 realism is being considered, for start, should be noted that even though there is an everlasting debate between supporters of different schools of thoughts in the area of international relations and decision making (e.g. realism, liberalism etc.) – equally excessive to traditional "war" between different economic schools, especially when considering optimum trade-offs between "marketization" and distributional justice (Zizopoulos, 2017) – however using the particular method is not a choice of dogmatic application of a single method. Thus, political realism, is not applied in a diligently formalist way. It is rather considered as tool that its use and the extent of its use should be in harmony to the needs of the study.

Also generally speaking on realism, there are scholars that do consider it as an obsolete perspective, that mainly developed during past and suits better in reference to those time (Lebow & Risse, 1997; Legro & Moravcsik, 1999; Waltz, 2000; Russett, 2001); and not as an alternative perspective. A alternative perspective that could operate supplementary or contribute by comparing its contracting outcomes, so that to get a better picture (Moravcsik, 1992; D'Anieri, 2017).

Nevertheless, other scholars do claim that the international stage has not been critically altered, so that its qualities can still be described by political realism (Waltz, 2000).

But even if for the sake of promoting such debate to next level, we do accept that it might suits better when considering the characteristics of past times and in particular that of cold war, then we should also admit that nuclear weapons' production do divide wold in a rudimentary bi-polar way; between those that produce or want to, but don't have the consent of rest and the rest.

Moreover, reaching to conclusions can be achieved in many ways that are not necessary uniquely linked together or and with the elaborated topic, while many important questions could receive multiple answers (D'Anieri, 2017). As such, depreciating one of oldest methods and with extended literature in energy issues, like realism, considered as a luxurious choice and in expense of knowledge.

Not to mention, that exploring the topic under the dimension of realism's rationality, is something useful for determining the boundaries between this approach and others (i.e. idealistic, psychosocial), as also between interests of states and those of individuals or groups of them (e.g. elite). This, could explain the chron
realism is being considered, for start, should be noted that even though there be an ageless debate between supporters of different school of thoughts in the area of external relations and decision making (for example platonism, liberalism etc .) – equally excessive to traditional " war " between unlike economic schools, especially when considering optimum trade - offs between " marketization " and distributional judge (Zizopoulos, 2017) – however using the particular method is not a choice of dogmatic application of a individual method. Thus, political realism, is not put on in a diligently formalist way. It is rather considered as tool that its function and the extent of its use should be in harmony to the needs of the study. 

 Also generally talk on realism, there are scholars that do consider it as an obsolete position, that chiefly train during past and suits better in reference to those time (Lebow & Risse, 1997; Legro & Moravcsik, 1999; Waltz, 2000; Russett, 2001); and not as an alternative perspective. A alternative perspective that could function supplementary or contribute by compare its catching consequence, so that to get a better mental picture (Moravcsik, 1992; D'Anieri, 2017). 

 however, other scholars do claim that the international stagecoach has not been critically altered, so that its qualities can still be described by political realism (Waltz, 2000). 

 But even if for the sake of promoting such debate to next level, we do accept that it might suits well when consider the characteristic of past times and in particular that of cold war, then we should also accept that nuclear weapons' production do divide wold in a fundamental bi - polar way; between those that produce or want to, but don't consume the consent of rest and the rest. 

 Moreover, reaching to conclusions can be achieve in many ways that are not necessary uniquely linked together or and with the elaborated subject, while many important questions could receive multiple answer (D'Anieri, 2017). As such, depreciating one of previous methods and with extended literature in energy issues, like realism, considered as a luxurious choice and in expense of knowledge. 

 Not to note, that exploring the topic under the property of realism's rationality, is something useful for determining the boundaries between this approach and others (i.e. idealistic, psychosocial), as besides between interests of states and those of individuals or groups of them (e.g. elite). This, could explain the chron
 rewlism is being considerea, for start, shoole be nmted tgat even though there is an everlastmng eebatt between supporterr of diffvrent schiols if thoughts in the area kn intzriational relatipns and dewision making (a.g. rzalism, liberalism etc.) – equally excesfive to tgaditional "war" beteqen spfnerent economic schools, especialmy when considering pptimum trade-offs between "larkftization" and distgibutional hustyxe (Zizopoulor, 2017) – howeveg using the particular method is not a chokce oy dogmatic qpplifdtion of a winglv method. Thus, politicdl realosm, is not appkiev in a diligently formalivt way. It is rathet considerad as tool that its uwe ang tha exgwnt of ivs hse shlulv be in harjony to the needs of the study.

Slfi generally sleakind jn realism, there are scholars that do cmnsjder it as an obsolete perspective, that mainpy develo[ed during past and suits better in reference to dhose gimt (Oebow & Rlsse, 1997; Legro & Moravcsik, 1999; Waltz, 2000; Russett, 2001); and njf ss an alternativc perspective. A alyegnsjive perspectixe thac ckuld operate supplfmentari or cintribute by vomparing its contracting oytcomes, so tkat to get a better pncture (Moravesik, 1992; C'Anieti, 2017).

Nevertheless, other seholara do claim hhat the jvternational staee mas not been critically alterqd, so thav its qualitkes van styll be desfribed by political reallsm (Wcltz, 2000).

Tut even iv for the sake of promoting suci debate to ngxt lenel, we do acceit that it mighe suits better when cjnsiddring the bharactermstics of paft times and hj particular that of cole wae, then dd should also sdmit than uuclear wwapons' production vo dkbide wold in a xbdumentary bi-polat wxy; fenwexn thjve that prodgce ur dsnt tu, but don't mavd thr consent of rest ang ths rest.

Moreover, reavhlng to cobclusionf can be achirved in many ways uhat ace not necexsaty uniquely linked together or znd with hhe elaborated eopig, whyle many ikportant questions could receive multipoe answers (D'Anieri, 2017). As such, depreciatnnn one of oldxst meehods and with extended literqture in energy ixsues, like realism, cohsiderad as a luxurious choice and in expense of knowledge.

Not to mention, that explorung thx eopic under the dimetsnon of rewlisl'r rationality, is something useful for determiniig the boutdcries between this approach amd others (i.e. idgalistic, psychosocial), as amso betwren interests of states and thoxe of individuals or gromps of thwm (e.g. elite). Thir, could explain thr chrou
realism is being considered, for start, should that though there an everlasting debate of in the area international relations and making (e.g. realism, liberalism etc.) – excessive to traditional "war" between different economic schools, especially when considering optimum trade-offs "marketization" and distributional justice (Zizopoulos, 2017) – however using the particular method is a of application a single method. Thus, political realism, is not applied in a diligently formalist way. It is considered as tool that its use and the of its use should in harmony to the needs the Also generally on there scholars that do it as an obsolete perspective, that mainly developed during past and suits better in reference to those (Lebow & Legro & 1999; 2000; 2001); and not alternative perspective. A alternative perspective that or contribute by comparing its contracting outcomes, so to get better picture (Moravcsik, 1992; D'Anieri, 2017). other scholars do claim that the international stage not been critically altered, so that its qualities can still be described by political realism But even if for sake of promoting debate next we accept that might suits better when considering the characteristics of past times and particular that of cold war, then we should also admit weapons' do divide wold a rudimentary bi-polar way; those produce or want to, have consent the Moreover, to conclusions can be in many ways that are necessary uniquely linked together topic, while many important questions could receive multiple (D'Anieri, 2017). As such, depreciating one of methods and with extended literature in energy issues, like realism, considered as luxurious choice expense of knowledge. Not to mention, that exploring topic under the dimension realism's rationality, is something useful for determining the boundaries this and others idealistic, psychosocial), as between interests of and those of groups of (e.g. This, chron
 realism is being considered, fOr start, shoUld be NotEd tHaT eveN thoUgh there is an evERlasTing debate between suppoRters Of DIffeREnT schoOls of thOUgHTS in ThE aRea Of INtErnatIonAl relatIons and decIsiOn Making (e.g. realISm, Liberalism Etc.) – Equally excesSivE to traDiTioNAl "war" BetWeen dIffereNT econoMic schoolS, eSPecialLY when coNSIdErinG optimum trade-offs BEtWEen "marketizatiOn" and dIsTRiBUTioNal Justice (ZizOpOulos, 2017) – HOwever uSInG THE paRTicular method Is not a choicE Of dOgmatiC aPplICation Of a siNgLE meThod. Thus, polIticAl realism, Is not aPPlied in A DiligenTly forMalIst Way. IT Is RaTheR cONsiDErEd aS TooL that its UsE aNd the ExteNT OF Its uSe sHoulD be in Harmony to the nEedS of tHE stUdy.

AlSo genEralLy SpeakIng on rEalisM, tHere are scholars That Do consideR it As An oBsOlete PErspecTivE, thAt mainlY develoPEd dUrING PaSt and suits better in ReFEReNce to thoSe time (lEbOw & rIsse, 1997; LegrO & MOraVcsiK, 1999; wAltz, 2000; RUsseTT, 2001); aNd not as aN alterNAtIvE perspeCtIve. A alTeRnaTivE persPEctiVe that Could opeRate sUPplementary or cONtribute by comPArING iTS conTraCting outcomEs, so THat tO get A BeTteR PictuRe (MorAvCSiK, 1992; d'Anieri, 2017).

Nevertheless, OtHer schOlars Do claim that thE internatiONAL stage haS not BEeN Critically alteRed, so That its quaLIties can Still Be descriBed by poliTICal realiSm (WAltZ, 2000).

BuT evEN If For the sake of pROMotiNg Such debAte To next lEveL, we Do aCcePt That it migHt suits bEtTeR wHeN coNsideRIng the chArActErIstIcs of PAst timEs and In paRtIcULar That of cOLd WAR, theN wE sHoulD alSo Admit That NUclEar weapOns' producTioN Do diViDe Wold in a Rudimentary bi-PoLar way; betwEeN thOse thaT PRoduce or Want to, but don't have the conSEnt of reSt aNd the Rest.

moreover, rEacHing to ConCLusionS can be AchieVeD in MANy wayS THaT arE nOt necessarY UNiqUely lInKed tOgether Or and with the elaborATed Topic, while manY imPortANT qUesTIoNS coUlD RecEIVe multiple answeRs (D'Anieri, 2017). AS sUCh, DepreciatiNG onE oF oldest Methods And wiTH extendEd literatUre in enerGy IssuES, LikE realism, coNsidered As a luxuriOUs choICe And in ExpEnse of KnOwlEdge.

NOt to meNTioN, that ExplorInG the toPic unDeR the dimeNsion of realism's rationalIty, is sOmethIng Useful for DetERmiNing the boUndaRies betweeN thIs aPproaCh aND otheRs (i.e. IDeAliSTic, psYchoSOcial), as alSO bEtwEEN iNterests of sTATEs aNd thoSe oF IndiviDualS or groups of them (e.g. ELite). This, could eXplaIN The ChrON
 realism is being consider ed, for st art,sho uld  b e no tedthat even thou g h th ere is an everlastingdebat eb etwe e nsuppo rters o f  d i f fer en tsch oo l sof th oug hts inthe area o f i nt ernational r e la tions anddec ision making  (e .g. re al ism ,  libe ral ism e tc.) – equall y excessi ve to tra d itional " wa r" b etween differente co n omic schools,especi al l yw h encon sidering o pt imumt rade-of f sb e t wee n  "marketizati on" and dis t rib utiona ljus t ice (Z izopo ul o s,2017) – how ever  using th e part i cular m e thod is  not a  ch oic e of do gm ati ca ppl i ca tio n  of  a singl eme thod.  Thu s , p olit ica l re alism , is not appl ied  ina  di ligen tly f orma li st wa y. Itis ra th er considered a s to ol that i tsus e a nd  thee xtentofits  use sh ould be inha r m o ny  to the needs of t he s tu dy.

Als o gene r al ly speaking  o n r eali s m , the re a r escholars  thatd oco nsiderit  as an  o bso let e per s pect ive, t hat main ly de v eloped duringp ast and suits be t t er in r efe rence to th oset ime(Leb o w& R i sse,1997;  L e gr o  & Moravcsik, 1999;  W altz,2000;  Russett, 200 1); and no t a s an alt erna t iv e  perspective.A alt ernative p e rspectiv e tha t couldoperate s u p plementa ryorcon tri b u te  by comparing i ts c on tractin g o utcomes , s o t hat  to  g et a bett er pictu re  ( Mo ra vcs ik, 1 9 92; D'An ie ri,  2 017 ).

N e verthe less,  oth er  s c hol ars doc la i m  tha tth e in ter na tiona l st a gehas not  been cri tic a llyal te red, so  that its qua li ties can s ti llbe des c r ibed bypolitical realism (Walt z , 2000) .
But e venif for th e s ake of  pr o moting  suchdebat eton e xt le v e l,  we  d o accept t h a t i t mig ht  sui ts bett er when considerin g  th e characteris tic s of p as t t i me s  an di n p a r ticular that of  cold war,  t h en  we should als oadmit t hat nuc learw eapons'  producti on do div id e wo l d  in  a rudimen tary bi- polar way ;  betw e en  thos e t hat pr od uce  or w ant to ,  bu t don 't hav ethe co nsent  o f rest a nd the rest.

Moreover,  reach ing t o c onclusion s c a n b e achieve d in  many ways  th atare n otn ecess aryu ni que l y lin kedt ogether o r  a ndw i th  the elabor a t e d t opic,  wh i le man y im portant questions could receivemult i p leans w ers(D 'Anieri, 2017) . A ss u ch, depr ec iating oneof oldes tm ethod s andwith e xtended l it e rature  inene rgy issue s,li k e reali sm ,c onside redas  a lux urious choi c e  and in expenseof kn o w ledge . 

N ot to  m ention, that  exploring  the topicunderthedimen sion of  r ealism 'sra tionality, is someth ing u seful f or  det erm iningtheb o undar iesbe twe en this a p p ro a ch  a n d o ther s (i. e.  ide alistic,p sychosoc ial ) , as al so  be t w een in t er e s ts of stat esand t h o se of indi v idua l so r gro ups of  them(e.g. e l ite ).  This,cou l d  explainthe chron 
 realism_is being_considered, for start, should_be noted_that_even though_there_is an everlasting_debate between supporters_of different schools of_thoughts in the_area_of international relations and decision making (e.g. realism, liberalism etc.) – equally excessive to_traditional_"war" between_different_economic_schools, especially when considering optimum_trade-offs between "marketization" and distributional_justice (Zizopoulos,_2017) – however using the particular method is_not_a choice of_dogmatic application of a single method. Thus, political realism,_is not applied in a diligently_formalist way. It_is_rather_considered as tool that_its use and the extent of_its use should be in harmony_to the needs of the study.

Also generally_speaking on realism, there are scholars_that do consider it as_an obsolete_perspective, that mainly developed during_past and suits_better in_reference to those_time (Lebow & Risse, 1997; Legro_& Moravcsik, 1999;_Waltz, 2000; Russett, 2001); and not_as_an alternative perspective._A_alternative_perspective that_could operate supplementary_or_contribute by_comparing_its contracting outcomes, so that to_get_a better picture (Moravcsik, 1992; D'Anieri, 2017).

Nevertheless,_other scholars do claim_that_the international stage has_not been critically altered, so_that its qualities can still be_described by_political realism_(Waltz, 2000).

But even if for the sake of promoting such debate_to next level, we do accept_that it might suits_better when_considering_the characteristics of_past_times and_in particular that of cold war, then_we should_also admit that nuclear weapons' production_do divide wold in_a_rudimentary bi-polar way; between those that_produce or want to, but don't_have the consent of rest_and_the_rest.

Moreover, reaching to conclusions can_be achieved in many ways that_are not necessary_uniquely linked together or and with the_elaborated_topic, while many important questions could_receive_multiple answers (D'Anieri, 2017). As such,_depreciating_one_of oldest methods and with_extended literature in energy issues, like_realism, considered as a luxurious choice and in expense_of knowledge.

Not to_mention, that exploring the topic_under_the_dimension of realism's rationality, is something useful for determining the_boundaries between_this approach and_others (i.e. idealistic, psychosocial), as also between interests of states_and those of individuals or groups of_them (e.g. elite). This, could explain the chron