A state receiving military support can keep formal authority over its peace negotiations while depending on an ally for the means to keep fighting. That separates the right to reject a settlement from the practical ability to sustain the rejection.

Dependence alone doesn’t show how much leverage the supplier has. An ally may keep delivering essential equipment because the recipient’s survival serves its own security interests, and the recipient may have alternative suppliers, domestic production or reserves to withstand an interruption.

The kind of support matters too. Withholding future deliveries builds pressure over time, while restricting intelligence or communications can bite much sooner.

Credibility matters as well. A supplier may threaten to reduce support, but following through could damage its strategic position or its reputation with other allies, and a recipient that understands those costs may resist despite its material disadvantage.

Leverage may depend less on the volume of assistance than on control over capabilities that are essential, hard to replace and vulnerable to interruption. Even then, influence has to be separated from agreement between partners who already prefer similar terms.

That leaves an empirical question: what would show that dependence changed the recipient’s negotiating position? A concession after a threat to withdraw support could suggest leverage, but it could also reflect battlefield developments, domestic pressure or a reassessment of the settlement on offer.

How can researchers distinguish concessions induced by an ally’s control over essential military support from concessions the recipient would have made anyway?

I’m currently a political science major in my second year. I’m on track and I’m planning to use it towards law school, but I’ve been recently debating on taking a minor in MIS, finance, or economics. I want to open up more job opportunities in case I can’t find a job after law school. I heard a lot of lawyers end up being teachers or working a government job, which isn’t a bad thing, but it isn’t ideal for me. I have always been interested in technology, so I feel like it wouldn’t hurt to make changes now, especially since we’re in the age of AI.

Initially, I was planning to go into big law.

Should I change my major and instead minor in poli sci, or take a minor which wouldn’t place me too far behind on graduating? Which one of the degrees would be best suited for making money coming out of college in case law school doesn’t work out?

Richard Werner showed that commercial banks dont need to borrow money to loan it,... they print it out of thin air and then loan it out. The implications is that a small group of banks controls at large what a nation builds on their behalf. This becomes an extremely political process.

Trying to understand why things like the AI bubble with very little retail demand can find so much capital... this is what made this make sense. AI is insolvent, but the banks dont care since they get bailed out.

So obviously this seems extremely unfair, and of course everyone should then refuse to participate in such a system. Even if they knew this is what it was. But of course no one revolts because of the prisoners dellima. And the people who try and change things for the better, the whistle blowers etc... they get crucified by society. Being a leader to change the regulations and having caps on who/ how money can be created to make things better for the community is thankless, and often this can destroy ones career etc.

This leads to the main topic, reformist to tyrant trajectory and the iron law of oligarchy. People get corrupted as an ends to the means... to eventually do good. The folks who do things by the book, are handy capped.

This stream of thought is why Im asking if this is a wildly accepted view of the political science community. To me this idea explains what Ive seen, better than anything else and it predicts some pretty scary things. It also seems to suggest a way to game systems,... which in American society is to solve some problem that these banker types care about and then sell equities/ shares dumped on the public.

I know I have a lot of themes going on in this post, but I wanted to capture the major themes of what Ive noticed about systems at large.

I’m an undergrad primarily studying a double degree Urban and Regional Planning alongside Philosophy. I’m planning on majoring in International Politics next year alongside Philosophy, and was hoping for some pointers on books that would introduce me to political science/theory and history. I have a decently good entry-level knowledge to politics, mainly the more philosophical texts, such as On Liberty by Mill, Marx, Foucault, Aristotle etc.

I’m looking to dive even deeper, connecting political theory/science/philosophy to history, and reading texts that give me a clear and comprehensive picture of (primarily western) politics, as well as Chinese politics and history.

Apologies also if my post is poorly worded. I just woke up lmao

Cheers!

The "Party" (not sure about the political correctness here since it’s a "just" a List) established itself mainly as an anti-corruption movement, but I can’t imagine that all their members share the same opinion on certain topics (for example in the discussion around the independency of Kosovo, or "simpler" stuff like economics, foreign affairs,…), which they will have to deal with sooner or later.

Am I wrong for thinking that their party/list will shatter into many smaller parties until there is nothing left of it?

Theoretically it’s not a bad thing, but there’s this risk that old SNS voters go back to SNS since they may feel like the students party is too instable and paralyzed in their decision making since their opinions vary too much.

Found an interesting way to break down political ideologies by the structural definitions of traditional political labels. Rather than just give you a list of policy positions you ascribe to, it places ideologies into one of six cells on a matrix. Hope you guys find it helpful.

So i revently came and cross the terms liberal and conservative.

I am astonished how broadly these labels are mentioned in context of role of government, social or cultural rules and economic preferences.

However an individual can have its own preferences like someone can be activist but still values tradition

In video games like rimworld individual lables and opinions makes much sense but even so two opposite spectrums never emerge

Everywhere in broadcase and mass communication i can see the liberal and conservative division but I never intuitively understand them

Can anyone explain is there any benefit of such classification or is it just a political tool.

​

Is there any examples or model laws or regulations of what systemization of evidence based policymaking looks like in top level governance of states and organizations ?

My friend Ran Heilbrunn wrote this piece for Café Américain, Part 1 of a four-part series on contemporary Israel, ahead of the October 27 vote. His main claim should interest this sub: the 2022–2026 Knesset was the first since 1988 to serve its full term, and he argues that a widely contested government had a strong reason to stay together and put off elections, so "a lack of popular support has paradoxically produced electoral stability." He also looks at the broader trend of a democracy's constitutional structures becoming the thing elections are fought over rather than the framework they happen in. The link goes to Café Américain's post on X, which links to the article. If you think it's worth it, reposts or replies there are welcome, and I'd be curious whether people here buy the legitimacy-deficit reading of coalition durability: https://x.com/keithwhitson/status/2114460007144345608

A government faces a recurring dilemma. If it tightens restriction to secure order, it raises the probability that grievance, elite defection, digital coordination, and external sponsorship will produce rebellion—or a punitive successor regime. If it loosens restriction to preserve liberty, it raises the probability that insecurity, polarization, corruption, and organized capture will generate public demand for a strongman—or allow a faction to seize the state.
 
This is not a simple tradeoff between order and liberty, because citizens’ preferences are partly endogenous: fear can be manufactured, trust depleted, and emergency powers ratcheted. State capacity is asymmetric: coercion and surveillance are easier to build than impartial justice and accountable security. Crises reward speed over consent and create path dependence. Elites and security forces can defect under either course. Information abundance empowers demagogues and foreign manipulation; information control hides corruption and radicalizes excluded groups. Liberalizing too fast invites capture; liberalizing too slowly invites revolt. The “safe zone,” if it exists, is not a fixed midpoint but a moving corridor sustained by legitimacy, capacity, credible constraints, and sequencing.
 
The dilemma’s core is a pair of feedback loops. The repression loop runs: insecurity → demand for control → surveillance and restriction → grievance, elite defection, and coordination → more insecurity → more control. The liberalization loop runs: opening → insecurity and polarization → demand for a strongman or factional capture → illiberal correction. Each loop can become self-reinforcing, and the tools used to stabilize one failure mode can create the other.
 
The moral question is therefore not whether to choose order or liberty, but how a government can build enough capacity to protect citizens, enough constraint to prevent tyranny, enough openness to correct error, and enough sequencing to survive crises—without letting the instruments of stabilization become either a repression ratchet or a gateway to authoritarian capture. The difficulty is that these goods are mutually dependent yet asymmetrically costly: capacity without constraint becomes predation; constraint without capacity becomes paralysis; openness without sequencing becomes capture; sequencing without openness becomes irreversible emergency.

Saying that as a nerd myself

What would that be called?

I've been firmed before that I wanted to take law after my college undergrad. But experiencing law subjects in my pre-law which really caused me great burnout (it stresses me so much that I put it last on my priorities). Mas na e-enjoy ko 'yung ibang subjects, specifically international relations. I'm amazed on how that work and on how I can understand the concepts easily.

Now, I don't know what path to take. Should I still take law? (kasi iniisip ko rin na baka ngayon lang 'to, phase lang). Are there people here who experiences the same? how do you manage it or cope from it?

Curated 400 books on political science, philosophy, economics, and humanity’s centuries-long obsession with telling others how to live.

Includes reading pathways and a shorter canon for those still pretending to have a social life.

For anyone who finds questioning authority more entertaining than obeying it.

https://open.substack.com/pub/anuragmoderno/p/the-anti-syllabus-guide-to-read-political?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=521dq5

Hey everyone, I'm a 16 year old from India, and lately I've been getting more interested in politics and its significance in the world today. I'd say I know a decent amount about certain topics, but I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as I'd like to be, and I'm not really sure how to improve.

One thing I've noticed is that I can usually see both sides of an argument, including their pros and cons, which makes it difficult for me to form a solid opinion on certain issues. I don't want to blindly pick a side just for the sake of having one. I'd rather understand the reasoning, evidence and context behind different perspectives before coming to my own conclusions.

For example, I recently started looking into Fidel Castro's history and his significance in Cuba. I understand why his anti imperialist stance and opposition to American influence appealed to many people, but I also came across a lot of criticism regarding his government's actions and treatment of its citizens. I'm struggling to understand why he's still admired by so many people despite all of that, and I'd like to understand the historical context rather than just rely on surface level explanations.

I also don't want my understanding of politics to be limited to social media, where information is often oversimplified, biased or taken out of context. I'd like to develop a more comprehensive understanding of political ideologies, history, economics, international relations and how governments actually function.

So, for those of you who are more knowledgeable about politics, how would you recommend getting started?

Are there any books, documentaries, YouTube channels, podcasts, newspapers or other reliable sources you'd recommend? Are there any activities or habits I should develop to improve my critical thinking and learn how to evaluate political arguments properly?

I'm especially interested in learning how to distinguish reliable information from propaganda and bias, and how to understand opposing viewpoints without automatically accepting or dismissing them.

I know this is a broad subject, and I'm not expecting to become an expert overnight. I just want to build a solid foundation and become informed enough to develop my own opinions rather than simply adopting someone else's.

I'd appreciate any advice or recommendations. Thanks!

Hi,

I need some help finding academic work that focuses on the different electoral and voting systems in democratic nations to present an ideal framework.

I specifically am looking for work that presents an ideal model for voting and the frequency for voting.

The question comes from only voting every two years, one local and one national.

In between that, as a voter, I am not involved in the decisions parliament makes and a lot has changed in the last four years.

Does the ideal framework for this maybe mean more frequent votes? Votes for key issues? A framework to determine what issues parliament ought to hold a referendum for to ensure their choices stay democratic?

Not looking to debate this at all, more just looking for resources and see what is out there✨

Hello everyone,

I am an Indian American student looking at graduate studies in Political Economy at a Politics department in the UK. I was asked to provide a research proposal for a project for my top choice university. I have never written a research proposal before and certainly have not written one in the Britisher style. I would appreciate the help in the structure of a proposal, what it should include, and some examples, if you are comfortable giving, on what a research proposal should look like. I apologize if my use of "Britisher" is inappropriate. It is the colloquial term we use in my part of India and also I come from a low caste background so this is very much just how my parents and by extension speak.

I appreciate all of the advice and help!

I am not, by any means, an expert regarding political topics, so I wanted to get your opinions on the following doubt I have had as of late:

Do you think that one could think about 'the political' and 'politics' as two different concepts?

If so, what would you consider are the characteristics that set them apart? (Ontological, practical, etc.)

I wonder about it, for a friend of mine has repeatedly stated that 'everything is political', which is something common to say. However, I do not think I fully understand the statement.

Would that mean that everything is at the core in ontological terms a domain of politics? Or that being 'political' is an inherent ontological characteristic of all entities?

Does it mean that everything is susceptible to a political analysis or alike?

I'm eager to read your takes! Thanks!

I am bored does someone wants a talk about politics

Hello everyone,

it’s my first post here! i wanted to ask, i just graduated from UC Davis with a Political Science Degree with a minor in sociology and i’m struggling to find a job i can get into. I’m trying to get into the field of law whether that’s working for the district attorney or at a law firm, however i’ve had no luck. they all require so much experience in the law field which i don’t have. How do i even get that experience if nobody is willing to hire me?

I would appreciate any tips as to what to look for and what i should do? What job titles are recommended i should look at? i js feel like im applying at the wrong places and wasting their and my time 😭😭 please help meh

thanks you all :p

Hey everyone!

I'm thinking of creating an Instagram group for people who are genuinely interested in geopolitics and international affairs.

The idea is to bring together people who enjoy discussing topics like global conflicts, international relations, foreign policy, world politics, and major developments around the world.

It would be a space to share opinions, exchange perspectives, have meaningful discussions, and learn from each other.

You don't need to be an expert — just have a genuine interest in geopolitics and be open to discussing different viewpoints.

If anyone is interested, comment below or DM me. If there's enough interest, we can create the group and add everyone!

Looking forward to connecting with fellow geopolitics enthusiasts.

"Has the PM become more presidential"

1) One concern is while the lit review could work- not much in the field to discuss presidentialisation -maybe i could find theories of presidency and fundamentals of that as a workaround but still a concern either way - small field.

2) My MAIN concern though is the analysis.

Sure I can think of factors to look at. Increased media presence, unilateral decision making in cabinet, use of executive powers, etc u get the idea.

Then I could look for papers discussing how say PMs acted in cabinets. Not sure what to do after that- maybe write a little on what each PM spefically did for tha factor...? Blair packed his cabinet with supporters, cameron did this etc. Idk how to do it.

Then comes abalysing all of them to see a pattern for that factor. Okay 5/10 PMs were unilateral. One was a weird outlier, of those 5 all of them were more recent. The 5 that werent maybe differed in some slight ways.

I just dont feel like that has much to say there. You see what I mean? Its very basic and not significant analysis I feel?

Not to mention such factors increasing doesnt rly mean much might indicate a trend towards presidentialisation: 1) correlation isnt causation

2) every PM is going to have different contexts they acted in - some more power because they have a majority etc -cant really map this increase fully/properly every case is unique

Discussed my main issue about analysis (not the 2 points above) - with a teacher. She says its fine since think about how papers we read have little analysis at the end but mostly just data or describing things -Id agree but this is a 10k words dissertation. Beyond just saying basic stuff about the trends for each factor then doing an analysis section of my overall findings. It just feels like ill have finished what to say very quickly and concisely.

Hope that is explained okay. I do worry noone is understanding as my nice teacher did not seem to understand my main worry either I feel.

(Anyway, now I'm stressing about what other dissertation questions I could do instead 😭

You lovely people on Reddit have given me loads of suggestions too, but now I've got like 35 options and no idea how to narrow them down 😬

Honestly, all I really want is a manageable British politics topic with plenty of literature, a straightforward structure, and enough to analyse without overcomplicating things. Something I can just get on with and grind out.

Would it be worth sharing the options here, or does anyone have advice on how to narrow them down?)