Do you believe that realist’s suggestion that the past 50 years may have challenged their

underlying ideas, but that now it is back? Does it fit with what EH Carr suggested in the
interwar period?

The realist perspective has undergone an intricate transformation over the past half-century,
contesting its core beliefs. Realism has traditionally been described by its emphasis on state
ambitions, power dynamics and idealist notions towards seeking dominance and control in a
world of chaos. Renowned historian E.H Carr's "The Twenty Years' Crisis" laid the groundwork
for realist thinking on international relations, providing his perspective of the interwar epoch,
which has still remained a central theoretical framework today. Despite profound changes in
global political dynamics, economics, and technology, which contests realism's conventional
beliefs. However, the main principles of realism have once again solidified their theory in modern
international affairs.

Realism's repetitive prominence reiterates EH Carr's views of the interwar period, highlighting
global affairs' unruly nature and power dynamics' value. Carr argues that the collapse of idealistic
ideas and the outbreak of World War II underscored the ongoing pertinence of power politics
among nations. Moreover, contemporary affairs, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea and the
trade problems between the US and China, demonstrate the reaffirmation of nationalist beliefs
and highlight the resurrection of realist thinking.

In the past half-century, realism may have faced digressions from customary realist archetypes;
however, contemporary developments demonstrate a renewal of realist thinking in modern
international relations. This resurgence aligns with Cars' view that the core features of realism
remain prevalent despite obstacles in the contemporary world, reminding us of Carr's view that
the fight for domination remains at the core of international relations.