The article brings attention to the gap in the research on peacebuilding from the perspective of realist theories. Started by Johan Galtung, the peacebuilding field has been largely influenced by his understanding of peace and violence, as well as by the peace studies discipline itself. An Agenda for Peace turned the theoretical concept into international practice, and the liberal spirit accompanying it imprinted on the research approaches that guide peacebuilding activities. Executed in the form of democratic transformation and statebuilding, peacebuilding operations often did not bring the expected results and called on a lot of criticism. Besides, throughout the decades dominating approaches (liberalism complemented by institutional and critical IR theories) have not been able to explain the continuous unattainability of sustainable peace and exacerbation of violence. A little attention has been given to peacebuilding by the realist theory, which has limited interest in local conflicts. In this aspect, the article aims to discuss how the realist theories have been addressing the topic of peacebuilding so far, analyse what are the main assumptions related to peacebuilding from a realist perspective; and assess if the realist theories can be helpful in resolving the problem of peacebuilding ineffectiveness. The article opens further discussion on whether the realist perspective and its focus on states’ interests, rather than (democratic and liberal) values and institutions, can be used for analysing the problems of the peacebuilding process and can help to better understand situations, where it is ineffective.