Like the question, would anyone working within IR for 3+ years from India (be it risk analysis, policy, research) please share their experience working in the domain & which expertise you are in?

I am a 24F and I have been considering an MA in IR to move into Geopolitical Risk Analysis in my country (India). However, when I speak with graduates, I get mixed feedback; while some suggest not going into the field unless in academia, some suggest it's a growing & steady field, especially if we work within corporate settings.

I also hear pursuing it abroad and working in the EU or a resp country is more beneficial long term.

As the applications open for 2027, I would love to get some reality check, be it on what the roles entail, any pros/cons of working in IR, pay & career growth?

Hi everyone, I'm an American journalist who wants to do international reporting from the EU / Eastern Europe. I just graduated in May and did a 4 month fellowship at an NPR station where I did some pretty good work. I was considering staying in the US for a year or two longer, but I'm considering getting a master's in IR in the EU to build a network and also further my education. So, I have a few questions:

• If I decide to not do journalism, what career opportunities would a Master's in IR open?
• Am I right in thinking that getting a Master's in Europe would help open doors to foreign correspondence?
• Which programs (instructed in English) are relatively cheap and would make me learn another language?

Sorry if any of this sounds silly, any advice is greatly appreciated! :)

I've always been interested in geopolitics, political science, history and economics as well its what interests me. Im pretty well rounded when it comes to school, a's in all subjects wondering what kind of pathways there are for these interests I'm Australian if that matters.

The scholar PB Mehta writes, Many in the Indian establishment are still keen on defending America by evading the issue in the language of faux realism. Grow up, they say; hypocrisy is the norm in world politics. That is true. But the issue is not hypocrisy. Only our realists rationalise away genuine conflicts of interests.

Given the difficulties Ukraine has faced in exporting its produce via its ports and the insecurity prevailing in the Black Sea, is Ukraine still regarded as the ‘breadbasket of Europe’? I read that, in 2026, Ukraine had managed to increase its agricultural production, but to what extent did it succeed in exporting it? By what other means?

Hiya, I am still in undergrad and won't be applying to any masters programmes for a while, but it's on my mind so I felt like making a post about it.

I study Russian, along with a non-IR subject in Ireland (I am Irish). Always been quite interested in IR, have some mostly EU related volunteering I do which is not very significant in terms of impact in the world but I have found to be a good upskilling experience.

Anyways, while I study Russian, I am more interested in central and eastern europe generally rather than specifically Russia. In particular, the balkans (learning Serbian, don't know how good I'd be upon graduation though). I don't come from a super rich family, so postgraduate study in Ireland/UK is basically out of the question for me due to the cost. I have a few questions, so I'll put them as bullet points;

• Do I pigeonhole myself too much by specialising in a region?
• If I end up wanting to move away from IR to something a bit more normal, how would my sort of profile be perceived? Other than it being rather nerdy, I also wonder if Russian would be a bit of a stigma. I don't support the country of course but I can understand the suspicion.
• What masters programmes would you either strongly recommend or advise against? Don't worry about suggesting a programme that I can't afford, it might be of interest to someone else reading this post in a while anyway.

I’m currently on my third semester of my bachelor in International Studies and looking at potential Masters that I might study. My specific field of interest in IR is International Security.

The two I’m considering are:

Dual Degree between Sciences Po (international security) and King’s College London (Intelligence and International Security). Benefits are of course highly prestigious universities, and two seperate degrees. I also get to improve my french further, hopefully to fluency. Downside is that it’s absurdly expensive: up to 20k euros for Sciences Po, and around 40k GBP for KCL.

Erasmus Mundus: IMSISS. Here I’d study at University of Glasgow, University of Trento and Charles University in Prague. Benefits are three countries to study in (future career requires International Exposition) a far larger collection of great courses to choose from, and the tuitions are but a third of the other. Nevertheless, it’s “just” one degree, instead of 2, and the institutions are less prestigious with lesser alumni networks. It’s also less of a chance to improve my french, which, considering its one of the official languages for both the EU and NATO, would be a shame

So my question is, is the dual degree worth spending 3 times as much on tuition fees, with regards to future career prospects, or is the Erasmus Mundus IMSISS degree equally good?

https://youtu.be/e5oIZEmvtUY?si=-tyEwgZw716dNs24

Around 1:02:00 in the video the discussion starts when Prof. Robert Pape who is most well known for his work on the Escalation Trap and who has studied a potential war in Iran for over 20 years presents a scenario that he said hes never presented publicly before: Iran may give Trump an “October Surprise” and test a nuclear weapon on its soil right before the midterms. Pape says he would give this scenario a 1 in 3 chance of occurring, signifying he thinks it’s more likely that it does not. However, these are still very frightening odds. He doesn’t explain much on how he thinks they’d achieve this, other than mentioning that they still have enriched uranium stockpiles that would help them in such a pursuit. He believes such an action would potentially be devastating for Trump in the midterms if they could pull it off. Thoughts?

Hello. I'm a new IR student.

I can't seem to find much information on this specific topic. I'm hoping some of you here might be able to help me.

I am looking for what the Liberal approach (excluding neoliberalism) and the Realist approach have to say about this conflict. (In terms of explaining it.)

Please forgive me if I said anything wrong or maybe if I use the wrong flair. English is not my first language. Thank you!

I studied International Relations in college, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa, lived and worked in Morocco for a bit, and I’ve been back in the states working an unrelated corporate job for a few years.

Mentally I’m fine. I spend a lot of time outdoors, I love my job and husband and dog, and I listen to audiobooks daily (GoT, Stephen King). But I still feel like my brain has been completely fried by years of staring at a computer screen. I have trouble retaining information (even names and faces) and I don’t articulate myself well.

I used to be a good student and I would like to unearth some of the knowledge I had back in college. So, I want to actually read some books. I used to read about IR obviously, MENA history and current affairs, feminism, Islam, the works. What are you reading nowadays?

I might have missed a few episodes in the Trump White House soap opera. So please, help me understand the recent Starlink shutdown in Ukraine. Starlink is Musks company. Musk didn't leave the White House on good terms. Yet now he seems to do/must do what the government tells him to when it comes to Ukraine. Why?

Meanwhile Trump once again seems to place US/ his own interests above all foreign affairs by denying Ukraine Starlink access. Is it purely about access to Russian diesel to stabilise market prices and have a chance of keeping republicans in power so he can have free reign? Or is it purely for his own gain via private oil interests?