Thread by @ABarbashin

Interesting Timofeev analysis on why all Russian FP experts are realists (!) (of the ones that want to make it a career). Liberals, neo-marxists do exists but they are marginalized. He gives 4 reasons for the popularity of realism in Russia:

Realism is "real". No one doubts destructive nature of the human being. Only the strong survive, the weak must join the strong. IR is pure anarchy and only balancing with enough power helps.

Realism is simple. Survival, security, domination triumphs all. Economy is secondary for as long as it provides at least "good enough". Ideology is a feature of "information warfare". What the state does is irrelevant as long as it secures national interests.

Realism is global. Timofeev claims neorealists made it the basis for international affairs - international order, poles, structures and etc. Realism allows to address "big questions" neglecting "smaller issues".

Realism is practical. IR realists do not look into domestic politics. They don't discuss issues that could trigger. They don't questions domestic practices and speak only of "higher things".

Timofeev traces the rise of its popularity to Brezhnev's era. Ideology was slowly dying and it seemed new and fresh - plus it was on the rise in the US. It simplified communication with the "enemy". Plus ideological "friends" turned out to be problematic: China, Eastern block

Russian liberal idealism was crashed by the realities of the 1990s; so realism was the only option to rebuild Russian FP. But, Timofeev says that realism will eventually suffer defeat (or rather would become 'not enough') in Russia. Two reasons why.

Firsts, foreign and domestic politics are one, it is no longer possible to pretend that Russian FP is not a feature of domestic situation.
Moreover, there is a growing demand for new ideology even among the realists. But, Timofeev says "anti-West" pro-traditions is not enough

The "values of the collective West" will remain a feature of Russian discourse and realism is not enough to respond to it.
But, he says, most realists are now preparing for war anyway (!!!!) which seems the natural domain of realism.

Second reason is that international relations are multidimensional. Security is not enough to win. Rockets protect mother Russia but do not bring it forward.
Timofeev argues that climate and environment protection are becoming popular among realists which

seemingly contradicts the simplicity of realism;
Timofeev argues for Russian FP thinking to evolve to incorporate "new economy", "connectivity", "human capital" concepts but that would be something other than realism.

Says worst case scenario Russia comes up with new artificial ideology; best case - flexible schemes of understanding IR.
Here is a link - ru.valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/z…

Why is it important? Timofeev is your next generation Russia FP thinker, he is 41 and a senior member of two of the most important Russian think tanks.
I believe he is quite consciously follows Kortunov's lead and challenges Karaganov personally and his "school of thinking"

That had already proclaimed the coming of the new "offensive ideology" that will carry Russia forward. Karaganov speaks for "collective Patrushev" while Timofeev addresses the concerns of those who are probably mid-career now and understand that this state of Russia - West

escalation can't go endlessly, that Russia is lagging behind on so much, including technology and general decent economic model for growth.
It does not make him pro-West though; rather pro-rational forward thinking.
Getting Russian FP out of realism deadlock is a hell of a task