Plato’s Republic or Putin’s?

Abstract

This article examines a persistent puzzle in modern International Relations concerning the recurring tension between efforts to establish international order on moral and normative foundations and the empirical reliance on coercive power to sustain stability. Rather than interpreting this tension as a contingent failure of institutions or leadership, the article situates it within a deeper philosophical problem that has shaped political thought since antiquity. Contemporary international politics is thus framed as an ongoing struggle between the pursuit of moral legitimacy and the practical demands of security, authority, and survival. To explore this dynamic, the article employs Plato and Vladimir Putin as symbolic reference points rather than direct historical or conceptual equivalents. Plato is used to represent the classical philosophical aspiration to construct political order through virtue, reason, and moral harmony. At the same time, Putin illustrates a modern form of statecraft grounded in sovereignty, strategic control, and the prioritisation of stability over universal ethical claims. Through this analytical juxtaposition, the article demonstrates how foundational debates about authority, obedience, and human nature continue to inform realist practices in contemporary international politics. The analysis further suggests that modern international order remains deeply indebted to unresolved philosophical assumptions concerning fear, hierarchy, and the limits of moral governance. By integrating insights from political philosophy and International Relations theory, the article advances a conceptual framework for understanding why moral discourse and coercive power remain inseparable in global politics. In doing so, it challenges both idealist expectations of normative progress and realist claims that dismiss the enduring influence of moral reasoning in international affairs.