Stability, defined as the avoidance of conflict, is the animating goal of self-styled “realists.” In isolation, it is a noble goal, and a broad cross-partisan movement has formed espousing precisely this point. But today’s “realists” push a legitimate idea too far by embracing or at least acquiescing to Russian imperial ambitions. “Realism” of this sort not only preaches American passivity in the face of Russian aggression, but abominates the Western alliance as a force for division and great-power war—a position that is not borne out by the historical record (as I have pointed out before). Moreover, “realism” is inherently conservative, willing and often eager to overlook or defend chauvinism, xenophobia, and, yes, imperialism in the name of stability. It is a morally stunted system that abhors all change.

In addition to its parochialism, there is a profoundly illiberal tendency ascendant in the “realist” camp. Those who oppose military aid to Ukraine and punitive measures against the Russian elite designed to deter Moscow claim that “the taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.” In other words, the Russian regime is not only hostile to the overarching liberal order, but it’s abundantly justified in its hostility. (A coterie of Russian intellectuals who oppose any further violation of Ukrainian sovereignty at the risk of imprisonment or death appear to disagree.)