Piotr Pietrzak, "Strengthening International Relations Through Transformative Theory and Practice" (Information Science Reference, 2025)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Stephen Sikevich
Guest: Piotr Jacques (Piotr Pietrzak)
Episode: "Strengthening International Relations Through Transformative Theory and Practice"
Date: October 18, 2025

This episode centers on Piotr Jacques’s edited volume, an ambitious collection that seeks to challenge established international relations (IR) theory paradigms by re-centering Kantian idealism and advocating for a transformative, multidisciplinary approach. The conversation explores the origins and evolution of IR, key philosophical influences (with a strong emphasis on Kant), the problematics of predominant paradigms, evolving concepts like transnationalism and cognitive warfare, and the practical implications for global politics today—including India-Pakistan relations and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Motivation and Intellectual Genesis of the Book

• Origins: Jacques describes the project as “an attempt to re-examine the quiet ‘Big Bang’ of IR theory,” drawing on discussions with his son about the actual origins of the discipline ([03:34]).

  • Jacques challenges the widely held belief that E.H. Carr established IR as a discipline, emphasizing Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” as the true moral starting point.
  • Notable Quote:

  “We forget about Immanuel Kant and his Perpetual Peace, which was also in a way a big bang of international relations, because it was quiet, it was a moral explosion…” — Jacques ([05:00])

• Project Structure: The book is an edited collection, with chapters by scholars from diverse backgrounds—India, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece—reflecting real-world collaboration and a commitment to bridging theory and practice ([07:22]).

---

2. Reevaluating the Foundations: Kant, Carr, and the Limits of Dualism

• IR Paradigms:

  • The traditional dichotomy (realism vs. liberalism) stems from Carr and Machiavelli (realism) versus Kant (liberalism).

  • Jacques calls this framing reductionist, missing out on the rich complexity offered by earlier and alternative philosophies:

    “…framing it in the way that there is basically realism or liberalism or as Carr suggested…is not showing the full perspective…” ([11:00])

  • He argues for lifting Kant to the foreground, positioning him as a crucial corrective to the limitations of structural realism and liberal reductionism.

• Philosophers' Range:

  • Advocates for drawing from Plato, Aristotle, Habermas, Derrida—not just IR “canon” figures ([14:27]).

• On Taking Authority for Granted:

  • Cautions against simplistic readings, especially of “young Kant.” Suggests focusing on late Kant for moral clarity ([14:27]).
  • Memorable Metaphor:

  “If you compare, for instance, Carr to Kant, it will be like comparing Trabant to Mercedes…” ([15:47])

---

3. Kant, Idealism, and Practical Impact

• Kant’s Copernican Revolution:

  • Kant revolutionized not just philosophy, but influenced systems of law, social science (e.g., Max Weber), and concepts like peaceful trade ([20:18]).
  • Notable Quote:

  “Kant is one of the first modern philosophers who came up with the idea that instead of waging wars there is a hope we can live peacefully if we trade…” ([20:38])

  • However, Kantian ideas are not naïve—especially in the context of persistent war and the limitations revealed after major conflicts or recent geopolitical events ([21:59]).

• Kant’s Influence Beyond Philosophy:

  • Jacques points to Kant as a foundational thinker behind the European Union and United Nations as (imperfect) realizations of perpetual peace ([21:59]).

---

4. Broadening the Scope: Geopolitics, Transnationalism, and Hyperland

• Classical Geopolitics vs. Modern Critique:

  • Disavows the outdated, hegemonic interpretations tied to German “offensive geopolitics.”
  • Proposes an updated geopolitics oriented around shared stability, informed by Kantian idealism ([24:33]).
  • Quote:

  “If we don’t perceive geopolitics as a pursuit of dominance, but [as] the pursuit of global stability, that could be an idea which could be interesting…” ([24:33])

• The ‘Hyperland’ Thesis:

  • The chapter by Georgios Koukakis introduces “hyperland,” proposing that 21st-century power is rooted not just in territory, but information, cyberspace, and technological superiority ([26:17]).
  • Quote:

  “In the 21st century, information is something we should pursue…not the expansion of land but protection through cybersecurity…” ([27:20])

• Transnationalism and Identity:

  • Discusses the paradox of intensifying global interconnectedness vs. deepening root in identity (diasporic ties, tribalism, etc.).
  • IR must broaden its framework to account for these “transformative identities” and the resulting shifts in world order ([30:00]).

---

5. Case Studies: From Regional Conflicts to Global Order

• India-Pakistan Relations:

  • They exemplify power asymmetries, nuclear dynamics, and how local factors (including water politics) shape global stability ([32:23]).
  • Links to broader interactions involving China, Russia, and the West ([36:14]).
  • Quote:

  “India is much stronger…Pakistan is definitely not as strong as even Iran…[creating] a power vacuum…complicated in terms of regional stability.” ([32:48])

• Water in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

  • Control of water as a tool of power, humanitarian challenges, and shifting policies are explored ([37:43]).
  • Educational manipulation (removal of Oslo Accords references by Hamas) is discussed as a case of “cognitive warfare.”

---

6. Cognitive Warfare and the Moral Gaps of Authority

• Cognitive Warfare:

  • IR today is shaped as much by narrative manipulation as by tanks and treaties. Jacques’s research focuses on how people’s minds, beliefs, and perceptions become battlegrounds ([42:31]).

• Kant and Civil Disobedience:

  • Late Kant supports opposition to authorities that do harm, emphasizing moral autonomy over blind obedience ([42:55]).

  • Provides historical examples of Kantian “misuse” (Eichmann, Robespierre, Scruton, etc.) to illustrate the importance of interpreting Kant correctly.

  • Essence of Kant (summed up):

  “Use your brain, use your brain, nothing else matters.” ([47:30])

• Instrumentalization of Kant:

  • Kant’s ideas are routinely misused or cherry-picked to justify political actions—Jacques insists this is antithetical to the mature Kantian project ([47:00–48:43]).

---

7. The Kantian Tradition and Its Relevance Today

• How to Strengthen Kantianism in IR:

  • Jacques urges scholars and practitioners to read Kant deeply—not superficially—and to see his idealism as a process, not utopian delusion ([50:38]).

  • Acknowledges the challenge of defending Kant in an often cynical, realist world (see Russia-Ukraine war, 2022), but insists incremental application of Kant can drive real progress.

  • Quote:

  “If we start reading Kant, all of us…we can actually come to our senses quicker.” ([54:40])

• Balance between Realism and Idealism:

  • Recalls even E.H. Carr admitted the necessity of some utopianism—Jacques advocates an Aristotelian “golden mean” ([56:19]).
  • Yet, realists often erase Kant from the conversation, which Jacques critiques directly:

  “That’s the problem which I have with the realists: they basically dismiss Kant. I’m just asking them to acknowledge that Kant existed…” ([57:09])

---

8. Concluding Reflections and Final Thoughts

• Call for Re-examination:

  • Invites listeners to question why the “Big Bang” of IR was so quiet, and why Kant’s influence is often sidelined.
  • Suggests that integrating Kantian idealism into debates can make our worldview “a little bit more positive, a little less chaotic…” ([59:22])

• Current and Future Work:

  • Jacques is researching “cognitive warfare” and “software-defined warfare,” as well as projects on Syria and Ukraine, aiming to apply Kantian thought to these issues ([62:20]).

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• "We forget about Immanuel Kant and his Perpetual Peace, which was also in a way a big bang of international relations, because it was quiet, it was a moral explosion…" —Piotr Jacques ([05:00])

• "If you compare, for instance, Carr to Kant, it will be like comparing Trabant to Mercedes…" —Piotr Jacques ([15:47])

• "Kant is one of the first modern philosophers who came up with the idea that instead of waging wars there is a hope we can live peacefully if we trade…" —Piotr Jacques ([20:38])

• "If we don’t perceive geopolitics as a pursuit of dominance, but [as] the pursuit of global stability, that could be an idea which could be interesting…" —Piotr Jacques ([24:33])

• "Use your brain, use your brain, nothing else matters." —Piotr Jacques’s summary of Kant ([47:30])

• "If we start reading Kant, all of us…we can actually come to our senses quicker." —Piotr Jacques ([54:40])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:34] – Origins and backstory of the book
• [06:51] – Assembling an international team of scholars
• [10:36] – On the realism/liberalism dichotomy and its limitations
• [14:27] – The deeper roots of political philosophy in IR (Plato, Aristotle, Socrates)
• [20:18] – Kant’s wider impact on social sciences and law; trade as peace
• [24:33] – Geopolitics, past and present; the case for stability
• [26:17] – ‘Hyperland’ thesis: cyberspace, information, and power
• [30:00] – Transnationalism and transformations in identity
• [32:23] – India-Pakistan relations: power asymmetries and global implications
• [37:43] – Water as a factor in Israeli-Palestinian conflict; cognitive warfare via education
• [42:31] – Cognitive warfare, civil disobedience, and Kantian morality
• [50:38] – Strengthening the Kantian tradition in IR
• [56:19] – The “golden mean” between idealism and realism
• [59:22] – Final thoughts and calls for Kantian reflection
• [62:20] – Jacques’s current projects and closing statements

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• The edited book challenges the “loud” debates of IR with the “silent revolution” of Kantian thinking.
• Jacques urges scholars and practitioners not to exclude idealist voices like Kant—arguing that a holistic, historically aware approach will yield more relevant solutions.
• Key real-world issues—geopolitics, identity, cognitive warfare—are not just technical or material but fundamentally philosophical and moral.
• The episode is a call to re-engage with foundational texts, resist dogmatism, and seek a balance (the “golden mean”) between the extremes of naiveté and cynicism in global politics.

---

This detailed summary brings together the most salient themes and intellectual moments of the episode, offering a roadmap for anyone interested in the evolving debates of international relations and the enduring relevance of philosophical inquiry.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

I'm 32, juggling family, working full time and earning a Bachelor's degree at University of Phoenix. I earn career relevant skills with every five week course. Skills I can use now, not just after graduation.

[Piotr Jacques]

Earn skills in weeks, not years. Visit phoenix.edu.

[Home Depot Advertiser]

The holidays have arrived at the Home Depot and we're here to help bring the excitement with decor for every part of your home. Check out our wide assortment of easy to assemble pre lit trees so you can spend less time setting up and more time celebrating. And bring bring your holiday spirit outdoors with unique decor like one of our Santa inflatables. Whatever your style, find the right pieces at the right prices. This holiday season at the Home Depot.

[Priceline Advertiser]

You'Re basking on a beach in the Bahamas. Now you're journeying through the jade forests of Japan. Now you're there for your alma mater's epic win. And now you're awake.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Womp womp.

[Priceline Advertiser]

Which means it was all a dream. But with millions of incredible deals on Priceline, those travel dreams can be a reality. Download the Priceline app today and you can save up to 60% off hotels and up to 50% off flights. So don't just dream about that trip. Book it with Priceline.

[New Books Network Intro]

Welcome to the New Books Network.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Hello. Welcome to the New Books Network. I am your host Stephen Sickevich. My next guest is Pyotr Pyrtrzhak and we will be discussing his edited volume Strengthening International Relations through Transformative Theory and practice published by IGI Global in 2025. Pyotr Pyrtrzhak is the co founder of Instatu Nasidendi think tank, which is a nonpartisan, independent and highly diversified network of scholars organized to study a contemporary conflict and political philosophy that provides advice and ideas on specific ide related to geoeconomic, political or socioeconomic problems. He immerses himself in geopolitics every day. As a political thinker, author and trained ontologist, he takes pride in infusing a pragmatic perspective into international relations theory, conflict management and geopolitics. Pietra Jacques welcome to the New Books Network.

[Piotr Jacques]

Thank you much for that. Thank you much for your kind invitation, Stephen. I would like to thank you for this opportunity for giving me space to talk about the book and about the ideas behind this book as well. I would like to say that your show is your podcast is just incredible. I strongly recommend it to my students. I recommend it to everyone basically who is interested in conflict management, military history, war studies, international relations and geopolitics because the books which you cover are incredibly fascinating. So I strongly recommend everyone to listen to all of the recordings because it saves time and it definitely makes your life easier. And the books are fascinating. So I'm basically, I'm very grateful to be invited for this interview.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Well, thank you for the kind words. As you might know, we always like to begin our interviews by asking our guests, tell us a little bit about yourself and what's the backstory behind writing this book or editing this book in your particular case, of course.

[Piotr Jacques]

Thank you very much for that. So, Stephen, my name is Piot Pietrick, like you've introduced me. My friends call me Misery Satana Sandi, which means that I'm supposedly engaging the process of discovering more about fascinating world of global politics, international relations and political philosophy. I used to be an editor of a journal which was called Insatia Standi. We published a couple of editions with IBI Denverlach. We published more than 120 academic papers with this journal. Ever since 2023. We collaborate with IGI Global and that's where Strengthening International Relations through Transformative Theory and Practice was published. And I suppose that when it comes to the basic idea behind Strengthening international Relations Theory through Transformative Theory and practice, it was written in the first place essentially to discuss the EH Cars ideas in today's constantly changing global environment. But when it comes to the big bank of IR theory, which I introduce in this book, this idea is more of the invention which doesn't belong to me, but to my son. Because basically it actually started while reading bedtime stories about the universe to my son. And he once asked me why the big Bang was so silent. And the question made me realize that maybe the birth of international relations was actually silent too. Because we all assumed that E.H. carr established international relations as a discipline. And it was back in the beginning of 20th century. And that's when the first great debate started in IR theory. But we forget about Immanuel Kant and his Perpetual peace, which was also in a way a big bank of international relations, because it was quiet, it was a moral explosion that made later terrorists possible. And yet we tend to forget about this philosopher. We tend to suggest that CAR is responsible for creation of our discipline. But from my perspective, we need some clarification in this respect, because it is actually Immanuel Kant who is the founding father of international relations. Of course, Niccolo Machiavelli started discipline called politics back In Florence in 16th century, in the beginning. But the publication of perpetual peace in 1795, this was a spark which created the the discipline of international relations theory. And if English School of International Relations Theory disagrees with these assessments. I'm happy to talk with anyone now.

[Stephen Sikevich]

You are not. Yeah, actually that's a fascinating topic, especially how international relations grew out of political philosophy and theory. And of course there's that discussion about what's the distinction between theory and philosophy, but we might get into that a little later. But you're not the only author in this book. How were you able to get together this group of scholars to collectively write for this volume?

[Piotr Jacques]

Definitely. Thank you much for that. Of course, that is an edited collection of eight chapters. Only two of those chapters are authored by me. The other six chapters are authored by various scholars from various universities in the world. I'm lucky to basically to attract scholars from India and Pakistan, as well as other colleagues from Turkey, from Greece and from other places who contributed together to this edition. We form what is called in Satana Sandy Think Tank. Not all of the contributors who contributed, who publish with me are a member of Institute Ascending Tank. But the organization itself is composed of the people, by the people and for the people. So that's how we attract the authors. The Strengthening of International Relations Theory through Transformative Theory and Practice is the fifth edition, which we published with IGI Global. And we haven't. Basically, that's not our last work with them. In general, if I was about to describe the insultness and the Think tank, I would say that it's a global intellectual network of people who are interested in conflict management, political philosophy and IR theories. So basically we focus on the ideas which could lead in the future to resolving international conflicts. But we are also interested in peace and how the piece should be preserved, basically. So we hope to generate ideas, propose some solutions and influence public debate. When it comes to the solutions which are available at hand, we prepare some policy recommendations for other research institutions and we publish extensively. And of course, most of our members are either academic or diplomats or independent scholars. So we would love to welcome you as a member.

[Stephen Sikevich]

I would be glad to join. Thank you. I was actually thinking of that idea, but yeah, that'd be great. Now just moving on. At the heart of international relations theory there's two main paradigms, realism, which we could probably associate with Machiavelli as the originator as we would know it, and then also E. H Carr, as you mentioned. But then there's also the liberalism, and Immanuel Kant is kind of usually considered one of the founders of that, either in a philosophical sense or in international relations. What is your own view on this debate and what is the perspective, the overall Perspective from the perspective of the book on this issue.

[Piotr Jacques]

Yeah. So basically the way it was formed back in 1919 suggests that there are two leading schools of thought or approaches or traditions. And EHK was quite, let's say quite strongly imposing on us this view. And ever since we millions of people or hundreds of thousands of people basically followed on his recommendation. But that's the thing. If we assume that the international relations as a discipline started in 1919 because of this division we miss the forest for the trees basically. So basically at the heart of international relations is a simple premise suggesting that that's the discipline which was established in order to preserve peace and avoid going into war. So this is, this is our main purpose as a. As a discipline. And framing it in the way that there is basically realism or liberalism or as Carr suggested that it is actually traditionalism or utopism is not showing the full perspective basically. So by forgetting about Kant and contribution of other philosophers who are more idealistic, we definitely strengthen the realist tradition and eh. Carl's ideas shine. But when we invite to the discussion Immanuel Kant and other philosophers this is more difficult to prove that the global reality can be only explained through the prism of offensive realism or structural realism. Of course, ever since 1919 we moved on and we definitely have different traditions such as feminism, such as Marxism, such as constructivism, such as English school as well. But it is my main point from my book, from my chapter suggesting that we actually need to bring Kant to the forehead to give him a chance to discuss various moral issues which are of immense importance simply because by presenting this duality we cannot basically bring to every single aspect of the debate. By bringing to the equation only two approaches, we miss quite a lot basically. So I'd say that big bang of Irtory is essentially silent. But this is wrong and we should talk about what actually happened before. So Matiavelli, Kant, Habermas, all of the philosophers which deal with IRT or Derrida, those are very important voices which we shouldn't underestimate. And Kant in particular can bridge this dividend in a way.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Yeah. Now even going back to like Plato or Aristotle, how would, just offhand, how would you think they would, would they be relevant to this debate as well? Since that's also where political philosophy itself kind of originates.

[Piotr Jacques]

Of course, of course I. I guess that if we, if we bring to equation Socrates or Plato or Aristotle, we definitely would, would benefit out of those voices. And of course they are long dead. So don't forget about. We shouldn't forget about that, because when we talk about philosophy, we talk about philosophical writings of these folks. And even in my chapters, I strongly suggest to my readers that they shouldn't take Kant for granted, basically. So essentially, if you start with young Kant, some of the ideas may actually lead you to the wrong conclusions. Because my strong suggestions of bringing Kant to equations suggest to actually read the old Kant or later Kant, who actually was very critical of his earlier thoughts about dogma and treating philosophy on the face value. So basically, we need to be more clever about what we suggest to our younger viewers. Don't take everything for granted, even question what we've just said. And of course, if you compare, for instance, a car to Kant, it will be like comparing Trabant to Mercedes. Because, well, Kant is a philosopher who basically influenced not only philosophy, not only international relations, but also economy and other fields such as legal studies. Whereas Carr wrote an interesting book, which was a very good book at the time. So of course, if we compare IR theorists to philosophers who have more to say about the beauty of the words out there, basically we can not only deliberate in irt or we cannot only rely on, basically on philosophy itself. Philosophy, there's various layers of philosophy. We have continental philosophy, analytical tradition, we have Asian philosophy, We have also analytical tradition, which I've mentioned, and metaphysics. So I don't recommend IR theorists or geopoliticians to go into the metaphysical deliberations. I'm just pragmatically suggesting them to follow their intellectual curiosity and read the work which is related to society or politics or how the world should be arranged. And Kant, in his perpetual piece, actually suggested that we cannot settle for the idea that we will all always go into war. That is inevitable. No matter what we do, there will be war. And hoping that the society at large would be driven by some moral standards or by some restraint. This is naive. So basically, basically, Kant was definitely interesting when it comes to his later philosophy, went from the perspective of international relations theorem.

[New Books Network Intro]

The holidays are coming up and I have relatives and friends visiting. And that means I need to put them up. Happily, I have a couple of guest rooms. Unfortunately, these guest rooms need help and I go for help to Wayfair, because Wayfair has everything that you need to spruce up your guest rooms and also your bathrooms and so on and so forth. Wayfair is really your one stop shop, shop for all of these things. Bedding and linens and throw pillows, accent chairs, towels, cookware, plates, utensils. You name it, they have it and they can get it to you quickly and free because shipping is free at Wayfair now. I personally bought a couple of comforters and some pillows for my guest rooms and it was extraordinarily easy to order them. They came in a few days and as I say shipping was free so this saved me time and I just had a great experience. So Wayfair makes it easy to tackle your home goals this holiday when you with endless inspiration for every space and budget, free and easy delivery, all your seasonal must haves. So get organized, refreshed and ready for the holidays. For way less head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. That's W a Y f a I r.com Wayfair Every style Every home this.

[Commercial Narrator]

Episode is brought to you by Peloton A new era of fitness is here. Introducing the new Peloton Cross Training Tread plus powered by Peloton iq. Built for breakthroughs with personalized workout plans, real time insights and endless ways to move lift with confidence. While Peloton IQ counts, reps, corrects form and tracks your progress, let yourself run lift flow and go explore the new peloton cross training tread [e-mail] anyone can.

[Lincoln Advertiser]

Follow it takes something special to be an original. Which is why the 2025 Lincoln Navigator SUV arrives with new ways of surrounding you in luxury including the ultra wide 48 inch panoramic display and the multi sensory Lincoln Rejuvenate experience. A true original never stops evolving. So meet the 2025 Navigator, the original that's all new and better than ever. Learn [e-mail] Lincoln and Navigator at trademarks afford or its affiliates.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Yeah, and also very quickly Kant and or Neo Kantianism even formed a basis for modern social sciences, especially with Max Weber in his work and I think even his fact value distinct was even based a little bit off at least the neo Kantianism I think the Southwest school I believe. Offhand.

[Piotr Jacques]

Yeah, of course. Well, and Kant influenced many philosophical debates. Without Kant there would be no Marx, there would be no Hegel, there would be no Frankfurt school of philosophy, there would be no Derrida, there would be no Jean Paul Sartre, there would be no other philosophers and there will be no society which is based on some sort of understanding and the society which believes that war is not the solution. Kant is one of the first modern philosophers who came up with the idea that instead of waging wars there is a hope that we can live peacefully if we trade basically. And of course those ideas can be presented as naive, especially after the First World War, Second World War or 2022. But I will touch upon that in our later part of the interview.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Yeah, and it's also interesting when you talk about the big bang of Kant, that also kind of reminds me of that common phrase of the Copernican revolution that Kant initiated in philosophy. Was that also a part of an influence on that term of phrase?

[Piotr Jacques]

I'm familiar with this idea, but I did not touch upon that. Kant definitely influenced also astronomers, as a matter of fact. And Kant came up with number of ideas which definitely led to improving the way we operate in modern societies. I guess that Kantian philosophy could be used to discuss for instance, how the legal system is shaped, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Most of our political systems are based on Kantian ideas, basically. So yes, there is a strong opposition about perpetual peace. The idea that one day we will lead towards perpetual peace and there will be a world republic. We are not delusional in our countries. We border Russia. So Russia definitely proves Kant wrong on many levels. But it doesn't prove wrong organizations such as European Union, United nations or even League of Nations. Of course there is a strong criticism about League of Nations and Carr himself, Eh, Carr was very critical about League of Nations because he suggested that basically it was so dysfunctional and it was dysfunctional because of Kantian ideas that it led to the first and the Second World War. That's what Carr suggested. But basically realists didn't grant idealism a chance to develop these ideas and make them stronger. Basically we had a better. I think United nations and European Union is a better case study or they are better case studies to prove that Kantian ideas are actually working in the modern world because Kantian ideas led to the creation of those organizations. Not directly, but indirectly.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Now there's also a chapter here talking about geopolitics and what has been the significance of geopolitics within international relations. And perhaps if you want, could you just give us a brief description of the distinction between the two because often those terms are used interchangeably.

[Piotr Jacques]

Yeah, of course. So briefly, the classical geopolitics was shaped by German offensive geopolitics, which was definitely deliberating about the ideas which related to the dominance and the idea of global hegemony and how to attain the global hegemony. So this is not this type of thinking that I'm trying to promote, of course, this is geopolitics of yesterday and has no place in today's world. But still, such as ideas like Rudolf Klein's right wing pan Germanist views, for instance, those suggestions definitely do not have place in the modern world. But if we understand geopolitics as a product of its time and if we infuse it with Kantian idealism, there might be a room for improvement as well. So if we don't perceive geopolitics as a pursuit of dominance, but the pursuit of global stability, that could be an idea which could be interesting also for liberal scholars, not only right wing Pan Germanists.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Now also, the chapter in the book proposes a hyperland thesis in geopolitics. Can you explain what that means?

[Piotr Jacques]

Oh yes, of course. So that's the idea of Georgios Koukakis and his idea is based on the notion that old geopolitics could forget about domination by focusing on other non territorial strategic domains such as space, cyberspace and information domain. And this is quite interesting. I strongly recommend everyone to read it because it's an interesting twist on traditional geopolitics. I might not agree with every single argument which Girgis presented, but it's definitely valuable idea, the hyperland, something which couldn't be imagined by traditional geopolitical mind. But if you notice all of the eight chapters which compose this book, they somehow try to deal with dogma. And I think that Giorgios in this respect tried to deal with the traditional geopolitical dogma. That's basically the domination of the lands. Lebanon and expansion of territory is important. He said that in the 21st century the information is something which we should pursue. So not the expansion of the land, but protection through the perspective of cybersecurity. And countries should be interested in developing their cybersecurity. Technological supremacy is something which everyone should think at the end of the head, basically.

[Stephen Sikevich]

And artificial intelligence would definitely be part of this as well. At least as you understand the council.

[Piotr Jacques]

As, as I understand, Giorgios didn't mention artificial intelligence in his chapter, but the work which he does is definitely incorporating artificial intelligence. We work also on a concept which is called software defined warfare. And it's not only him, but it's, it's also many scholars who are associated with, with, with our think tank and we try to develop those ideas and try to make them approachable to our readers to prevent cognitive warfare from affecting us and our work in general.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Now another topic addressed in the book and also which is a kind of a common feature of our world order today is the importance of what's called transnationalism and trans national identities. And for those unfamiliar with it, it kind of me. It's kind of like the paradox. Now we're, we're More globally interconnected, but yet at the same time we're also being deeply rooted in our identities. And I could even speak to this to myself, being an American, but yet also being part of a. Of a Polish diaspora community here, being a Polish ancestry. And I can say, yeah, there's a lot of Polish, or Polish American, if you will, more specifically culture, organizations and all that. And they're trying to even build up connections to Poland now, now that Poland's free of the. The Soviet Union and whatnot. Could you explain how this is addressed in the book and maybe your own thoughts on the matter?

[Piotr Jacques]

Yeah, of course. So in terms of the transform, the transnationalism, basically the rise of transnational identity, they matter because power and influence are increasingly flowing across the borders. And as you mentioned that modern nations, they are composed of individuals with different identities. Fukuyama touched upon the tribalism of today's identity of Western societies. Those transformative identities basically reflect in transformative order of today's world. So basically, today's politics. Today's world politics is shaped by very easily changeable transformations. And in order to get a proper comprehensive understanding of those forces, we need to have a broader holistic approach. And I think international relations theory is trying to capture lots. The international relations theory with its diversity is trying to basically not only deal with hard power politics, but also soft power politics, smart power politics, and also sharp power politics and the transformations. We will read about it in the future as well, because this is something which is definitely allowing us to change the perspective, change the perspective from the traditional approach of IR theory to something which is more sophisticated, something which is basically allowing us to comprehend the interesting social reality at hand. And I strongly recommend you to basically to look into this in the future as well.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Now there's a lot of critical relationships between different countries that are shaping our world order. And they're addressed quite a bit in the book. But one that gets one attention is that between India and Pakistan. So what is the significance of that relationship on world order as it's addressed in the book?

[Piotr Jacques]

Well, for sure, when it comes to ants, the chapter which is dedicated to India and Pakistan, it was written and published before the recent outbreak of the hostilities between these countries. When we look into history of India Pakistan relations, it all dates back to 1940s and both countries are nuclear powers. They have very strong conventional weapons. And the asymmetries in their power perception and in the actual hard power is definitely in favor of India. India is much stronger partner. And I guess Pakistan is definitely not as strong as even Iran. So it creates the power vacuum. And this power vacuum definitely makes it more complicated in terms of the regional stability. So the authors of these chapters deal with China, US Russian relations, and they definitely discuss interesting matters related to bilateral relations, but also the relations, the multilateral relations, which can be affected by the situation in which both governments decide to go into war, which is not as unlikely as we thought. So this is something which definitely should be discussed. And as a lecturer, I touch upon that quite a lot. Some of my students even discussed the politics of the water between India and Pakistan, which is also an interesting, interesting part of the discussion. How would the current state of hostility between India and Pakistan shape the world order? I'm not sure about it, but definitely the region itself is very, very unstable because we have Iran here, we have India, Pakistan also add to that Israel and Palestine situation. So next door is China and Russia. So it's an interesting chapter and it covers a lot. So definitely strongly recommend this chapter as well. Introducing Weight Watchers for Menopause. It's the number one doctor recommended weight loss program now with menopause trained medical experts and nutritionists ready to give you.

[Stephen Sikevich]

The care and results you deserve.

[Piotr Jacques]

Join us [e-mail] Based on a 2023.

[Commercial Narrator]

Survey by Cerner and Visa, 500 doctors.

[Piotr Jacques]

Who recommend weight loss programs to patients.

[Lincoln Advertiser]

Some people think nature is like this, but actually it's like this. Mother Nature is not all sunshine and rainbows. Nature can be hotter than a sauna and colder than an arctic skinny dip. That's why Colombia engineers everything we make for anything nature can throw at you. Columbia engineered for whatever.

[PayPal Advertiser]

Ah, greetings from my bath festive friends. The holidays are overwhelming, but I'm tackling this season with PayPal and making the most of my money, getting 5% cash back when I pay in four. No fees, no interest. I used it to get this portable spa with jets. Now the bubbles can cling to my sculpted but pruny body. Make the most of your money this holiday with PayPal. Save the offer in the app ends.

[Stephen Sikevich]

12:31 see paypal.com promoter points can be redeemed for cash and more paying for subject to terms and approval. PayPal Inc. And MLS 910457 yeah, adding to the wider geopolitical significance. I mean, China, I know has been very supportive of Pakistan and Russia and even going back to the Soviet Union was very supportive of of India. So that's kind of like how some of the outside powers are trying to.

[Piotr Jacques]

That's why, that's why India has a problem with Western sanctions imposed on, on Russia. And I think today we, we've discovered that finally the Indian authorities will stop buying Russian oil. But they, they declare that. But for the last three and a half years they've been financing the Russian war machine which is directed against the peaceful nation of Ukraine.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Exactly. So that's also part of why it has some wider significance. Now, you mentioned water between Pakistan and India, but there is also a chapter about how that plays a role in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict which just within the last few days has taken a very interesting turn with the whole peace deal. But how is the issue of water addressed in the book? Because of course, being in the Middle east and with a lot of areas of desert, water is very important for long term survival of any community in that region.

[Piotr Jacques]

Well, in this particular instance, the authors of this chapter definitely focus on key points of what shortages and the fact that the control of the water resources as power basically is used by Israel to change the course of Palestinian history. Basically, many Palestinian communities do not have reliable access to clean running water. Some rely on wells, rainfall or buying water which is more expensive and less reliable. This is definitely something which for the last two years have been very apparent that, you know, with the, with the policy which Netanyahu started against Gaza after the October 7, 2023 events, and with the policy of basically stopping any humanitarian assistance, the situation of the humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorated. The authors don't focus on the current conflict, but they definitely discuss the historical situation in which Israeli military and civil administrative rules limit Palestinian ability to drill new wells, build water infrastructure or expand usage of water. But if we bring to equation, different aspect of this debate, definitely it was Israel who was supplying not only Gaza, but also west bank with water, with other humanitarian assistance and with energy. And I don't think that Palestinians were paying for that. But again, this is something which, it's a very sensitive topic now because discussing it in the context of the current Trump deal and I'm not comfortable with discussing the current peace proposal because that's been basically established two days ago. So I'm not sure to what extent the Trump administration is aware of the situation with water. Of course, oslo Accords in 1990s, they were very, they were very, they stipulated what Israel has to do for Palestine and for the civilian population who live in this area and what kind of provisions they have to make. But when it comes to the current situation, the situation is also very dynamic and we need to discuss it from the perspective of perpetual peace. If there is A chance for perpetual peace to be basically initiated. Some authors who contributed to earlier editions of our book suggested that the two state solution is still possible. And they written a chapter which was published, I suppose in 2024. This is a very optimistic idea. The current policy of Israel is not based on the idea which could be remotely closer to Kant's ideas of finding the solution. But Hamas is also irresponsibly leading people to war as well. I don't know if you know, but long before the 2023 events, Hamas removed from all of the history textbook any mention about Oslo Accords, any mention about any peaceful negotiations or peaceful initiatives between Israel and Palestine. So education is used as an instrumental cognitive weapon to change the positions of young people to basically to. That's the problem which I touch also in the last chapter of this book I talk about cognitive warfare and how everything is interconnected and how realist and cynical politicians try to use the humanitarian disasters to their advantage. But we'll touch upon that.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Yeah, I was just about to ask because you touch on cognitive warfare and then what role Kant has to play about that? Because of course Kant was very influential about what we would call philosophy of the mind, like how the mind works. And of course cognitive warfare is about, you know, essentially it's about influencing people's thinking and essentially their minds. Essentially. Correct?

[Piotr Jacques]

Correct. Well, Kant was also very keen on discussing civil disobedience. And according to traditional view, Kant was against civil disobedience. And Kant was suggesting that we all have to listen to authority because authority knows better and authority would never harm the individual. So if there is authority, we can rely on authority to provide us with better judgment. But the late Kantian ideas and late Kant suggest that you need to be basically respectful of legal authority, not political authority. So when there is some harm going on and the authorities who are in charge of any given land are not protecting individuals, you have every single, you have right as an individual to oppose it, because your moral right gives you the moral authority to basically to oppose that. And this is the basic argument which has been used on many occasions. We can discuss Kantian moral standings in respect of the current situation in Gaza. We can discuss it when it comes to the situation in Syria, in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world. But in my last chapter, I basically discussed four case scenarios. One, when the Kantian ideas were misinterpreted and some scholars suggested that Maximilian Robespierre, one of the leaders of the French Revolution, the leader of Jacobin Party, was accused of being Kantian and he he was basically acting against Kantian moral standings. The other option, the other suggestion which I've shown was about the situation in which Adolf Weichman tried to defend himself, that he was just obeying the orders. And he was just. That was after the Second World War, after he was proven war criminal who was responsible personally for slaughtering More than 6 million Jews. He was just saying, no, no, guys, it's nothing to do with me. I just obeyed the orders. I'm not guilty of this. It's not me who gave the order. The third suggestion with a misinterpreted Kantian logic was the situation in which Roger Scruton suggested that in 2003, basically George W. Bush had a moral right to intervene in Iraq because Kantian philosophy or Kantian Immanuel Kant would agree. And the last suggestion was an example of 2023 suggestion from the Governor of Kali Ingra suggesting that Kantian ideas brought us to the idea, to the mindset, which basically is anti Russian. So you can use Kantian philosophy to your advantage, you can use it in instrumental manner, but this is not Kant. The Kantian ideas are pure. The Kantian ideas suggest you to actually think whether your action should be started because your action justifies other people's actions. So we don't live in the society where we should be all individuals and we should do whatever we want. We should be mindful of other people's freedom. And Kant was the essence of Kant. If you ask me as a philosophy lecturer, in one sentence, how to explain Kant, Kant should be explained in one sentence. Use your brain, use your brain, nothing else matters. And I studied Kant for the last 20 years and it's all about understanding. The understanding whether your action which you justify should be replicated as a universal moral right for everyone else to follow. So if, for instance, if President Putin wants to use Kantian philosophy to his advantage, he should stop waging war. If Roger Scruton used Kantian logic in 2003, he would never endorsed US intervention in Iraq. If Adolf Eichmann used Kantian logic, Kantian reason during the Second World War, he would never allow any single human being to be mistreated. If Maximian Robespierre was using Kantian logic, he would never allow Anne's head to be to be beheaded or use guillotine against any individual only because he disagreed with. So this is the reality which we live in. We are living in the reality which is basically various governments are trying to use cognitive warfare against us, against their citizens and the citizens of the nations, neighboring nations, to project their political objectives, project their cynical, realist version of the, of the world. As a, as the last Kantian IR theorist, I disagree. Yeah.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Getting back to Robespierre, it's often been said that he was actually more influenced by Rosso and Social Contract, although scholars have even debated whether or not he misinterpreted that. But of course, there is that one line in the Social Contract where Rosso kind of does suspiciously say, well, if people don't want to go along with the general will, they got to be, quote, forced to be free, end quote. So, and of course, what exactly did that mean? But of course, in Robespierre case, it's like, well, they don't want to go along, then we'll force them to be free by cutting off their heads.

[Piotr Jacques]

So, yeah, well, that's, that's the, that's the distortion of Kantian or even Rousseau's ideas, I guess, that even Rousseau wouldn't evenly or willfully suggest that, oh, other people's heads should be cut because we don't agree with them. We have every right to oppose the dictators who have every right to oppose the political figures who try to project violence in the realm of international relations. Of course we need to be responsible. We need to be responsible towards ourselves, towards individual, towards our families and our societies in our pursuits. But in essence, Kant was never intending for anyone to be obedient to genocidal dictators or someone who is basically misrepresenting the social reality at hand and tries to project their power.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Now, given that you're from the Kantian tradition, how do you think the Kantian tradition can be strengthened within international relations as a field, in your view?

[Piotr Jacques]

Well, I think that's a good question because I guess Kantian tradition can be strengthened by reading Kanthar, because everyone who reads Kant for a considerable period of time, like 5, 10, 15, 20 years, understands that Kant was actually right. And Kant had a point. If we all stop waging wars, if we stop preparing for inevitable third World War, we might actually benefit out of that. Of course, I'm thinking that Kant was delusional to suggest to basically to stop armies and disarm completely, because you cannot disarm completely if you have hawkish dictators just on your eastern border. For sure, you need to protect yourself in order to protect yourself. You need to have strong army. You need to have means to protect yourself. But Kant said that it's all about the process. He gave six steps to achieve the perpetual peace. And these six steps were not easy. He was not utopian. He was not delusional. He said that it's a process and the process would only work if we all adopt the same mindset. If we don't avoid this, if we don't adopt the same mindset, then we are doomed to live in the reality in which Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or Ayatollah I've seen Iran will dictate how we should operate. So from my perspective, that would be the strongest criticism to Kantian theory, that it is delusional. But it's not delusional if you conceive it as if you imagine it as a process, the process which leads towards an improvement. Because it's easy to suggest that, oh, don't worry about these liberal ideas, don't worry about this idealist, they're all utopian. We should just be realist. We should adopt offensive realism, such as John Mershheimer idea of offensive realism and we should prepare for war because the war will eventually happen. Well, as a matter of fact, I believe that John Mearsheimer was completely right to suggest to Ukraine to do not disarm its nuclear weapons in 1994. And it was a mistake to basically to adhere to the non proliferation act which was suggested by the liberals. So I'm not really a Kantian philosopher. I think that Kantian philosopher, Emmanuel Kant should be brought to equation. We should support our deliberations, our discussions with Kantian ideas. But I'm also not as cynically persuade, I'm not cynically realist to suggest that in the future, in 2050 or in 2100, there will be a war. Because if we stick to the Kantian ideas, at least to certain extent, we can achieve progress. And yes, if I was about to argue with myself, I would say okay, but how about 2022? What's happened in 2022? We were all prepared for the last 30 years that from now on that's the end of history. There will be no war, no cold war and countries will just trade with each other and Russia will be integrated to transatlantic community at one point and we will all live happily after. Of course this is also. That was a mistake for us to believe in the idea that perpetual peace can happen overnight and that the dissolution of Soviet Union was the ultimate victor of the West. And from now on it will be just like another wave of democracy, anti plutonian wave of democracy and more countries will join the club of the republics and there will be no authoritarian regimes and so on and so forth. No, we need to take it step, one step at a time, small steps, strategy not the, let's say not the delusional ideas. But if we start reading Kant, all of us, or Confucius or Aristotle or Plato or any other philosopher, we can actually come to our senses quicker.

[Stephen Sikevich]

And it's ironic because even HR Carr did not completely dismiss what he called utopianism. He even said, well without utopianism of any kind there would have been no improvement on the human condition at all. Although he was like very critical and cynical about. But he even said, well utopianism on at least some level was useful and was needed in some ways. Could this kind of reflect maybe possibly a balance between. So we don't go in the extreme of delusionism, but we also don't fall into the other extreme of complete cynicism. We have to have that golden mean, to use Aristotle's term, between the two and then Kant can be the, the guide towards that.

[Piotr Jacques]

Yeah, but he was drifting towards like classical realism. So EH Kahn might have mentioned something, that middle ground is necessary. But if you read his main book basically 20 years. 20 years remind me of the name.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Of the 30 year crisis. No, no, no. My point about E.H. carr was even though he's like the staunch realist, even he admitted that utopianism on some level was needed. And I kind of suggested maybe this suggests an argument that we just need the golden mean between like the delusions, as you said it, but also the cynicism, so to speak. Would that be a way forward with Kant?

[Piotr Jacques]

I think that golden mean, Aristotelian golden mean is, is definitely one of the solutions. Ehkar might have mentioned that, but he also might have. He also mentions perpetual peace. He just mentioned them. He didn't dig deeper into these ideas. So for this reason he drifted towards the realist perspective. And also what I want to say about Ehkar is the fact that basically he was using different idealists. He referred to Joseph, Stuart, Nino. He argued with many idealists at the time, the British or American idealists, and he was trying to prove them wrong. But he never mentioned Immanuel Kant's main ideas. But that's very convenient. This is something which is very characteristic to realist thinkers. For instance, in his famous EH car lecture John Mearsheimer mentioned I suppose idealism 104 times and he never mentioned Kant. So that's the problem which I have with the realist is that they basically dismiss Kant. I'm not asking for anything, I'm just asking them to acknowledge that Kant existed. And in 1795 he wrote Perpetual Peace which basically changed the debate which we had the ideas of idealists who came later, the idealists from the 20th century and from the 19th century, they were not as sharp as Kantian's ideas and also maybe because we pay more attention towards Kantian ideas than the other idealists in general.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Well, this has been a very fascinating discussion and we could definitely talk about Kant all day long. Do you have any final thoughts, maybe touch on anything in the book that we didn't get to in the main discussion?

[Piotr Jacques]

I suppose if I was about to suggest something just so our listeners could basically think about something from the Kantian tradition, I suppose I would like them to consider why the Big Bang theory or Big Bang of international relations was so quiet and why we were trying to focus on something else in our debates. Possibly, possibly, if I was about to direct our listeners to different ideas, I would also suggest that if we incorporate Kantian ideas to our thinking, our perception of the social reality would change and it would be a little bit more positive, a little less chaotic, and it won't be as distorted from reality. Possibly. What I would like to also mention is that when it comes to social reality at hand and the way we are heading, incorporating idealism to our discussions about geopolitics is a matter of the future as well, because we now live with the ideas that the wars will not end. The war between Russia and Ukraine is heading towards this direction of never ending war. So I wonder, how would we use Kant in order to change this narrative? Donald Trump is coming up with various peace ideas. He's trying to resolve many conflicts around the world. Some of the ideas are quite unique and some of them are more successful. Some of them are still, still not there. We had a hope that he will change the narrative when it comes to Russia and the Ukrainian war, but this didn't happen. So he's still about to deliver on his campaign promise when it comes to Ukraine, but fingers crossed for Gaza and for the situation in Israel. Hopefully both sides will come to their senses and stop killing themselves. And I would like to thank you for this kind invitation. It's been an honor and I hope that we will continue our collaboration. I hope that you will contribute some of your work to our initiatives.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Oh, absolutely. And we always like to end our interviews by asking our guests, what are you working on now?

[Piotr Jacques]

Oh yes, thank you much for that. So currently I'm working on the concept of cognitive warfare and software defined warfare. I also try to complete a couple of projects with the Syrian Arab Spring. Bashar Al Assad left the country in December 2024 and I haven't managed to complete my project related to Syria. Also, there's a couple of projects related to the war in Ukraine. And surely I will use Kant to or Kantian philosophy to entangle some of the most complicated ideas related to those projects.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Well, when you finish them, perhaps we can have you back on the podcast.

[Piotr Jacques]

Thank you. I will be delighted.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Piotr Jacques, thank you for joining us on the New Books Network.

[Piotr Jacques]

Thank you very much.

[Stephen Sikevich]

Thank you for listening to this episode of the New Books Network. I am your host, Stephen Sikevich. Until next time.

[Piotr Jacques]

Sam.