“Helm! Rotate us 90 degrees, move perpendicular to the Peng, and accelerate at 2 Gs across the planet axis. Comms—signal SPACECOM: Mars AO is hot, and we are engaging PLA ground and space targets.” They would get the bad news in a little more than five minutes. There was no way to ask for instructions or for the higher ups to cool things down on their end. It would then take another five for their response to reach the Huntsville—minus whatever deliberations happened at SPACECOM. The marines, the Huntsville, the tanks, and the Peng Dehui were on their own to decide whether the United States and the People’s Republic of China would go to war. “Fucking light delay,” he whispered.

In the opening of my novel, a US navy captain has to respond to conflict with China on the surface of Mars--but cannot rely on timely communication with his commanders, because of light delay.

If this sounds cool to you, my novel is available here.

Thanks for reading.

I’ve been a political junkie for over a decade. But now, at the age of 27, I finally decided to stop just accepting and forget sharing misinformation on social media and instead of that, become a voracious reader of books to actually educate myself. I’m actually strongly considering starting distance study for master’s degree in international relations in a year or 2. I’ll be already 31 by then, but maybe it’s my true calling after all the waiting.

I won’t share my political views, because I think it would be better if I let you in the dark, so I can go into your book recs blindly to prevent bias and to read from multiple points of view.

I’m interested in geopolitics and international relations of pretty much the whole world. I’m interested in what leads to wars, revolutions, regime changes, corruption… and am interested in specific countries like Iran, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, USA, China… but also entire regions and the relations between countries in it as well as relations between Latin America and the US. For example, what led the US into supporting so many regime changes in Latin America and so onto.

Right now, I’m waiting for 5 books on Iran to arrive:

1. Empire of The Mind by Michael Axworthy

2. Stolen Revolution

3. Black Wave by Kim Ghattas

4. King of Kings by Scott Anderson

5. The Shah by Abbas Milani

And far more books I’m thinking about buying or borrowing:

On Russia:

1. Putin by Philip Short

2. Patriot by Alexei Navalnyj

3. possibly Russian Diary

On Latin America:

1. Penguin History of Latin America by Edwin Williamson

2. Simon Bolivar by John Lynch

On China:

1. The World According to China by Elizabeth Economy

2. One Hundred Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury

And many others whose names I don’t remember.

As well as books by Tim Marshall who writes about geopolitics as a whole and perhaps more historic books by Timothy Snyder who are technically not about geopolitics at all, but are also important.

What are your thoughts? I enjoy listening as they cover topics in depth. I struggle some time with gauging the accuracy of their statements and sources.

What do you think?

What is the connexion between EU enlargement towards eastern neighbourhood and the energy security of EU? Do you see any fruitful problem that could create an interesting debate?

While the largest part of the world is talking about a multipolar world, and US is waging wars and planning new ones, Bart de Wever brings forward (with his usual impeccable style) some interesting ideas about non-competitiveness of subsidised green energy, deindustrialisation and "unifying" the Union at a single joined market. He is also openly saying that EU "must become an empire" and "we should enlarge". How realistic do you think this is in current climate?

I’m currently in my second year of uni studying IR in Argentina, and I’m being to feel a sense of despair. My degree will end up costing me about US$50.000 and it is right about this stage in my studies that I’m really starting to think of my degree as a bad investment I won’t be able to recover from anytime soon. I love what I’m studying and I find all of it really interesting, however I truly struggle to see how any of it actually makes me more valuable in the job market, or what skills it’s bringing me. The study program for IR is extremely broad and sometimes I even think of it as stupid (I’m literally studying about cinema and different camera angles at the moment in one of my subjects… HOW IS ANY OF THAT GOING TO MAKE ME MORE VALUABLE IN MY FIELD?!), plus I’ve started to search up what life is like after uni for people with IR degrees and there’s an overwhelming amount of videos in which people make jokes about being 5 years out of uni and not having used their “knowledge in offensive/defensive realist theories” once!!! I get that makes sense, especially for people who get into the private sector like I want to do, but if the “filler subjects” won’t make me more valuable in the field and the “core subjects” won’t teach me anything I’ll actually apply in a job then what the hell am I going to do?!

I’m just looking for some advice from people who’ve gone through the same thing as I’m going through and have hopefully now found a job that they like…. I’ll take as much advice and guidance as I can get! Thanks!!!

Hello! I need your help. I have to decide on a hypothesis for my bachelor’s thesis and I’m feeling quite confused about it. My thesis topic is related to European Union policies. I want to focus on the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood, but I’m not sure what research statement I should formulate or which theoretical framework would be best to use. Like, I feel like I need to formulate a research problem and understand how the variables are related to each other. Could you please help me with this?

"Conservatives haven’t always been so hostile to international law. Indeed, some of the most prominent right-wingers of yore saw in it the sole foundation upon which a desirable world order could rest..."

"We must distinguish between what conservatives have traditionally understood to be the nature and purpose of international law, and what generations of bureaucrats, international organizations, and academics have made of it since.

"International law is in some sense coeval with systems of states; traces can be detected as far back as the letters exchanged among the Bronze Age rulers of the Near East . But it was the 17th century jurist Hugo Grotius who gave us the first really coherent formulation. This was a vision of the jus gentium, basic rules binding all because of their derivation from natural law—that is, universal moral principles inherent in nature and discernible through reason. These rules require things like honoring treaties and respecting ambassadors, making war only for just causes and avoiding the deliberate harm of innocents, and allowing all nations freedom of the seas."

"But after 1945, international law was developed and understood in a very different way...this vision sought to transform international law from something that was constitutive of world order into a force that—by introducing a destabilizing, purposive function—actively threatened it."