Introduction: Return of Realpolitik
In recent decades, international politics has witnessed a Return of Realpolitik—a revival of power-driven diplomacy that prioritizes national interests over moral and idealistic principles. A term first coined in Europe in the nineteenth century has once again become the dominant spirit shaping global relations. From Russia and China’s assertive policies to the pragmatic approach of Joe Biden’s administration, all signs point to a profound shift from liberal idealism to pragmatic realism.
After the end of the Cold War, many believed that the era of geopolitical rivalry had come to an end and that the world was moving toward cooperation, free markets, and global democracy. Yet the hypothesis of a liberal world order has collapsed in the face of power realities over recent decades. The war in Ukraine, the growing U.S.–China rivalry, the energy crisis, and rising distrust toward international institutions all indicate that global politics has once again returned to the logic of power politics.
In this context, what Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, understood in the nineteenth century has regained relevance: in relations among states, morality is often merely a mask worn by interests. Therefore, this article seeks to examine the modern meaning of Realpolitik, tracing its roots back to the nineteenth century and exploring its contemporary manifestations in global politics. We will also demonstrate how leaders like Putin and Biden each represent, in their own way, a new era of political realism.
This analysis seeks to expose the tension between ethical diplomacy and pragmatic realism and to show that Realpolitik has not only returned but is redefining the rules of power in the twenty-first century.
The Birth of Realpolitik: Bismarck’s Legacy
The term Realpolitik was first introduced in the mid-nineteenth century by German writer and thinker Ludwig von Rochau. He used the term to describe a policy grounded in realities and concrete interests rather than moral ideals or abstract theories. But it was Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor, who breathed life into the concept and turned it into the foundation of modern diplomacy.
Bismarck was a statesman who understood the logic of power with remarkable clarity. He believed that European stability could only be achieved through a balance of power, not through appeals to morality or ideology. In practice, he demonstrated that through a combination of limited wars, temporary alliances, and calculated compromises, one could achieve a far greater goal—the unification of Germany. His famous saying, “Politics is the art of the possible,” remains perhaps the most accurate description of the essence of Realpolitik.
Importantly, Bismarck’s Realpolitik was not synonymous with ruthless ambition or amorality. He avoided excessive violence or ideological zeal and sought a balance between caution and calculation. His wars were short, targeted, and victorious, and each war ended with a carefully crafted peace. Through this realistic yet measured strategy, Bismarck transformed a collection of fragmented German states into a unified empire.
Bismarck’s legacy went far beyond Europe, establishing a model of policy rooted in power and national interest. Later, thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger—towering figures of twentieth-century realism—cited Bismarck as the quintessential realist statesman.
Yet the twentieth century proved that realist politics was not without its flaws. The rise of totalitarian ideologies—fascism and communism—brought morality and ideology back to the forefront of world politics, giving power struggles a deeply ideological dimension. After World War II, the world entered a new era in which competition was not only about interests but also about values and belief systems. However, as we will see, the dream of moral diplomacy did not endure for long.
From Idealism to Realism: The Illusion of the Post–Cold War World Order
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was, for many Western theorists, the final victory of liberal democracy. In his famous book The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama described this moment as “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution,” asserting that the world would henceforth be organized around free markets and democratic values. This assumption—that the era of geopolitical rivalry had ended—became the foundation for what later came to be known as the Liberal World Order.
However, this order was built not on hard realities, but on moral illusion and historical optimism. The United States, viewing itself as a “benevolent superpower,” attempted to construct a global system grounded in liberal values through institutions such as the United Nations, the IMF, and NATO. Concepts like “moral diplomacy,” “humanitarian intervention,” and “universal human rights” became instruments of Western foreign policy.
Over time, however, these ideas collided with the harsh realities of international relations. U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya did not bring global stability; instead, they revealed a new face of legitimacy crisis in global power. Non-Western countries—especially China and Russia—saw these interventions as evidence of double standards and the instrumental use of moral values to preserve Western dominance. This is where the Realpolitik backlash against the liberal order began.
In reality, after the Cold War, the world did not move toward global cooperation but toward a redefinition of national interests. Russia, after the Yeltsin era, returned to power politics under Putin. China, despite its slogans of peaceful coexistence, continued along its path as a “smart power,” combining state-driven development with strategic ambition. Meanwhile, within the West itself, confidence in globalization and international institutions declined. The 2008 financial crisis, Brexit, and the rise of nationalist right-wing parties were all signs of the end of the idealist era.
Thus, the illusion of the post–Cold War world order rested on the naïve belief that national interests would no longer threaten peace in a liberal world. In practice, however, the return of power and competition demonstrated that politics remains a realm of interests and calculation, not morality and cooperation. In other words, the world quietly moved from Fukuyama’s “end of history” toward a Bismarckian return of history.
On this path, international politics rediscovered its ancient vocabulary—one in which words such as security, balance, rivalry, and influence replaced expressions like “shared values” and “rules-based order.” Gradually, even the United States began to display signs of a shift toward pragmatic realism in its foreign policy—one that began under Obama and reached its peak under Trump.
Thus, what began in the early 1990s with slogans of globalization and shared values ultimately led, by the 2020s, to the Return of Realpolitik—not as a temporary phenomenon, but as a defining and enduring feature of the global order in the twenty-first century.
Realpolitik in the New Century: From Putin to Biden
The arrival of the twenty-first century revealed that the era of international idealism had ended. The world is no longer governed on the basis of moral principles; rather, every power seeks to redefine its share of the global order. In this context, three major actors—Russia, China, and the United States—each represent a distinct model of modern Realpolitik.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin has revived power politics at the heart of the Kremlin through a blend of nationalism, pragmatism, and personal authority. From the very beginning of his rule in 2000, he declared the restoration of Russia’s “lost greatness” as his aim. Military interventions in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine, along with the calculated use of energy as a tool of pressure, demonstrated that Moscow no longer adheres to Western liberal norms. Putin believes that it is power, not morality, that guarantees respect in the international system.
In China, Xi Jinping has pursued a similar but more methodical path. Through the Belt and Road Initiative and the expansion of China’s economic and technological influence, he has advanced a form of economic Realpolitik: diplomacy grounded not in ideology, but in mutual interests and control over global value chains. Unlike the former Soviet Union, China does not seek to export its ideology; rather, it aims to shape a multipolar order in which no single power—even the United States—dominates as the absolute hegemon.
Meanwhile, in the United States during the Biden era, although Washington outwardly defends democratic values and human rights, in practice it follows the same logic of pragmatic Realpolitik. Unconditional support for Israel, maintaining an alliance with Saudi Arabia despite the Khashoggi killing, and efforts to contain China through regional alliances in the Indo-Pacific—all signal this shift. Unlike Trump, Biden speaks the language of multilateralism, but in practice defines power within the framework of interests rather than values.
Today’s world thus reflects a three-fold redefinition of Realpolitik:
- In Russia, Realpolitik is rooted in military force and nationalism.
• In China, it centers on economic leverage and technological control.
• In the U.S., it fuses symbolic values with geopolitical interests.
Yet none of these models has broken so dramatically from traditional diplomacy as Donald Trump’s foreign policy in his second term. Trump does not attempt to hide values or justify interests; he openly calls power a virtue and interests morality. As a result, our era should be understood not merely as a Return of Realpolitik, but as the emergence of populist Realpolitik—a phase in which blunt pragmatism fuses with populist political language.
Trump: Populist Realpolitik and the Ethics of Power in the Twenty-First Century
In his second presidential term, Trump is no longer the unconventional, apolitical billionaire of 2016; he now stands as an established leader presenting his own style of politics as a new doctrine of American power. In this period, he feels no need to justify himself. Just as the early years of the twenty-first century witnessed the return of realism, today we face the fusion of Realpolitik and populism—a model Trump embodies to its fullest extent.
In its classical definition—from Machiavelli to Henry Kissinger—Realpolitik means prioritizing expediency over morality and interests over values. Trump pushes this formula further: he not only sacrifices morality for expediency, he turns it into a tool for displaying power. In his view, moral language is merely a political advertisement for justifying interests. Thus his foreign policy combines moral performance with genuine disregard for humanitarian principles.
Foreign Policy as Performance
In his second term, Trump uses diplomacy as a media spectacle of power. His theatrical meetings with authoritarian leaders—from Putin to the Saudi Crown Prince—are not signs of compromise but components of his political theater. Each stage serves to broadcast a simple message: “America’s power lies in friendship with the powerful, not in defending values.”
Like the business world, he bases foreign affairs on immediate profit and personal deal-making. Economic agreements with wealthy Arab states, silence on human-rights abuses, and even soft remarks toward Iran’s government are not ideological shifts but expressions of Trump’s personalized Realpolitik—where moral principles fluctuate like stock prices.
Globalized Populism
The second pillar of Trump’s politics is populism, now extended from the domestic sphere to the international stage. The same language he uses to stir emotions at home—simple, anti-elite, laced with derision toward opponents—he employs globally. With open contempt for international institutions and multilateral treaties, he casts himself as “the voice of the people against an unjust global system.” Here, populism meets Realpolitik: both distrust global norms and rely on personal authority and direct power.
As a result, Trump has severed U.S. foreign policy from liberal idealism and transformed it into politics driven by mass emotion and media image. Showcase agreements with Israel and Arab states, theatrical peace gestures toward North Korea, and grand promises of a “new American century” illustrate this duality: peace in appearance, deal-making in essence.
The Ethics of Power and a World Without Values
In Trump’s worldview, power replaces morality. Like Machiavelli, he believes “people should fear their rulers more than love them”—but he generates this fear not through naked force, but through demonstrations of personal success and authority. Foreign policy becomes an extension of his personal brand: built on victory, profit, and spectacle.
In this mindset, concepts like “human rights,” “democracy,” and “global responsibility” matter only when they serve a larger deal. “We don’t fight for freedom; we fight for our interests,” he says—an apt summary of populist Realpolitik.
Trump and the Future World Order
Trump has demonstrated that the twenty-first-century world order is no longer anchored in shared values but in networks of personalized interests and temporary power alliances. Friendship with Arab monarchs, indifference toward the Yemen catastrophe, verbal attacks on European allies, and willingness to accommodate Putin or even Iran’s clergy all reflect a world where realism speaks a populist tongue.
If in the twentieth century Realpolitik was a tool for maintaining balance, in the Trump-era twenty-first century, it becomes a tool for crafting the image of power. In international politics, he seeks not stability but visibility. And that is what distinguishes the new era from the old: foreign policy has become a stage for competition in political spectacle.
Conclusion: The Return of Realpolitik and the Decline of Morality in Global Politics
An analysis of political trends in the twenty-first century shows that Realpolitik has not only returned, but has also taken on a new form—one intertwined with populism and modern media, elevating power politics to a personal and performative level. This Return of Realpolitik began with Bismarck’s legacy, evolved through the post–Cold War clash between idealism and realism, manifested as pure pragmatism in Putin’s Russia and China, and ultimately found its populist and media-driven version in Trump.
Along this trajectory, the world has witnessed the decline of political morality. Values that once served as pillars of the international order—human rights, democracy, and multilateral cooperation—have often become tools for justifying national interests and projecting power. Trump’s second presidency clearly illustrates this transformation: a foreign policy built on friendship with wealthy Arab states, accommodation with Iran’s clergy, disregard for human rights, and theatrical peace gestures—an emblem of a world in which power and imagery have replaced values and ethics.
This transformation has two key consequences:
- Redefinition of the Global Order:
The international system can no longer be explained purely through universal values and rules. Power has become the primary instrument of interaction, and personal or national interests the core of decision-making. This means countries and leaders increasingly treat agreements and alliances as temporary and conditional rather than fixed commitments. - Rise of Populist Realpolitik:
Trump has shown that realism can merge with populism, turning foreign policy into not only the arena of state interaction, but also a stage for competing over public opinion and domestic legitimacy. Such politics increases the risk of instability, since decisions made for immediate, publicity-driven gain are less aligned with long-term strategic considerations.
Overall, the historical path from Bismarck to Trump demonstrates that Realpolitik in the twenty-first century has evolved from traditional realism into performative, populist realism. This development brings both opportunities and threats to the global order: on one hand, states have become more adept at protecting their interests; on the other, trust and stability among nations have eroded, exposing the world to systemic instability.
Therefore, the Return of Realpolitik cannot be understood merely as a historical or theoretical trend; it must be recognized as a defining feature of contemporary global politics—an order in which morality is often sacrificed to expediency, image, and the demonstration of power. And Trump’s second presidency stands as the clearest living example of this transformation: proof that modern Realpolitik is not only pragmatic, but also populist and media-driven.
