Realism is often accused of being immoral and bellicose in international relations. Still, realism has so different approaches that it is difficult to defend these accusations without reducing research. This essay will first try to understand the classic realism of Morgenthau, and then he will demonstrate, first, that despite the wide and well-known idea Morgenthau supports the separation between political and moral action. And second, that classical realism is not a bellicose doctrine, since it actually requires a prudent and reasoned foreign policy.

It is assumed that the essence of international realism is in the conviction of the first of egoism on the moral principle, which seems to imply that egoism is in itself a moral principle, or that morality has to be excluded. In other words, it allows us to consider realism as immoral or amoral. However, none of the options can be considered valid when talking about classic realism, as a basis of doctrine rather states have to find the balance between power and morals when trying to achieve national interest. The search for this balance is particularly evident when examining the work of Morgenthau, although in the literature of International Relations it is extended the belief that he finds moral considerations inadequate for political needs.
This fundamental misunderstanding of Morgenthau 's classical realism is mainly due to his book Politics among Nations. The book deals with Morgenthau 's radical attack on excessive