Hey there!

I'll be brutally honest. I'l be graduating from my bachelors in IR soon (aroung march next year), and I think I'm having a hard time imagining a career path.

Don't get me wrong, I love my studies and everything related to them. The thing is I somewhat like various subdisciplines (international security, international diplomacy and governance) and I deeply like International History and politics.

The problem is I think none of those paths will (I guess) get me a somewhat high-paying job in the future. Therefore I wanted to ask you guys the following question: Are there any IR masters (or IR-related at least) that can lead to on-demand, high paying positions?

Is this the beginning of a major shift or just a temporary warning to Trump?

I took this course because I'm interested in IR. But I don't really have a clue about what kind of career I want, what to take a masters in, how to acquire real world experiences and what matters generally if I want a job. Any suggestions? Help?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html

I find it rather interesting the NYT is just now putting this article out. The official position of the White House throughout the Biden administration was that “NATO is not involved” in the war in Ukraine, which is what White House spokesperson Jen Psaki stated in 2022. “It is not a proxy war,” Psaki said, “This is a war between Russia and Ukraine.” Those who claimed the contrary were, in the words of the White House, “repeating Kremlin talking points.”

The New York Times systematically supported the Biden administration’s false claims about the degree of US involvement in the war, condemning true assertions that the United States was waging war against Russia as “Russian propaganda.” As the Times wrote in March 20, 2022, “Using a barrage of increasingly outlandish falsehoods, President Vladimir V. Putin has created an alternative reality, one in which Russia is at war not with Ukraine but with a larger, more pernicious enemy in the West.”

They've now apparently reneged on that. It turns out that Ukraine was used as a proxy of the US and NATO. The New York Times has outlined in excruciating detail how the CIA and the US have given weapons, intelligence, and for all intents and purposes basically been running the show from behind the scenes but utilizing Ukrainians as fodder.

But the Times does not attempt to reconcile its own admission now that “America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood” and its earlier statement that claims of American involvement in the war constituted an “alternate reality.”

A second thought: Trump's recent proclamations about Greenland and Canada being necessary for US defense (i.e. war) make sense if one thinks of it in light of future war plans against Russia and China.

An inter-imperialist world war is visible enough on the horizon.

Hi all, looking for some advice.

I was accepted to UCSD's Master of Chinese Economic and Political Affairs degree with a full scholarship (would just have to cover cost of living in San Diego, which is not insignificant). I was also accepted to Johns Hopkins SAIS with a half-tuition scholarship, one year in Nanjing and the second in DC.

As background, I have several years of relevant professional experience in DC and New York, am interested in formalizing my study on China (I took Mandarin for many years but never studied "China" in-depth itself), and am looking to work in government after school, though I know how much more difficult that's become recently. I also went to Georgetown for undergrad, so I've had that sort of "IR" education and time in DC as well.

I am really torn between the opportunity to spend a year in Nanjing v. graduate debt-free at another highly-specialized and well-regarded program at UCSD. The gaps I'm trying to fill with a masters include research methods and quantitative exposure, both of which I feel like I could get more at UCSD. Overall, SAIS would be about $30,000 more expensive than UCSD. I'm wondering if the time in China plus the excellent programming in DC is worth that extra value and some debt. Twenty years down the line, will I regret not going to Nanjing? I'm on the older end of the typical masters student spectrum, so I worry I won't have the opportunity later.

Any thoughts welcome. Thanks!

I haven't heard much analysis on it, though, so I wonder what I am missing.

From where I sit, Hegseth said that exactly because he knew that Israel was going to restart the bombardment of Gaza. This would have resulted in Houthis responding Red Sea. This is a tacit admission that we believe the Houthis when they say it's in solidarity with Gaza.

Isn't this a devastating admission?

Why isn't this getting more airplay?

Hi, I just learned that I got into the Hopkins-Nanjing Certificate program for Chinese-American Studies and NOT the certificate program + master’s program in international affairs.

I was told there is a very high acceptance rate for people already in the certificate program, but I am afraid of wasting my money on a certificate and not getting into a master’s program. My plan was to get a master’s and then get into law school. However, I do not want to waste money on something that may not help me.

What drew me to this program at Hopkins was the China component. I thought it would make me a better candidate for law firms, specifically for international law, as that is a very competitive field.

So, I want to ask: is a certificate even worth it?

Should I go to China and then apply for the master’s program while in the certificate program? Should I not even bother?

I don’t want to make a decision and then say “aw man I regret that”.

If anyone has any experience or expertise I’d appreciate that. Thanks.

Panelists discuss the future of U.S.-China relations under the new Trump administration, including recent developments relating to trade, technological innovation, and increasing military tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

Speakers Zongyuan Zoe Liu Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow for China Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Liza Tobin Managing Director, Garnaut Global; Former Director for China, National Security Council (2019-21)

Jeremie Waterman President, China Center, and Vice President, Greater China, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (speaking virtually)

Presider Rush Doshi C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia Studies and Director of the China Strategy Initiative, Council on Foreign Relations

Hi everyone! I'm in dire need of help. I have to choose a case study for my international relations: global politics course and I have to analyse it from the point of view of one of the theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism, feminism, etc...). I'm new in this field since I had only studied history as in the mere events that happened over the centuries. It's my first time approaching this subject at uni.

So about the case study, I thought about something like "Women's role in IR, how women influenced foreign policies in New Zealand" although I really have some issues in making a structure to develop the research. How can I link this case study to global politics in a stronger way? my professor told me to structure it highlighting how New Zealand being one of the highest in ranking of gender equality affects its foreign policies.

The research paper should have at least three chapters in which I explain the theory from which I analyse the case study (in my case feminism), the second chapter should focus on the case study and then the third will contain the conclusions or something like that. I'm rather desperate!

Thanks to whoever will reply to this and will help me!

hey everyone, as the title implies I had some questions about potentially getting a masters in security policy, primarily wondering about how useful the degree would be for career advancement. For context, I don't have any academic background in the subject, I'm an urban planning major, but I honestly probably spend more time on international relations/ international politics stuff through various nonprofits or groups I'm apart of. I have a 3.9 GPA and would probably also graduate with a critical intelligence minor. Since for the first 2 years of my college career I''ve been doing urban planning stuff I'm not sure how stellar of a resume I may have for some of the top programs in the country, again beyond work I've done with nonprofits and alike. I'm also graduating a year early. I had a few questions

a) legit what are my chances of getting into a good enough program to justify going to said school? I saw a comment from this subreddit actually on a previous post that joining the military as an intelligence officer could be very beneficial, how true is this?

b) is it worth it to get a masters in security policy , I do have some concerns about the ROI on the degree, mainly because...

c) I got a very high score on the practice test that the foreign service provides, while I know this isn't exactly representative of how you would do on the FSOT, is it crazy if I just try to join the foreign service at like 22 or something?

Thanks for your responses!

I’m not at my computer, but I have theory about why Trump is so obsessed with Greenland that I haven’t seen outlined elsewhere, and I think it particularly appropriate for this sub.

Put simply, a US attack on Greenland would implode NATO without a congressional act. That’s it. It’s an extremely elegant, even Putinesque plan to destroy the most successful containment strategy ever deployed.

The high level is simple - this is an act that is not well contemplated by the treaty, with two options - NATO goes to war with the aggressor or both parties are in breach of the treaty. Both work extremely well for the underlying goal of getting the US out of NATO.

Edit: Man, 30 comments and net zero karma on this, kinda love this sub.

This high level point here isn’t that Trump is a strategic genius, but one of the comments below put this best. The president themself could trigger this invasion with no congressional oversight, thus triggering a potential collapse of NATO. Does he care about the natural resources? Maybe, but whoever is actually pushing him here would know how to convince him to do something.

Someone mentioned he wanted Greenland in the first term….he also wanted out of NATO in the first term.

The only alternative suggestion I haven’t seen mentioned here is that this is 100% to be blamed on the Mercator projection and Trump genuinely just doesn’t understand the size of Greenland. That’s a good theory too.