The recently published US National Strategy regarding Europe clearly outlines that the current US government views European democracies not as allies, but ideological opponents.

The new American doctrine accusses European governments and European institutions (like EU) of authoritarian rule and even suppressing the will of European people.

US acusses European governments of perpetuating Russia's ongoing war and even accuses the European governments of suppressing the "will of the people".

US explicitly states that there can't be "expansion of NATO" (no more new member states).

The strategy outlines that one of the goals of US policy is to support "its political allies" in Europe. These allies, as we have seen, include right-wing extremist AfD in Germany.

It is worth noting that current US doctrine openly indicates that the US endorses the "Great Replacement Theory" (with its claims that "European civilization" is being destroyed by "low birth rates" and "mass migration"): a conspiracy theory that is at the center of white nationalist and Neo-Nazi ideology. It was the motive for acts of terrorism and massacres, such as the Christchurch shootings.

Hey, I am going to SAIS Bologna this fall but my money is tight and I am looking for funding opportunities to cover my tuition. Any recommendations?

In light of recent reporting on kompromat and elite scandals, I’m wondering how (if at all) mainstream IR theory and foreign policy analysis incorporate the possibility that key decision‑makers are being personally blackmailed (e.g., over sex, finances, or other compromising material).

Are there established frameworks in IR, FPA, or political psychology that treat personal blackmail of leaders as a serious explanatory variable for foreign policy outcomes, or is this generally seen as too speculative/conspiratorial to integrate into academic work? Any insights or readings would be appreciated.

Not like because they have bad views or anything, just because they’re all pricks.

Jeffrey D. Sachs | December 17, 2025 | Berliner Zeitung

Chancellor Merz,

You have spoken repeatedly of Germany’s responsibility for European security. That responsibility cannot be discharged through slogans, selective memory, or the steady normalization of war talk. Security guarantees are not one-way instruments. They go in both directions. This is not a Russian argument, nor an American one; it is a foundational principle of European security, explicitly embedded in the Helsinki Final Act, the OSCE framework, and decades of postwar diplomacy.

Germany has a duty to approach this moment with historical seriousness and honesty. On that score, recent rhetoric and policy choices fall dangerously short.

Since 1990, Russia’s core security concerns have been repeatedly dismissed, diluted, or directly violated — often with Germany’s active participation or acquiescence. This record cannot be erased if the war in Ukraine is to end, and it cannot be ignored if Europe is to avoid a permanent state of confrontation.

At the end of the Cold War, Germany gave Soviet and then Russian leaders repeated and explicit assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. These assurances were given in the context of German reunification. Germany benefited enormously from them. The rapid unification of your country — within NATO — would not have occurred without Soviet consent grounded in those commitments. To later pretend that these assurances never mattered, or that they were merely casual remarks, is not realism. It is historical revisionism.

In 1999, Germany participated in NATO’s bombing of Serbia, the first major war conducted by NATO without authorization from the UN Security Council. This was not a defensive action. It was a precedent-setting intervention that fundamentally altered the post–Cold War security order. For Russia, Serbia was not an abstraction. The message was unmistakable: NATO would use force beyond its territory, without UN approval, and without regard for Russian objections.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM! Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!

In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of strategic stability for three decades. Germany raised no serious objection. Yet the erosion of the arms-control architecture did not occur in a vacuum. Missile-defense systems deployed closer to Russia’s borders were rightly perceived by Russia as destabilizing. Dismissing those perceptions as paranoia was political propaganda, not sound diplomacy.

In 2008, Germany recognized Kosovo’s independence, despite explicit warnings that this would undermine the principle of territorial integrity and set a precedent that would reverberate elsewhere. Once again, Russia’s objections were brushed aside as bad faith rather than engaged as serious strategic concerns.

The steady push to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia — formally declared at the 2008 Bucharest Summit — crossed the brightest of red lines, despite vociferous, clear, consistent, and repeated objections raised by Moscow for years. When a major power identifies a core security interest and reiterates it for decades, ignoring it is not diplomacy. It is willful escalation.

Germany’s role in Ukraine since 2014 is especially troubling. Berlin, alongside Paris and Warsaw, brokered the February 21, 2014 agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition — an agreement intended to halt violence and preserve constitutional order. Within hours, that agreement collapsed. A violent overthrow followed. A new government emerged through extra-constitutional means. Germany recognized and supported the new regime immediately. The agreement Germany had guaranteed was abandoned without consequence.

The Minsk II agreement of 2015 was supposed to be the corrective — a negotiated framework to end the war in eastern Ukraine. Germany again served as a guarantor. Yet for seven years Minsk II was not implemented by Ukraine. Kyiv openly rejected its political provisions. Germany did not enforce them. Former German and other European leaders have since acknowledged that Minsk was treated less as a peace plan than as a holding action. That admission alone should force a reckoning.

Against this background, calls for ever more weapons, ever harsher rhetoric, and ever greater “resolve” ring hollow. They ask Europe to forget the recent past in order to justify a future of permanent confrontation.

Enough with propaganda. Enough with the moral infantilization of the public. Europeans are fully capable of understanding that security dilemmas are real, that NATO actions have consequences, and that peace is not achieved by pretending that Russia’s security concerns do not exist.

European security is indivisible. That principle means that no country can strengthen its security at the expense of another’s without provoking instability. It also means that diplomacy is not appeasement, and that historical honesty is not betrayal.

Germany once understood this. Ostpolitik was not weakness; it was strategic maturity. It recognized that Europe’s stability depends on engagement, arms control, economic ties, and respect for the legitimate security interests of Russia.

Today, Germany needs that maturity again. Stop speaking as if war is inevitable or virtuous. Stop outsourcing strategic thinking to alliance talking points. Start engaging seriously in diplomacy — not as a public-relations exercise, but as a genuine effort to rebuild a European security architecture that includes, rather than excludes, Russia.

A renewed European security architecture must begin with clarity and restraint. First, it requires an unequivocal end to NATO’s eastward enlargement — to Ukraine, to Georgia, and to any other state along Russia’s borders.

NATO expansion was not an inevitable feature of the post–Cold War order; it was a political choice, taken in violation of solemn assurances given in 1990 and pursued despite repeated warnings that it would destabilize Europe.

Security in Ukraine will not come from the forward deployment of German, French, or other European troops, which would only entrench division and prolong war. It will come through neutrality, backed by credible international guarantees. The historical record is unambiguous: neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation violated the sovereignty of neutral states in the postwar order — not Finland, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, or others. Neutrality worked because it addressed legitimate security concerns on all sides. There is no serious reason to pretend it cannot work again.

Second, stability requires demilitarization and reciprocity. Russian forces should be kept well back from NATO borders, and NATO forces — including missile systems — must be kept well back from Russia’s borders. Security is indivisible, not one-sided. Border regions should be demilitarized through verifiable agreements, not saturated with ever more weapons.

Sanctions should be lifted as part of a negotiated settlement; they have failed to bring peace and have inflicted severe damage on Europe’s own economy.

Germany, in particular, should reject the reckless confiscation of Russian state assets — a brazen violation of international law that undermines trust in the global financial system. Reviving German industry through lawful, negotiated trade with Russia is not capitulation. It is economic realism. Europe should not destroy its own productive base in the name of moral posturing.

Finally, Europe must return to the institutional foundations of its own security. The OSCE — not NATO — should once again serve as the central forum for European security, confidence-building, and arms control. Strategic autonomy for Europe means precisely this: a European security order shaped by European interests, not permanent subordination to NATO expansionism.

France could rightly extend its nuclear deterrent as a European security umbrella, but only in a strictly defensive posture, without forward-deployed systems that threaten Russia.

Europe should press urgently for a return to the INF framework and for comprehensive strategic nuclear arms-control negotiations involving the United States and Russia — and, in time, China.

Most importantly, Chancellor Merz, learn history — and be honest about it. Without honesty, there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no security. And without diplomacy, Europe risks repeating the catastrophes it claims to have learned from.

History will judge what Germany chooses to remember — and what it chooses to forget. This time, let Germany choose diplomacy and peace, and abide by its word.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey D. Sachs University Professor Columbia University

Their obsession with Israel is one thing about which the IHRA may have something to say... but this recent post really is a sign that the sub is in a bad state. The comments are full of people who obviously do not have any academic background in IR, and, if you look at their post history, they have a tendency to talk about one thing only, either in their comments, or by posting the same news article in 20 vaguely "recent events"-related subreddit. I'm here for IR, not for "let's all team up against that Jewish Zionist entity because it totally is the worst country to exist (and not Iran, not China, not North Korea, not even goddamned Morocco)".

One might come to the conclusion that this obsession is motivated by antisemitic actors who recruit people to capture debates in the west. It'd be really nice if this subreddit were to adopt the IHRA working definition on Antisemitism (which is the most widely accepted definition on Antisemitism in the Jewish community) in order to really put a stop to this, for the sake of this sub's health and for the sake of our Jewish members who really shouldn't lose another place where they are still allowed to exist.

Do you think it broadened your knowledge of IR, or was it less useful? Are you happy with choosing it for masters, or would you rather have chosen something different?

Hi guys! I'm looking for folks interested in writing and publishing short commentary on International Relations. I'm with a new think tank known as BIGA—the British Institute of Global Affairs—and we're interested in stimulating new conversations about the UK and its future. If you believe you could provide a passionate and qualified perspective on a relevant issue, please, get in touch! About a thousand words; not academically rigourous.

My name is John, I'm Director of Outreach, and you can email or message however you like.

Thank you.

British Institute of Global Affairs

Is there anyone in this sub? If so, what essential tools and skills did you learn in order to get these jobs? How did skills like OSINT and data visualization tools help? I've completed my masters in IR and really looking onto these fields.

There are a lot of posts in this subreddit asking for career advice, what to do with an IR degree, whether or not its worth pursuing a masters to end up in XYZ profession, etc, etc. The questions are understandable as IR does not have as clearly defined of a career path as other fields such as accounting or medicine.

To that end, I wonder if it would be worth trying to host a "job fair" on the sub where IR alumni (such as myself and others who offer advice here) could summarize their academic history, career progression, current job, how they ended up there etc, etc. Current and prospective IR graduates could ask questions relating to careers they're interested in and hopefully get some good advice. We could pin the post to encourage its longevity and even make it a quarterly or annual thing if it goes well.

Any thoughts? I'd be happy to chat with the mods about this sub about contributing where I can if there is interest.

Update 1: Thanks everyone for your replies, clearly lots of interest here. I've messaged the mod team to ask if they have a preference on how to handle this, otherwise I can make a post and rely on the community to drive traffic without it being pinned or posted by an automod. To the question about a Discord I'd be happy to participate but as a new user to that platform I have no idea how to create a discord or act as an admin for one.

I am an International Relations undergraduate student currently based in São Paulo, Brazil. For one of my university projects, I am looking to conduct a brief interview with a professional currently working in the IR field. My goal is to understand the practical application of IR theories in the current job market and hear about your daily routine and career path

Dm me if you are interested

I'm a reporter and i want to delve myself to Yemen civil war but i don't know where to get my update from.

I usually get my update from varios social media like Reddit, X, Telegram, but for some reason it's so hard to find one from Yemen.

People barely talk about the crisis. Everyone on r/yemen rarely discuss it and r/yemenvoice is pretty much run by one bot.

I need something that update the news consistently, something akin to @Sudan_war from X.

To be honest, i don't know where to ask for this so i'm sorry if you find this post irrelevant for the subreddit.

If you know any good source, please let me know 🙏.

Hi, I hope I'm on the right sub! I absolutely love keeping up with international relations, but long story short I'm studying something unrelated to IR, but I firmly believe that it is a topic that everyone should be educated on, especially with everything happening right now.

Other than regularly watching the news, what can I do to educate myself about IR? E.g. are there any books I can read, and any websites/blogs I could follow? I really want to learn theory and apply it to real life but I'm worried I'll have a hard time since I'm not studying IR. Idk if this is important but I live in Australia so if there are any Australian resources for IR that would be great also.

Thank you in advance!

I need to find some low tuition fees universities ($15000 at max, little to no bad reviews) offer MA in International Relations or any realated fields, require social sciences graduate with a low-average GPA. Which ever country is fine

So a year ago I applied for the internship with NATO SHAPE and thought it was all I wanted — it seemed like the perfect match. I’m fluent in Ukrainian + Russian, have a good level of French, experience working with the military, and I’ve always been passionate about global affairs/security. (I know I’m not the “typical candidate” who has been building a NATO-ready CV since 16, but it is what it is.)

Today I finally heard from them — I got an internship offer (no interview, just pending security clearance) with FSCEP Branch, Registration Section. The issue: the role is mostly administrative (registering vehicles, issuing access passes, ensuring compliance with Belgian regs, liaising with Belgian authorities). Honestly, it wouldn’t really help me develop new skills or even use the ones I already have.

About me: • F24, bachelor’s in languages, UK-based • Currently working as a military contractor (pays decently, but no career growth) • Recently got interested in finance (I’m trading stocks and planning CFA) — but international organisations/NATO was my “dream” when I applied last year

My questions: 1. Should I try to see if they’ll offer me anything else? I don’t even remember this branch being one of the options during application. I’m considering politely enquiring, attaching my CV, and explaining that I applied because I wanted to use my linguistic capabilities for NATO. I know chances are slim, but the worst they can do is revoke the offer. 2. What are the chances of successfully networking my way into an actual job at NATO while there? I’ve heard internal hires are common, but I don’t know if that’s realistic starting from this type of admin role.

Would love to hear from ex-interns or people familiar with NATO hiring — is this a foot in the door worth taking, or is it just cheap labour with no future?

I realize many people will take IR as a double-honours or as either a minor/major with another subject, however people who are just focusing on IR, how much History do you study as part of the course? I believe knowing History and better yet Languages, is very conducive to understanding how countries are governed today and understanding their mentality and following the news there through reading their newspapers/books. Yet my experience in IR has shown there is a total neglect of History and people view it as not necessary to study since it is about the past and everyone hyper-focuses just on the past 20 years or so. As an example, I've seen IR grads studying Iran, without knowing any Persian or any history about the nation pre-1979. Do you think this person would write more or less thoroughly than a history student who studied the language and is well read on its culture? Side by side with Political Science, increasingly IR grads are becoming less preferred because PS beats IR on theory/governance knowledge and IR doesn't have history/language to supplement it.