Realpolitik and Nuance

How Russian influence is shaping American opinion of Syria

The purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or indignation; it is to shape real events in a real world. - John F. Kennedy

Social media is not exactly where you would expect a nuanced discussion of foreign policy. Especially in a world where realpolitik remains the order of the day.

But if you had any doubts that foreign policy in the age of Twitter was an impossible discussion to have, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria should absolve you of those doubts.

First, let us agree upon some sort of definition of what realpolitik truly is.

Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since Realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, during the Cold War, the United States often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators to secure theoretically the greater national interest of regional stability. After the end of the Cold War, this practice continued.

Most recently, former Ambassador Dennis Ross advocated that approach to foreign policy in his 2007 book Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World. For the purposes of contrast and speaking in ideal types, political ideologues would tend to favor principle over other considerations. Such individuals or groups can reject compromises that they see as the abandonment of their ideals and so may sacrifice political gain, in favor of adhering to principles that they believe to be constitutive of long-term goals.

So basically, realpolitik is the difference between foreign policy achieving objectives versus foreign policy merely advocating ideology.

You can see where I am going with this.