By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
We hear that with Donald Trump’s renewed term as U.S. president, so-called Realpolitik has returned to international relations, particularly in dealings between the world’s major powers. This worldview holds that power – if not the only factor – is the key determinant in global affairs. Relations between states are, therefore, power relations. Each country primarily (if not exclusively) seeks to advance its own interests, which it can achieve by gaining as much power as possible at the expense of others – whether military, financial, or technological power. In a world shaped by Realpolitik, there are no true friends or allies – nor, in fact, true enemies. There are only competitors. International relations are based on fundamentally self-serving principles.
This assumes that one must cooperate with those from whom one can benefit – and simply discard those who no longer serve a purpose (as the current Slovenian prime minister might put it, “throw them over the shoulder”). Values, morality, and emotions play no role in this calculation. Only cold, rational pragmatism matters.
This worldview is evident in the Trump administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine. It seeks to end the war as soon as possible because it is “bad for business”. Rather than taking a clear stance in support of the attacked nation, it prefers to act as a supposedly neutral mediator. It seems indifferent to who is the aggressor and who is the victim. There is growing concern that it may push for a peace agreement “at any cost”, even at Ukraine’s expense – something many would see as a betrayal of American principles, the same principles that the U.S., as the guardian of the free world, upheld for much of the 20th century.
However, despite the outrage over such an approach, it is important to recognise that Realpolitik pragmatism is nothing new. It did not return with Trump – it never left. The great world powers have always prioritised their own interests, regardless of the rhetoric of their leaders. In some cases, this has led to appeasing aggressive and oppressive regimes that sought to conquer their neighbours.
Consider, for example, the infamous 1938 Munich Agreement, which handed democratic Czechoslovakia over to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, making it easy prey. This act effectively set the stage for World War II.
Similarly, at the end of the second Yugoslavia, when Slobodan Milošević’s regime failed to establish dominance over the entire country, it pursued the so-called “Greater Serbia” project, which meant the violent annexation of all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and large parts of Croatia. This triggered a war in these regions, where the Serbian side initially had a significant advantage, having “inherited” much of the former Yugoslav army’s arsenal. And how did the international community, led by the U.S., respond? Did it condemn the aggressor? No – it called on “all parties involved” to renounce the use of force. Even worse, it imposed an arms embargo on both the attackers and the attacked – an act of sheer cynicism, as the latter were in far greater need of weapons. Had Croatian and Bosnian defenders been armed in time, the war could have ended much sooner and with far fewer casualties.
Prioritising only self-interest is not just an ethical problem – it can also be short-sighted. The pursuit of short-term gains can lead to long-term harm, even for those who believe they are acting rationally and pragmatically. The Trump administration should take note. Yielding to Putin’s Russia could undermine the U.S.’s status as the world’s leading power – not to mention its reputation as a “beacon” of freedom and democracy. Even a country as powerful as the U.S., regardless of its president’s confidence, needs allies – especially those who, despite various disagreements, ultimately share common values.
