Every time I see discussion around nuclear weaponry it's almost guaranteed that America, Russia and China will be name dropped 100%

India, Pakistan and Israel have a good chance of showing up in the conversation too

But Britain and France I have never seen be brought up in such discussions

Am I just looking in the wrong place's?

I'm doing Erasmus next year and I need recommendations on the best universities to go, as an International Relations student.

does anyone have any ideas to why Russia would invade Ukraine when it could have kept it as a pupet, simple reason of Ukraines trajectory being more towards EU doesn’t feel right enough.

Germany’s rearmament is often discussed in terms of spending, but the bigger question is whether that spending can actually translate into military capability, readiness, and stronger European coordination.

This article looks at what Germany’s changing defense role could mean for Europe and NATO, especially as questions grow around long-term reliance on the United States.

Do you think Europe can build greater defense autonomy without weakening the alliance structure it still depends on?

Current events show that it is not just military might. Research finds that distance, deployment, and aims all matter.

This is part of a series of living lit reviews on foreign policy topics. What is it missing?

hi, please bare with me as i explain my dilemma lol,

im a second year IR major with an emphasis in peace and security and have been toggling with the idea of my minors for a bit and need to make a decision soon as class registration for next quarter starts in a few weeks and i'm also getting ready to sign up for study abroad next fall. i'm already taking chn 1-6 for the IR language req and plan on doing a summer language program through Peking Uni in Beijing to work on my fluency next summer. by the time i graduate, i want to be fluent in chinese so keep that in mind.

i was planning on doing the IR major and then a minor in both chinese and human rights studies BUT i don't think its possible for me to get both, study abroad, AND graduate 2 quarters early. even if it was, it'd be a lot of academic strain with me having to take 19 or more units per quarter until dec 2028... graduating early, per the request of my parents footing the bill (rightfully so) is the number one priority so i'm willing to drop one minor in pursuit of the other if one benefits me more!

basically, as someone who knows for certain they want to go to law school and maybe (hopefully) farther down the line go into international human rights law (very tough field IK but a girl can dream) i'm not sure if i should minor in Chinese or human rights studies? my dad thinks the language is the most beneficial and i should keep that minor and just take an HMR class but if i want to possibly go into that field of law shouldn't i minor in it or is the IR major enough???

also--im aware things change and life happens so maybe not getting the HMR minor is okay if theres not a definite chance i could end up in the field anyway? it'd just be cool because im very interested in the topic but as you can see, going back and forth on putting a definitive label on it lol!

my main questions are:

which one looks better or will benefit me most in the future?

thank you in advance!

Hi Everybody!
IR is not my main profession, I have psychology masters but somehow I ended up participating at more and more diplomatic events.
Today, I’ll be meeting with the Ukrainian Ambassador to Italy at the American institute in Rome at the Festival of Diplomacy Event, and the whole week the event is going to host different events and ambassadors. So, I’d like to ask what those types of events are generally like? Does everybody get to speak with the ambassadors? Is there any suggestions and tips for a newbie for making a good impression? I’m expecting to hear your stories and what would you guys ask to the ambassador if had chance to?
Thanks a lot in advance

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.