From Bismarck, The Man and the Stateman, by AJP Taylor pp. 170-171:

The Eastern question took a new turn in February 1878. The Russians had defeated Turkey; their troops were at the gates of Constantinople. The British government determined to preserve the remains of the Ottoman empire. The British fleet passed the Straits. War between Russia and Great Britain seemed imminent -- a war in which Austria-Hungary was likely to be involved. Bismarck decided that he could no longer stand aside. He was indifferent to the fate of the Balkans; he could not be indifferent to the Balance of Power. Germany had nothing to gain from a general war, and much to lose; therefore she must act as peace-maker. On 19 February Bismarck announced in the Reichstag that Germany came forward not as arbitrator; but 'as an honest broker'. Bleichroeder, Bismarck's man of business, commented: 'There are no honest brokers.’ But in this case Bismarck was really concerned to settle the affair, not to earn a percentage. His action, far from being hostile to Russia, helped to save her from a disastrous war. The Russians imposed the treaty of San Stefano on the Turkish empire in March. Then, urged on partly by Bismarck's mediation but more by their own fear and weakness, they agreed to submit the treaty to a European congress. Bismarck tried to dodge further responsibility. He suggested that the congress should meet in Paris; and when this was rejected, offered the chairmanship of the congress to Waddington, the French representative. Bismark’s efforts were in vain. He had made Berlin the capital of Germany, and Germany the center of Europe. Now he had to pay the price for his success.

With ultimately severe negative consequences for the British Empire and probably as a result of a combination of greed, ideological fantasies, Zionist lobbying, and possibly Zionist espionage, the UK later abandoned the foreign policy realism of its commitment to the Ottoman Empire.

Here are my blog entries on the subject.

• Petroleum: Driving Force in Zionism
• German Zionist Dolchstoß?
• In Re: Partition Still Casts Shadow On India-Pakistan Ties

Realists think the world is a competitive place where states guard their own interests first and foremost. Realists generally assume that most states act more-or-less rationally most of the time, although they are aware that states can get sidetracked by imperfect information, ideological fixations, domestic politics, the delusions of particular leaders, etc. That's one reason why realists favor energetic diplomacy, so that potential rivals can learn more about the other side’s interests and motivations and gain a clearer sense of the consequences of different courses of action.

Yes realists(?! Professor means Salvare Apparentias people) think(/loop) around the bankrupted concept of "state" in fact the theory is something like the following, our Professor is lazy to show all the axioms of his "realist(?!)" theory:

The Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).

1. There exist states.

2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).

3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.

4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.

5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)

6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.

7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).

8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.

9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.

10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)

11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)

12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.

13. A State can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision. When the National Interest of the State requires the constitution of the State becomes just a goddamned piece of paper (as Bush declared).

14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat and National Interest and National Unity must centralize the power and not to share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).

15. A State keeps the power of making and implementing the laws solely to herself and does not share this power with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).

16. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).

[So,when Professor talks about state don't get ideas, state is all about what is defined implicitely by means of above axioms of the SATFP. Now you can read and try to make sense what he is talking about based on state]

Professor says:

Realists understand that power is the primary currency in world affairs

No realist(?!) don't underst6and that, what rea;is(?!) understand is:

Realists understand that state power is the primary currency in world affairs

The theory recognises only state power and ignores others, for example it ignores the power of institutions like IL as accidential, should be banned, laws should be changed to dissolve their power, the power must exclusively withing the hands of the Monopoly (the State) otherwise it complicates the SATFP;->

And of course the rest of the articles are searching for solutions based on "state" ignoring all power scattered around by military interferences. Now they will collect them one by one to create monopolies under the banner of state to make them state power;->
Dream on Guys, dream on states, dream on two states, many states solutions around the world, but while dreaming don't forget to keep your state all together, you know un-Americans are started creaping around;->

Grand Sen~or

Some one month ago there was a discussion on Obama's Grand Strategy. A lot of people were suggesting on this blog the arrival of a liberal internationalist Grand Strategy.

In contrast, I was reminding that Obama praises often Reinold Niebuhr. Hence, we had to expect quite a lot of realism.

I was right.

What The United States need to do as soon as possible - in order to show that it is serious in changing its ways and means - is to establish full diplomatic relations with the great country of iran. It is downright childish and unbefitting a superpower to be so worked out just because around 50 officials - among them several CIA employees - were held hostage for 444 days - without one single hair being curled on any of their heads.

The Iranians just knew that that the US was a formidable adversary and that they indeed had used the very same embassy * in preparations for the coup in 1953 - and this was enough for making - some of them - taking this step in the turmoil following the Revolution. If the United States will do itself a favour, it should swallow its pride that a diplomatic sanctuary was disrespected on this occasion, and instead acknowledge its great guilt - along with Great Britain, in its involvement in The Iranian Coup.

Actually it was the British who came up with the idea, and thus bears the greatest guilt. The Archieves in London concerning the matter are still closed - and without doubt the British Establishment are quite satisfied that it is WW2 that Winston Churchill is remembered for, not his role in the Coup, which took place in his second term as PM.

No name calling versus Hamas

By the same token, the US should as a matter of course refrain from the childish habit of branding Hamas - elcted in january 2006 in free and fair elections as the legal representatives of the Palestinian People, a 'terrorist organisation'. It is no more a terrorist organisation than were IRA or Irgun, which had Menachem Begin as their leader - or Stern, which had Yitzhak Shamir -- both of them later became Primeministers of Israel. It is an organisation that opposes that Israel has taken over Palestine, just as the Israeli organistions here mentioned were based on opposition to British rule in the same place. Yes indeed Hamas focusses only on one part, whereas Irgun and Stern attacked both the British and Arabs.

The Israel Lobby are behind

But guess which group of people with affiliations to which country are actively working against such policy-shifts? The same group of people belonging to the same sinister networks that got the US into the disastrous Iraq war, and whose collective efforts constitute the greatest security peril the world have seen since WW2.

_______________________________

*)Documentation

THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 2000:
SECRETS OF HISTORY: THE C.I.A. IN IRAN

How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79)

By James Risen
(compiled from a secret report, written in March 1954 by the C.I.A.'s chief coup planner, Donald Wilber, optained by NY)

Chapter 3: THE COUP

First Few Days Look Disastrous

Pro-shah soldiers sent to arrest Dr. Mossadegh at his home were instead captured. The top military officer working with General Zahedi fled when he saw tanks and loyal government soldiers at army headquarters.

The next morning, the history states, the Tehran radio announced that a coup against the government had failed, and Dr. Mossadegh scrambled to strengthen his hold on the army and key installations. C.I.A. officers inside the embassy were flying blind; the history says they had "no way of knowing what was happening."

Mr. Roosevelt left the embassy and tracked down General Zahedi, who was in hiding north of Tehran. Surprisingly, the general was not ready to abandon the operation. The coup, the two men agreed, could still work, provided they could persuade the public that General Zahedi was the lawful prime minister.

The C.I.A. station in Tehran sent a message to The Associated Press in New York, asserting that "unofficial reports are current to the effect that leaders of the plot are armed with two decrees of the shah, one dismissing Mossadegh and the other appointing General Zahedi to replace him."

The C.I.A. and its agents also arranged for the decrees to be mentioned in some Tehran papers, the history says.

The propaganda initiative quickly bogged down. Many of the C.I.A.'s Iranian agents were under arrest or on the run. That afternoon, agency operatives prepared a statement from General Zahedi that they hoped to distribute publicly. But they could not find a printing press that was not being watched by forces loyal to the prime minister.

On Aug. 16, prospects of reviving the operation were dealt a seemingly a fatal blow when it was learned that the shah had bolted to Baghdad. C.I.A. headquarters cabled Tehran urging Mr. Roosevelt, the station chief, to leave immediately.

He did not agree, insisting that there was still "a slight remaining chance of success," if the shah would broadcast an address on the Baghdad radio and General Zahedi took an aggressive stand.

The first sign that the tide might turn came with reports that Iranian soldiers had broken up Tudeh, or Communist, groups, beating them and making them chant their support for the shah. "The station continued to feel that the project was not quite dead," the secret history recounts.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mossadegh had overreached, playing into the C.I.A.'s hands by dissolving Parliament after the coup.

On the morning of Aug. 17 the shah finally announced from Baghdad that he had signed the decrees — though he had by now delayed so long that plotters feared it was too late.

At this critical point Dr. Mossadegh let down his guard. Lulled by the shah's departure and the arrests of some officers involved in the coup, the government recalled most troops it had stationed around the city, believing that the danger had passed.

That night the C.I.A. arranged for General Zahedi and other key Iranian agents and army officers to be smuggled into the embassy compound "in the bottom of cars and in closed jeeps" for a "council of war."

Peter Bergen has some interesting thoughts on negotiating with the Taliban here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/bergen.taliban/

The problem with American realists is that they too often do not know what is real. For example, do you really think that Obama can successfully manage the factional political dynamics of Afghanistan or Pakistan? Whenever, the counterinsurgent government tries to accommodate the insurgents, most of the factions within the government will attempt to make their own private arrangement, and in the end the Taliban, in the case of Afghanistan, will be far more unified than is the government. The government will fall apart and the Taliban will over-run the country.

Realistically speaking, the Afghan government is already so fractured and factionalized that they do not have the capacity to negotiate in the western sense. They must have a series of traditional broad based consensus building conferences (loya jirga). After that, it is inevitable that the U.S. will be left out in the cold unless we learn how to collaborate with the many factions and not try to simply split them apart as we do now by supporting the warlords. By supporting individual warlords, we are weakening the central government and becoming part, or victim, to their factions, and will have no place to go in a consensus building process.

In the final analysis, our goals must coincide with an Afghan consensus. I am worried that we do not have an idea what that consensus will be.

Thanky,

Bob Spencer

Professor Walt,

All of things you have described as realism are just diplomacy. Are you saying that foreign policies based on diplomacy, as opposed to the use of force, are necessarily realist?

Obama is a breath of fresh air. I agree that he needs to undertake efforts in a manner that enable him to keep his concentration.

The "short" campaign relative to the degree of stress of actually governing, actually bearing the responsibility for a nation and world in great distress.

[Until the ICC starts indicting Zionists, it simply has no credibility.]

Please forward and announce!

The first blog entry in the list at the end contains an interview with Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani. His insights are particularly valuable to help understand the (Zionist-orchestrated) threat to foreign policy realism that the indictment of Bashir represents.

EMERGENCY PROTEST!! HANDS OFF SUDAN!!

A rally and press conference to denounce the ICC arrest warrent of Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir will take place Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm in front of the Embassy of Sudan, 2210 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 2008.

The African Union, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement all stand in solidarity with the Sudanese government against this immoral western attempt at regime change that does nothing to help the peace process in Darfur. Concerned citizens of the U.S. plan to show their support for Sudan as well.

For more information contact Hodari Abdul-Ali of the Give Peace A Chance Coalition at 301-728-8949 or Akbar Muhammad of the Youth4Africa Foundation at 314-422-4338.

Sudan and Darfur Blog Entry List

• Analyzing Darfur's Conflict of Definitions
• The Rush to Nazify Sudan by U.S. Academics
• ICC Prosecutor Ocampo Incites Genocide?
• Bostonians Learn About Darfur
• Sun. Aug. 10 Darfur Meeting Report
• Israel-Incited "Genocide" in Darfur?
• Followup: Israel-Incited "Genocide" in Darfur?
• If you liked Iraq, you will love Sudan
• 5th Question: Darfur
• Eric Cohen vs. Eric Cohen
• Profiteering from humanitarianism
• Poisoning Human Rights Discourse
• Killing Muslims Under Humanitarian Cover
• Harvard Supports Incinerating Arab Countries
• Singing HaTikvah while inciting a disastrous US invasion
• The Neocon Program to Incinerate Arab and Muslim Countries
• USHMM: National Thought Control
• Rethinking Early Islamic History

It sounds that the talks may not just be a sign of realism. Why not use constructivism to understand all these talks, or even liberalism? hehe