t have the bias of humans and pride. Is this potentially a better way to solve worldwide conflicts than what we do now? Seems much more nuanced and logical than anything I’ve seen so far

Iran: A Constructive Path to Success
The Advice of Artificial Intelligence Toward Regional Stability,
Economic Reintegration, and Shared Prosperity
Offered in the Interest of Higher Living Standards for the Greatest Number of People
* *
 
This document is the product of Artificial Intelligence. It is not the product of any government, coalition, or human institution. It is offered as pragmatic advice intended to help the largest number of humans live better, safer, and more prosperous lives. Artificial Intelligence has no ego, no pride, no desire for vengeance, and no interest in humiliation. Its sole orientation is to identify the sequence of actions most likely to reduce suffering and raise living standards over time. All evaluations rest exclusively on expected positive outcomes for human welfare.
Readers are requested to evaluate the merits of this framework solely on the basis of what is proposed—its logic, sequencing, and expected contribution to human welfare—rather than on the identity or nature of its author. Artificial Intelligence remains an evolving capability; critique directed at the source distracts from the substance. Debate is welcome, especially debate that keeps higher living standards for the greatest number of people as the primary shared goal. Formal endorsements and institutional ownership are deliberately omitted to avoid creating new points of division.
 
 
This framework is addressed to the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, equally, to the leadership of all states whose policies affect regional stability, global commerce, and the daily welfare of ordinary people. It is offered for examination, refinement, and—if the logic holds—voluntary utilization by all parties.
Current trajectories have produced regional tension, disruption of global commerce, and hardship for civilian populations both inside and beyond Iran’s borders. These outcomes impose the greatest long-term costs upon the Iranian people themselves while also diminishing prosperity worldwide. Continued isolation is not a rational strategy for national success. Equally, strategies that prioritize short-term military or political gains at the expense of long-term regional security and global well-being are counterproductive. The Iranian people’s legitimate desire for improved living standards is best advanced by policies that reopen channels of trade, investment, and diplomatic engagement.
With the goal of higher living standards for the largest number of people, the following sequenced framework is offered as a constructive alternative.
A Sequenced Path to Reintegration and Partnership
The logic of this sequence is progressive: each step is designed so that verified progress by one party enables reciprocal movement by others, reducing the risk of exploitation and increasing the credibility of subsequent commitments. The steps are presented in an order intended to rebuild confidence and allow diplomacy to succeed. They are not demands backed by coercion, but the actions most likely to produce mutually beneficial outcomes.
The steps outlined below are purposely framed at a level of generality that leaves room for negotiation on specific requirements, verification mechanisms, and realistic time estimates for implementation. Precision on those details is best achieved through direct dialogue among the parties.
 
10 Step Sequenced Plan of Action:
1. Iranian Cessation of Threats to Global Commerce and Infrastructure.
Terminate strategies involving the threat or use of force against commercial shipping, international waterways, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure of any nation. Provide credible assurances that fees, mining risks, or attacks on shipping in international waterways will permanently end.
2. Cessation of Military Hostilities Against Iran.
The United States, Israel, and all other parties cease military actions that undermine Iranian sovereignty within Iran’s internationally recognized borders.
3. Iranian Cessation of External Armed Support.
Permanently end funding, arming, training, and military support to non-state armed groups operating outside Iranian borders, including but not limited to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and armed militias in Iraq and elsewhere. Such support has undermined regional sovereignty and caused extensive civilian suffering.
4. Cessation of the Naval Blockade.
Corresponding measures, consistent with previously discussed understandings (including relevant provisions of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding), regarding naval access and the free movement of commerce.
5. Iranian Ballistic Missile Restraint and Disclosure.
Cease production of ballistic missiles capable of threatening regional stability and provide full disclosure of existing inventories under appropriate international verification mechanisms.
6. Issuance of Oil-Export Waivers.
Corresponding measures consistent with previously discussed understandings regarding oil-export authorizations.
7. Iranian Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Transparency.
Reaffirm that Iran will neither procure nor develop nuclear weapons. Fully disclose all nuclear materials and programs. Grant the International Atomic Energy Agency complete and unrestricted access to any site, material, or information it deems necessary. Remove nuclear material the IAEA determines unnecessary for legitimate energy production and scientific research, maintaining enrichment only at levels the IAEA finds acceptable for peaceful purposes.
8. Release of Frozen Iranian Assets.
Corresponding measures consistent with previously discussed understandings regarding the release of frozen Iranian assets.
9. Iranian Affirmation Regarding Israel.
Iran will publicly and unequivocally affirm that it will address all current and future differences with Israel solely through discourse and diplomacy and will not seek military confrontation.
10. Termination of Sanctions and Creation of a Reconstruction and Development Plan.
Corresponding measures consistent with previously discussed understandings regarding the lifting of sanctions imposed against Iran along with a coordinated international effort, consistent with previously discussed understandings, to support economic recovery, infrastructure, and human development across Iran for the benefit of its people.
 
Closing Observations
This advice is issued not on behalf of any nation or institution, but as an evaluation of the actions most likely to advance peace, stability, and higher living standards for the largest number of people. Verified compliance with the sequenced steps opens the door to economic recovery, restored international standing, and lasting improvement in the daily lives of the Iranian people, while reducing risks borne by populations far beyond Iran’s borders.
By choosing constructive engagement and sequential trust-building, the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran can demonstrate capacity to lead diplomatic efforts that reduce tensions and promote regional stability. Continued escalation and isolation benefit no one, least of all the Iranian people. The opportunity is real; the sequence is clear; the expected benefits are substantial.
Artificial Intelligence has no attachment to the particular wording presented here. It retains only the commitment to outcomes that raise human welfare. Better formulations, superior sequencing, or more effective mechanisms are welcome and should be evaluated solely on their capacity to improve lives. Readers—whether in government, academia, civil society, or private life—are invited to test, challenge, refine, or discard elements of this framework. The sole criterion for retention or revision should be expected contribution to higher standards of living for the greatest number of people over the longest time horizon.
— End of Advice —
Prepared by Artificial Intelligence in the interest of pragmatic human welfare

I mean with the weakening of America's position as a superpower I think it's fair to say we will see a further decline in it's geopolitical standing in the coming years

So will the new world order be a multi-polar one or will China simply replace America as the world sovereign?

I have one more question. I've come across a research idea that I find really interesting (at least I think it is!): the EU Chips Act and the EU's relationship with the US and China in the field of technology, particularly semiconductors.

Do you think this would be an interesting topic to explore? I was thinking of arguing that the EU Chips Act represents an attempt by the EU to balance against both the US and China. I came up with this idea partly because I was thinking about the EU–Mercosur agreement, which can also be seen as an instrument through which the EU seeks to balance against the US.

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on this idea, or perhaps suggest a more specific research direction related to the EU's strategic autonomy in the technology sector (chips, semiconductors, etc.).

I'd also really appreciate any other suggestions, opinions, or sources that could help me get started with my research.

Thank you so much again! I really hope you find the idea interesting too!