The realist approach in international relations is one of the most enduring and influential theories that seeks to explain how states behave in the international system. Realism rests on the idea that international politics is inherently competitive and conflict-prone due to the absence of a central authority above sovereign states. It emphasizes power, security, and national interest as the driving forces behind state actions, often presenting a pessimistic view of human nature and international cooperation. Rooted in ancient political philosophy and developed more rigorously in modern times, realism provides a framework that focuses on the struggle for power and survival in an anarchic world order. The foundations of realism can be traced to classical thinkers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. Thucydides, in his account of the Peloponnesian War, stressed the inevitability of conflict due to fear, honor, and interest. Machiavelli highlighted the importance of pragmatic leadership and the use of power in achieving state objectives, while Hobbes described the “state of nature” as a condition of perpetual insecurity where life was “nasty, brutish, and short.” These philosophical ideas later influenced modern realists who sought to explain international politics through systematic theories. During the twentieth century, especially after World War II, realism emerged as a dominant school of thought with key proponents such as Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and John Mearsheimer shaping its various strands. At the heart of realism lies the assumption of anarchy in the international system. Unlike domestic politics where government institutions regulate behavior, the international sphere lacks a central authority to enforce rules or resolve disputes. This absence of overarching authority leads states to rely primarily on self-help to ensure their survival. States, being sovereign entities, are the principal actors in realism, and their actions are primarily motivated by the pursuit of power and security. Cooperation, though possible, is viewed with skepticism, as states are reluctant to depend on others in a system where betrayal and competition are always possible. Classical realism, as articulated by Hans Morgenthau, emphasizes the role of human nature in shaping international politics. Morgenthau argued that humans possess an innate desire to dominate, which translates into the behavior of states seeking power over others. For classical realists, the struggle for power is a reflection of human selfishness and ambition, and international relations cannot be divorced from this underlying reality. Thus, morality, while relevant, often takes a backseat to the pursuit of national interest defined in terms of power. Statesmen are advised to act prudently, balancing ideals with the necessities of survival and security. Structural realism or neorealism, developed most notably by Kenneth Waltz, offers a different explanation that shifts the focus from human nature to the structure of the international system. Waltz argued that it is not human ambition but the anarchic nature of the system itself that compels states to act in