So why am I writing four days in one? Because two were very very boring short lectures, the third was literally just a movie, and the fourth was only seminars. Day 10 was a little interesting, though.

On day 10 my professor started the class by handing out country placards to everyone in attendance. He did this because he believes this exercise would help explain foreign policy. We were essentially made to play pretend-UN and I was given the role of Estonia. He defined foreign policy as how states behave in the international system. The goals of foreign policy is to ensure national security, economic policy, and diplomacy for political reasons and to establish ideological linkages. We only talked about three strategies in foreign policy: multilateral organization, economics, and military. There are three sources: individual, state, and systemic. Individual sources come from either leadership and idiosyncrasies; state sources come. Fromm economics and military; systemic sources come from geopolitics and the balance of power. If you’re confused, so am I. He then wanted us to put all of this into practice via role play.

He basically just went around asking everyone where their country is located, including neighbours, and then a question about either its economy, multilateral organizations they are a part of, and any military things they are involved in. I got nervous to be honest because I know net o nothing about Estonia’s economy, military wise I know they are “passionate” about the Ukraine/Russia war and the multilateral organizations it is a part of is the UN, EU, and NATO, but thats it. When he did get to me I was barely paying attention, and he had to call on “Estonia” a few times before I realized he was talking to me. My name is not Estonia so it didn’t register. He asked me where Estonia was located and I said was a Northeastern European country that borders Latvia and Russia. He seemed confused when I said “northeastern” but I defended myself by saying that it’s in the eastern part of Europe and quite high up so I think I’m correct about that. He took my word for it and asked his second question which was what multilateral organizations is Estonia a part of. Again, all I knew was the UN, EU, and NATO, but he also mentioned the Council of Europe and a student said the Nordic Council where Estonia is an observer or something. He moved on from me and I will say, most of the rest of the”countries” were pretty uneventful, expect for the girl who had Ukraine. She gave a little spiel about how it was a country that has had o fight for freedom for so long. A little bit of comments here and there but afterwards my professor asked the class this question about the war; “who do you think is right in the war, Russia (denazifying) or Ukraine (freedom)?” No one said anything but a guy who sits directly behind me laughed and said he doesn’t think anyone supports Russia here. Speak for yourself motherfucker. When the person representing Argentina was up next my professor said that Argentina is in a very bad economic state and is trying to make changes with a new leader. What does he mean by that? I guess Argentina wasn’t doing well before Milei so the people elected him hoping for a change and what they got was so much fucking worse. My professor also believes that Argentina not joining was a huge mistake, I agree. After this it was presentations and nothing really stood out so let’s move on to day 11.

So this day was about international law, but it was still very short. What makes this day worth reading about is my brief overview of one of the presentations as it peaked my interest. I don’t know why this lecture was so damn short as I figured international law was super important but I guess it might be too in-depth and requires its own dedicated course, or its a law school thing. Anyway, we started off with the definition of international law by Gerhard von Glahn: it is a set of principles, customs, and rules accepted as obligations. Is that the direct definition? Probably not but it’s what was said in class. Then we briefly went over the sources of international law: treaties, UN resolutions, and ICJ rulings (stare decisis precedent). When treaties are signed they must be honoured, something about “pact servanda.” But there is the doctrine of changed circumstances, “rebus sic stantibus,” which can override an initial treaty. Next we went over the challenges with international law: enforcement and jurisdiction. The only example given for enforcement was sanctions, thats pretty much it I guess. Do we really not have any other methods for enforcement besides sanctions? If so, thats kind of a bummer but maybe its for the best all things considered…

Several things were listed for jurisdiction: universal jurisdiction (crimes against humanity), nationality jurisdiction (nationality principle?), passive personality principle, and protective principle. None were really detailed but I guess they’re easy to look up. The UN was brought up during this section as it’s the best example to use when discussing it, with that he brought up the US proposing a ceasefire. We all know how this went as both Russia and China vetoed it due to the very vague language and how it was essentially a nothing resolution. My professor explained the proposal as the US going against its ally Israel, but we know thats not the case.

I do wonder if my professor ever actually reads the UN resolutions themselves rather than relying on sensationalized headlines. He seems to do the headline thing as whenever he talks about present matters and news its never with deeper context, just what some reporter said on TV or wrote online. I’m not dogging on journalists, it’s just that the more “mainstream” news sources always bend the truth and hide the very real and important context. Like when a few weeks ago my professor said that Putin threatened to use nukes, and when I brought it up here you all gave the full truth which was that he actually just reiterated reality for what it is: two nuclear powers going head to head will most likely result in nuclear fallout. And, honestly? Based on what we learned about nuclear war in class, “threats” like that happen all the time and are used as a deterrent, mutually assured destruction and all that. I just find it a little frustrating that my professors are supposed to be this beacon of knowledge but, Jesus Christ, they never go deep. Ever. They peddle the same bullshit as everyone else when they have the ability to actually learn more. They have access to sources the general public isn’t allowed to have and yet they don’t use that power. They have the “brain power” to know what the fuck they’re reading in those UN and other legal documents (the language is inaccessible to most people, legalese is hard) but they don’t do it! WHY??? It is so frustrating. It’s not just my political science professor, it’s my history one too, and I wonder if the entire departments do the same shit. They’ve been helpful, of course, giving me advice on sources and such, even my polisci professor encouraged me about teaching Marxism (he told me I could), but this as far as it will go. I guess I’m just disappointed in my lectures. You lot already know this so there’s no point dwelling on it any longer. Let’s move on to the seminars.

One of the seminars, a girl (her article: stigmatizing the bomb) emphasized how NATOs existence exacerbates the threat of nuclear war and the US itself as a problem. The guy, who sits behind me, asks her about Putin’s recent threats to almost try and minimize the US as a perpetrator. She did really well during her critique but struggled with answering him, and I honestly wanted to defend her and argue for her against both the professor and male student talking about Putin. Her main statement against the guy was that while Putin’s words are to be taken seriously and its possible to come true, she focused on the US as the main issue because of their position in the world, the US calls the shots. I wanted to say Putin actually said nukes were a possibility if NATO drops troops in Ukraine, he’s not going to use them without threat from NATO, if two nuclear powers go head to head nukes are most likely to be used. Saying Putin is just going to nuke Ukraine willynilly is very silly because that is not what he said and thats not what he will do, accusing him of such is very dishonest. The same guy asks another presenter (her article: the Culture of Fear in International Politics) if Russia is purposefully polarizing the Middle East against “us” (the west) and she said no. He laughed under his breath, seemingly unconvinced. He seems to see Russia as a big problem. How annoying.

Day 12 was movie day as my professor was out of town for the week. The movie that was played was Race to Oblivion made is 1982. I will be completely honest, I did not pay much attention to this movie. I just spent my time writing. I did tune in here and there, one thing that made me internally laugh was how the narrator was talking about the USSR being rightfully paranoid but made sure to walk it back by saying “I’m not defending the Soviets!” And I just thought it was hilarious.

Day 13 was the final day and nothing happened except seminars. Our final exams were released for us to take as well. Obviously I cannot discuss it but I can take my time with it, if that makes sense.

So that is my semester 3 political science class. I know the last four weeks were rushed but I know you can all understand why. I get swamped with assignments so I neglect posting these. Also the last two days were nothing so I’m sure none of you mind. My mind is now more focused on my history paper and how the hell I am going to write it.