This article discusses “core themes” and “principal assumptions” in the realist study on international relations. It identifies some fundamental claims that distinguish realism from other theoretical perspectives. Moreover, it believes that the debate on the core of realism helps to clarify its understanding of contemporary international affairs. Yet the evolution of realism reveals a number of ambiguities in the picture of its “principal assumptions”. It warns that the list of realism’s “core themes” must be cautious and avoid simplifications. The article outlines some theoretical challenges that realism faces in the post-Cold War international reality and their impact on realism’s essence. It argues that further debate on realism’s “core themes” is valuable yet it needs a more nuanced attitude – far from simplified conclusions. Finally, the article proposes a nuanced catalogue of realism’s “principal assumptions” which reflects the complex nature of contemporary international relations.

This article refers to the problem of the Russians in Latvia and a catalogue of determinants that accompany the processes of naturalization and social integration in this country. The article claims that the legal analysis alone is not a sufficient attitude to understand the complex character of both processes. The full picture of the naturalization and social integration in Latvia would be impossible without a much deeper analysis of historical, social, (internal) political and international context of both problems, to include the question of the attitude of the Russian community living in Latvia towards the independent Latvian statehood. Finally, the case of the Russians in Latvia is the illustration of the thesis about a need of the comprehensive and multivariable research attitude to social and political processes in contemporary international relations, and especially in East-Central Europe.

This article considers the implications of the Russo-Georgian conflict for the foreign policy of Russia, focusing on two important issues -the challenges that Moscow is going to face on the area of the Commonwealth of Independent States as well as the Russian relations with the West. Considering the consequences of the Russian intervention in Georgia for the Kremlin's policy on the CIS area the analysis points out the resistance of the Commonwealth's members as well as new challenges Russia is going to face together with the growing activity of other regional powers, including China and Beijing's interests on the area. The article refers at the same time to the Western problems with a cohesive response to the policy of Russia and determinants of post-war Russia's relations with the European Union and the United States, including determinants and prospects of the Western-Russian normalization.

The article refers to debates inside realism on rationality of international processes. It reveals that even a basic assumption of states calculating their interests and choosing optimal political strategies provoked contradictions among realist theories. Both prominent Cold War realists, Morgenthau and Waltz, differed in their views on the role of leaders, the impact of the international system and states' rational response to systemic constraints. The hegemonic rivalry stream of realism took the "middle ground" in this debate. Yet, the complex international reality after the fall of the bipolar order makes the realist considerations even more difficult. It encourages a wider openness to domestic nuances of foreign policymaking but reduces a chance for more general and rational schemes of states' international behavior. Post-Cold War realists declare a need of systemic and rational frames of their analysis but differ in their views on how much of the domestic context should be absorbed to comprehend contemporary international processes. The integration of miscalculations and misperceptions in leaders' political decisions and the rational frames of a state's foreign policy is a clear problem for realism.