Every single example of the "realists" in this paragraph have them being the ones telling politicians to avoid war and expansionism, the exact opposite of the "strong bullying the weak"! I think it is kind of insane how this is how "realism" is characterized in liberal media. And that too as a "strong bullying the weak" ideology! Liberals have unironically become full on bush-era Neo-cons.

George Kennan argued against NATO expansion in these pages in 1997, predicting that it would inflame Russian militarism and undermine Russian democracy.

Damn, I didn't know people predicted the Ukraine war that far in advance.

What’s brought about this turn? In part, it is insecurity, the motivation of all bullies.

Day 1041 of me painfully begging people to stop psychoanalyzing their enemies.

Even so, the United States and its allies are stronger than Team Russia and China if they stand together.

I'm beginning to think that when this author decries "realism", they think "realism" means "being in touch with reality".

While Mr. Trump embraces some elements of realism — giving in to the strong and sacrificing the weak — his tariff wars and threats against peaceful neighbors could end up being as costly as the military adventurism of the previous liberal order. Rajan Menon, a professor emeritus at the City College of New York, told me that people who expect the Trump administration “to follow the playbook of realism” by showing restraint “are going to get very disappointed.”

Other than the continued use of nonsense categories like "strong" and "weak", I actually agree with this paragraph.

After Athens sacked Melos, word of its brutality spread. Its allies turned against it. Athens lost the war. Noble ideas, it turns out, do matter.

I know nothing about the history of war but I would be surprised if this is how it actually played out.