The depth, breadth and acuity is simply shocking in this discussion with Prof Mearsheimer. Thank you John Anderson for these graduate level courses on meaningful relevant topics.
mearsheimer is lying that russia was libral democracy during yeltsyn. yelstsyn was communist boss of russia who destroyed ussr to get rid of gorbachev and uzbekistan maybe. he shot at parliemant started bloody wars in chehcnya moldova georgia tajikistan azerbaijan also was supporting serbia genocide in bosnia. basically he appointed putin president to protect his oligach mafia
mearsheimer forgets that russia is not soviet union not 20% but 1 % of world gdp and role or europe and bringing europe from alliance with russian china. also mearsheimer assumes that russia was not going to join china anyway and not standing out for your alies might have domino effect in the world when us prestige and truthworthiness will be destroyed
Amazing discussions. I wish we western world had politicians with such level of geopolitical understanding and intelligence. The world would become a better place.
We studied Mearsheimer at the War College and his book on Great Power Politics influenced how I look at international relations and power politics globally. Thank you for interviewing him and the stimulating conversation.
He keeps talking bout how the US pushed Nato expansion. But it's 30 nations that wanted NATO expansion. And 1 country, Russia, was against it. It's also important to understand why nations so desperately want to be in NATO. It's because they desire protection from Russia. And to understand why Russia did not want them in NATO. It's because it sees itself as having special rights over Eastern Europe due to the Soviet legacy. As is evident from the war fought today, and the limited supply of arms to Ukraine, the West is extremely carefull not to provoke Russia, let alone attack it indirectly or directly. Should Eastern European nations deliberately be left in a weak position to appease Russia. Knowing these countries had just endures decades of brutal and bloody occupation by the USSR? The more you appease and accommodate the bully the more violent the bully becomes. I think it's a self fulfilling prophesy. The more you emphasize how Russia has special rights over its neighbours the more Russia will feel emboldened to exercise such rights. As such Sachs and Maersheimer are Putin apologists. Russia has no special rights over other nations. It's a poor (compared to the west), and dictatorial country that simply has nothing to offer. Compared that to NATO and the EU. Countries in those organizations are safe and prosperous.
@@pierman4858 Clinton invited Russia into NATO too. There was no fear after 1991 since Russia was beyond weak. The narrative that they wanted to join NATO is not because of Russia. It's more that NATO has a pacifying effect. Behind closed doors, the European nations call it the American pacifier. Any European nation would want free security paid for by USA. The problem manifests when joining NATO runs counter to security interests, and that's when you find yourself next to a gorilla like Russia. Minor powers should play it smart.
John is a troglodyte and his followers are sheep who promulgate evil behavior by states. People once thought slavery was part of the natural order of things. By believing this, they helped perpetuate it.
@@pierman4858 The quid pro quo we gave the Russians for consenting to have a reunified Germany inside NATO. We needed them to sign away their rights as an occupying power and remove their troops from East Germany. Expanding NATO was an act of treachery that led to the current proxy war between Russia and NATO. There is an even chance of it leading to WW III and killing all of us.
Then you need to get rid of the US puppets such as your current fake PhD that's a president. Unfortunately though the US influence has so ingrained and inbedded itself into the ruling class Chinese who now call themselves Taiwanese that getting rid of the US puppets among themselves is akin to suicide of themselves as the rulers!
Exactly right! USA is the root cause of many wars around the world by stoking tensions with their fear mongering techniques. It’s no wonder USA spends more on weapons and its military than the next 10 countries combined. Only USA benefits from war around the war, let’s not be fooled. It’s never about democracy or freedom. If it were about democracy and freedom, they would have liberated Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam ages ago.
I’m from Taiwan and I would want USA to come to our aid if attacked. I value our democracy and open society. We don’t want to live under the ccp. Everyone I know in Taiwan shares my views.
@@helenegan1079 The Duran is a valuable resource, I watch it often but they both talk for 30 minutes to say something that only requires 2 minutes. They repeat themselves endlessly. Unfortunately most orators repeat the same message endlessly, it is deliberate psychology intended to force their narrative into our consciousness. I have a long attention span but that doesn't mean I like to be bored to death with repetition. I watched the whole of the Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin interview, which was rather laborious at the start with Putin going over more than a thousand years of Russian history (not sure how we can be certain any version of history is true as victors tend to write their own version of history). After that the discussion was pure gold. It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike Putin, you got to hear what he said and it wasn't the usual childish rhetoric we hear from Western leaders who use the words democracy and freedom whilst they are imposing tyrannical controls and snooping on our every thought. There are some really dumb comments on here and I really don't know if they are made by bots, the intelligence services (an oxymoron) or people who are deeply indoctrinated with propaganda. Meirsheimer knows his history well and his realism is a valid assessment of human nature, or at least human nature of those who seek to rule over us. He doesn't necessarily know all the answers, but he's pretty hard to prove to be lying. It takes no effort to prove that most Western leaders lie a lot. It's hard to prove if Putin is lying because Russia is a closed and controlled state, but there's little evidence to support the claim that Putin has imperial ambitions. Putin's main focus for the past 20 years is to reverse the destruction of Russian that Yeltsin brought about, the creation of the oligarchs and plundering of Russian resources. I am sure Putin is ruthless and it doesn't pay to be his enemy, but I am prepared to believe if you don't threaten him, he will not threaten you. I can't say this for the American deep state/neocons.
A very important and intetesting conversation! Mearsheimer's views on international relations are well thought out and historical evidence supporrs it.
When Mearsheimer said that China posts a much greater threat to the US, he really meant China posts a much greater threat to US hegemony and the US idea of a unipolar world.
Actually, both. China's "Middle Kingdom" psyche doesn't allow for China allies the same way American led governance allows for the participation of nations no matter their size or power. In China's transactional world, there are no friends, only trading partners that are potential sources of income.
@@tonysu8860 To be an enemy of the US is dangerous. To be a friend of the US is fatal. Also, the US sees nations that are large and powerful as a security threat and a threat to its hegemonic mindset.
Although I appreciate John Maersheimer a lot, I can’t get rid of the feeling that he thinks that he is on the better side of the moral divide. The common denominator in both europe and asia is a country, his country, thousands of miles away. I personally think that when you leave others alone, they will leave you alone as well
The Chinese, the Swedes, the Ayatollahs, the Russians, Hamas, and the Canucks all think they're on the better side of a moral divide. And I get that feeling from you as well. Hamas would be pretty well satisfied if the Israelis converted to Islam, so while I think stirring hornets nests causes trouble, minding your own business is not a final answer either.
@@johnyoung1761 I guess you are right that they feel the same, but my feeling is that they don't force it onto the world like the USA does. Look up Allen Dulles, he divided the world in good and bad and bad should be fought with all means available
@@OneDayWillFlyAwayOr you can say they have the intent but lacks the capability. How differently will Hamas behave if they have the power of US ? Will they not try to convert entire world into their Muslim ummat when it's their stated policy for existence.
As someone that has lived in both America and China, I can't imagine how Americans can possibly believe their country to be "safe", by any standard of measurement.
I like Meirsheimer's take on Ukraine. But am not sure why containing China is such a big deal, when it is the US (not China) that has caused so much harm geopolitically since 1947. (E.g. 88 governments overthrown, many of them democratic.)
What a brilliant mind Prof. John Mearsheimer, he clearly and simply articulates his position that makes sense. However, given the situation I hope for my little fellows sake that China and US don't go toe to toe as it would be disastrous for Australia and of course rest of the world, for what at the end of the day, is it worth it. No in my book. :)
The unipolar world may have been a good thing for the U.S., but millions of people suffered (and died) as a result of American bullying, coercion, and outright aggression in order to maintain its top-dog status. A multipolar world is worth the gamble. Neither Russia nor China are as instinctively aggressive as the Americans are. The Russians have a deep aversion to war (the current war was not of their making) and nothing in Chinese history suggests that Beijing is bent on world domination. It's the U.S. that's the biggest threat to peace.
I’m might not fully agree with you, but I see what you mean, here people often forget what unipolar world was like if you were an Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, etc.
Naive people is not an issue, real issue is that liberal democracy is myth, western democracy is not liberal and does not respect people interests automatically. As a result it is no more or less tyranny than any other political system. It is just one of many types of political hierarchy… It is amusing to see than all of latest “democratic” leaders with exception got literally disgusted by their electorate shortly after election, which is hardly indication of real “democracy” While “tyrant “ Putin is widely and freely accepted by majority of population. What is democracy then?
@@Thesilverratmany democracies are initiators of war in the past 100 years. So these democracies have the freedom and rights to go to war, and go around killing people and destroying other people. There is such in these democracies of evil.
One of the most outstanding interviews on geopolitics I've seen to date. Thank you John for brining John Mearsheimer to your platform, he is without a doubt the master of grand strategy and great power politics. Thank you for allowing him to speak liberally to address this very important topic of US "deep state" control.
Dr Mearsheimer's chief virtue (apart from the width/depth of his knowledge/understanding) is his not being personally outraged at the behaviour of states. He regards matters at a personal distance, which means he remains dispassionate and is able to maintain his moral compass. On the other hand, Mr Anderson's countering Dr Mearsheimer's strong criticism of the USA's conduct abroad with the claim that in China, Korea, and the Soviet Union, the people were not safe from their own government couldn't be more tangential/spurious. This is often the case with his observations. One thinks, 'What's that got to do with the price of butter?' And for him to think the Marshall Plan was driven by magnanimity is naïve if not deluded.
One of the problem is how the West view China. They say China is aggressive. Yet, in the eyes of Chinese, they just come back to its position in the past. China is peaceful, big and great for most of the time in the past thousands of years. Stopping China becoming big and great is not reasonable and forgiveable, and maybe even impossible but creating conflicts and serious and dangerous confrontation.
Very, very wrong view. The cpp know only struggle and fight. Why is that? Look into the history like this: ua-cam.com/video/JNaEqsPGYBc/v-deo.html 2000 years of war like in Europe.
Mearsheimer still thinks that the expansion of NATO provided an OK excuse for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It never did. If a majority within a collective (eg. Ukrainians) want to be part of a broader collective (such as NATO or the EU) then so be it. it's not for Russia or any other collective to decide matters. It's also not for the USA to decide matters either.
It started around 1000 years ago. Kyiv existed as an entity long before the house of Moscow expanded itself to become what became the Russian empire controlled by what were called Czars (emperors). Ukrainians among many other collectives that existed within the Russian empire long had their own identities. The existence of NATO and the EU are more recent inventions that the majority of Ukrainians want to be a part of (excluding most of those living in the east that mostly identify with Russia). Don't you think that it's silly that there are people that still think there's a natural divide between the so-called east and west? What's all that about? To quote my favourite band, "people are people". Peace, love and happiness to all. Cheers to you shanghaity.
He’s not saying it’s OK for Russia to invade because of NATO. He’s saying that, in realist terms, any country would invade if it were in the same position. For example, if Mexico collectively decided to be in a military alliance with China or Russia, the USA would certainly invade it. Is that OK? No it’s not, but the USA will view that as a threat and deal with it.
@@georgek2499 OK. Then realpolitik it is. As you well put it, he's not trying to suggest that the invasion is OK. But still, realpolitik doesn't add up to what's right or wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot, then certainly the USA would commit any horror for its own self-interest. My point is that two wrongs never make a right, and so there's no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Simple logic.
Are you Australian? Australia is already at the pre-war with China. Right now in the south China sea region, the only the following countries strongly confront China: Japan, S Korea, and Australia. Can you imagine if Trump win the election and does not care about that region, can Australia handle the China's bulliness
Beware of the Greeks baring gifts. Aust already accepted many such gifts from the US. Dont fight a Proxi war for the US unless you want to go the way of Ukr. Brilliant guest otherwise.
The realism regarding China is thus: the USA has no defense treaty with Taiwan. and the USA recognizes one China and one China only, with its capital being Beijing.
Why prof Mearsheimer always took China as "Treat" ? What has China did to desrve that label?? Did pull 800 milion people from poverty ? Or made saudi and iran together? Or made it self sufficient in technology? Really what China did??
The capitalist ones, and the US and UK mainly, as the pirate states they are. With China things can go differently. In fact, their relationships with the rest of the world are much more peaciful and beneficial for all sides already.
It is a way of western thinking that’s how they claim the power of the world. And the problem is not China is a threat. It is that elites in DC know that US is declining they have to seek conflict with China as early as possible when they still have the chance to defeat them. On the other side, China has no intention to go to any war with any one. Not even Taiwan, they can wait for another hundred if needed. If you watched ROC inauguration on May 20. You know the separatists know they don’t have time so they need to jump into the conflict.
Great interview. John Mearsheimer is a realist, nothing more. He simply sees things for what they are, not what he wishes they were. And he doesn’t call people names simply because they have a different view then him.
Of coure rse I hugely respect Professor John Mearsheimer for his insights. Minister Anderson's questions can be probing. And in two instances I feel that Professor John Mearsheimer perhaps does not offer sufficient background in his answers. First. The issue is that US and allies have been found wanting in Ukriane in respect of artillery tubes and shells; not so Russia. Here the Professor syas that capacity is being brought on line without quite explaining by whom and where. Second. The possibility that US may elect a President happy to settle matters with Russia on terms acceptable to Russia. Here the Professor refers to the almost mystical BLOB- a President can only act as suits this BLOB. Is the BLOB the same as the security state? Does it act on behalf of a certain lobby (or lobbies)? What motivates the BLOB? How does the BLOB see the "national interest"? Australia relies on the US for its security, and it can well see that the US has come up short in Ukraine: the shift from "as long as it takes" to "as long as we can" can hardly build confidence. Minister Anderson concludes by saying that the Professor has given us much to mull over rather than a happy nod showing agreement
Lets not forget, Moral values you are talking about is a relative idea. What is moral for you is not moral for another culture. So moral is not everything. Being real, means putting yourself in the shoes of other side and coming to reality. This is not defeatism. This is winning in a long run for all sides.
Problem with Mearsheimer and probably most Americans and West culture in general is that cooperation is not an option. It's constant: There can be only One game.
The problem with JM is that he is stucked in Cold War era and he still treats Eastern Europe as Russia's backyard and Russia itself as a special need baby. It is high time he stopped doing it.
@@tolep I do not have to. I live next to Russia and I know what kind of a neighbour Russia is and always was to my country. We owe Russia nothing and our agenda matters. And I am not Ukrainian, Russia needs excuses only, not a reason. Russia blames its victims for their will to be secured by Nato.Russia must look in the mirror first. Putin wants Ukraine. Ukraine had no chance to join Nato anyway.
Always fascinated by Mr Mearsheimer, I agree with his view of the power dynamics at play in international politics. Understanding it from the macro perspective is not complicated, much of it is tribal in nature and reflects the basic motivations of the human species, fear and greed. We can apply micro arguments to these foundations but the reality of our behavioral evolutionary model is immutable.
@@jdelorenzod2725The Israel lobby chose to ignore rather than attack on that one. It was too well researched and Mearsheimer and Walt are too respected in their fields.
@@jdelorenzod2725 I agree, those in power don't feel threatened by academics. In most cases they simply fund other and more numerous academics to push their narrative using government tools such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which has no interest in democracy at all.
I only just discovered John Mearsheimer on Piece Morgan interview tonight and am very impressed and agree with everything he's saying. Now going around other interviews to see more of his words.
Another excellent interview, thanks John! You might also like to consider interviewing Anatol Leiven of the Quincy Institute, another historically aware and eloquent Realist.
I think it's important to note that John M. is not saying a war with China or even containing China is a good thing from a moral/ethical point of view. He just assumes Great Powers will act to make sure they stay on top, right or wrong. Given this, the US will pivot to Asia. Likewise, China will try to dominate East and Southeast Asia, as a Great Power.
I think that is right. He doesn't think moral or ethical reasons are a factor. He doesn't agree or disagree with intervention in Ukraine for moral reasons. He thinks it was strategically more important for the USA to contain China and befriend Russia than to preserve any influence in Ukraine. The well-being or wishes of Ukrainians don't even enter into his calculations.
In the end the wars are fought over resources, which portrays in power. This time we happen to use "protecting democracy" as a reason, other times "dictatorships" or "religion". It´s all about access to oil resources, water and waterways, fishing rights, gas, raw materials ecc.
@@atp5400 In that sense the mistake the West and the US made was not going in much stronger much sooner. Better to have a large resource rich country on your team than on a rival team. On the surface that should be the "realist" perspective but Dr. M jumps around a lot.
@@WilkinsMichael Just would like to add that Mearsheimer said it had been in Ukrainian interests to avoid the conflict. The well-being of Ukrainians was much better before the war. The longer the conflict is going on, the more territory is lost, more Ukrainians leave the country for good and more Ukraine is wreaked.
If i understand Mearsheimer, the US has lost the competition with China in Ukraine, by pushing Russia into the arms of China. These 2 together are more powerful than the US. The US shows no inclination to undo this blunder, even if it were possible.
Hardly. Russia is not that powerful relative to the US. China and Russia together are formidable but the US's network of alliances in Europe and Asia are still far stronger than that pairing, in the order of twice as powerful.
@@joem0088 Since they chose to not be directly involved from a realist perspective they may be happy with the results. They expended minimum resources to deny Russia control of Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland joined NATO, the other eastern European nations are very wary of Russia, the Russian military has been humiliated and weakened and Russia is in many ways cut off from the parts of the world the US cares about. If Russia annexes 20% of Ukraine and the remaining 80% joins NATO they would be even happier.
John Mearsheimer is Sinophobe! His logic is flawed by projecting Western aggression onto China! Being a veteran, he cannot shed the indoctrination of aggression of the US military.
Really? He talks in circles and contradicts himself all the time. For example, here he is asked the simple question, is his version of "realism" essentially "might is right"? Instead of simply saying yes (or no) he talks in circles as if he is denying it but in the end, only confirms that it is indeed essentially might is right. How is that a breath of fresh air?
@@WilkinsMichael The world is not black&white to answer simply "yes/no" for your 5 second attention span. He gave examples first, and in the end said It depends on whether ethics/strategy are in sync or not, which is up to state.
The “realist” school failed to predict the fall of communism and the Soviet Union. Failed to predict Putin’s full scale invasion of Ukraine. This professor never mentions Putin’s philosophical approach defined by Ivan Ilyn, which means he doesn’t understand the basics of Russia’s worldview and belief in “sacred violence”. The “realists” also completely missed the rise of political Islam, which is significant factor shaping international relations. The more you learn about “realism” the less you have confidence in it.
That is not true. Realism predicted all of the above, including John Mearsheimer himself on the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine back in 2014 and even before. As far as political Islam, that was predicted by Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations, another realist classic. Mearsheimer has several papers and discussions on nationalism and the rise of great powers. Please check his page at the University of Chicago Political Science department
Mearsheimer actually predicted the invasion years ago. you can watch his lecture titled 'why Ukraine is the West's fault'. Also just like most IR theories, realism doesn't account for everything.
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-0 That lecture is pure emotionality. How can any serious person "blame the West" for Russia's actions. Absrud. Again, his framework is thin and outdated. He doesn't understand the basics of Russian imperialism and Putin's motivations.
@@aristidescabeche1506 Political Islam is not tied to a nation-state, and therefore outside of the "realist" framework. Mearsheimer is not an expert on Russian history and it weakens his analysis of the region. I understand he has been paid by the Kremlin via Valdai Group to give lectures, but the analysis is always "The West made Russia do it!" Not very helpful.
Crazy that I just wrote a paper about contrasting realism from liberalism in grad school. This video could’ve helped me articulate my thoughts more clearly
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans: You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment Without Americans and Britons losing their lives Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians. "This is a big investment"
@@WilkinsMichaelI see what you are getting at, but it is the opposite of what Prof. M was arguing here. I also see two weaknesses in his "realist" ideas. Firstly, it focuses the right and resilience to act on the larger powers. This ignores the actions of states and peoples that aren't major powers, such as Ukraine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Isreal etc. It also ignores the capacity of states to band together, such as EU or NATO. Secondly, by limiting the thinking to international power interactions, ignoring how internal politics plays into international politics, as well as ignoring concepts such as improving the human condition, which motivates the liberal and conservative views, it suggests that a Machiavellian approach to international politics is appropriate. This was not the approach that the USA had post second world war, as Anderson tried to point out.
«This video could’ve helped me articulate my thoughts more clearly» -- I do not agree. For me the most precious thing is genuine thinking. Keep on cultivating your genuine thinking. Or, said in other terms, if all articulate their thoughts by comparing to Mearsheimer's, there will be less new Mearheimers in the future.
Very interesting interview that adds another perspective to the geopolitical discussion. The geopolitical world isn’t always as you would like it to be but you have to contend with how it actually is. The world has moved to a multipolar system with the rise of China and to a lesser extent Russia which has provided a lifeline to many countries previously constrained by a American hegemony. Unfortunately with America swarming around China militarily the accident will occur that that once again leads to war. The outcome of this war will be unimaginable but human nature being what it is it’ll be unstoppable.
But how does this fit into Prof. M's ideas of realism? According to the principles he espouses isn't it inevitable and even correct that the US and its allies seek to contain its largest rival China? Words like "swarming around", "accident", and "unimaginable" seem to be emotional responses to his notion of might is right as powerful nations seek to protect their power. In fact that is the basis for his disapproval of the West's actions in Ukraine. He thinks China is the threat and the West should make friends with Russia including accepting whatever they want in Ukraine so Russia will be part of the "swarming around" of China.
i don't like the lack of ethics. i don't like the idea of nationalism as a foundation. Nationalism should be a symptom not the cause, nationalism should be secondary to a primary something. People will feel pride in their country if the country is worthy of having pride for. Thank you for this podcast.
Neither does Mearsheimer, which is why he often advocates for a world government where matters can be appealed on the grounds of morality instead of all states being in a constant state of anarchy with each other. In this podcast, he is describing reality as it stands rather than what he would like it to be. There's no point virtue signaling if China or any other totalitarian state with power can roll you over at will.
From a standpoint of a mouse, a cat is the strongest animal of all. Very poor analysis, but much better than your typical western point of view. Try to explain, why Russia is not afraid of China. And forget about the GDP already. It is fake.
@@richardparker1338 His larger point is that the amoral, anarchist, power based system by which states interact IS reality. Not that it's what he, I or you would like. You could spend a lifetime imagining a better system (and probably still get it wrong) but it wouldn't change what IS. We need to recognize reality. Look no further than the insane government we (America) set up in Afghanistan. On paper it was a near Star Trek utopia. It completely ignored the preferences and cultural values of the population and inserted our own made up morals. It survived almost as long as the money and troops kept flowing and ended up with the US in a hostage situation, bribing the taliban not to attack us very much until we could leave. I also don't recall him advocating for a one world government. It wouldn't surprise me if he said it in the context of some discussion but I highly doubt he spent much time on it because it's not going to happen. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" type of statement.
I very much appreciate mr. Mearsheimer's analysis and I agree with most of them. However, he did not predict the Russian invasion in Ukraine. As a matter of fact he deemed it very unlikely and a big mistake were it to happen. He deemed Putin to be too rational and too strategic to make such a blunder. Furthermore, in all likelihood it was Putin personally who decided to invade Ukraine since everyone in his inner circle seems to have been surprised; that is not a state taking a rational decision, it is an individual taking quite an emotional decision. Mearsheimer did say however that Russia would wreck Ukraine if the West did not back off, and that is what happened, but not in the way mr. Mearsheimer thought it would.
You have to remember that Mearsheimer made that initial speech in 2015 - the Russian SMO didn't happen until 2022. Seven years is a lifetime in geo-politics.
John Mearsheimer, for as wonderful thinker he is, is an even greater orator. His messages and concepts are very easy to follow the way he structures them. Love listening to him make complex concepts simple enough for non policy experts to follow.
Not only did Russia try Democracy but they themselves repeatedly asked to join NATO and was making their military increasingly dependent on NATO technology and manufacturing. It is so bizarre to me that people cant understand that Russia would feel the need (imperative) to either be producted by a European military alliance framework or have it as far from its territory and especially the greater Volga and Don river areas as possible.
As a fellow Australian I agree. I remember a couple of years ago China threatened to missile us over covid. I never saw that reported outside of Australia. We could easily have been in WW3.
Dont worry Aussie, the Americans will never abandon you in the way they did in Vietnam, Lybia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and and and. They are rock solid.🤣
I really wanted to like this video because of mister Anderson, but time and time again mr mearsheimer comes with the same argument - russia wanted that and nato did that and "don't go into Ukraine because Russia". But what about Ukraine? Is this guy even able to look at the problem from the little guy's perspective? I'm asking as an almost 50 year old romanian male that really remembers how things were with soviets around. And i swear, if russia goes even a little further into ukraine than the current front i take my family and move into st Helens Island. If he really wanted to help people of ukraine he should have lobbied 1.5 yers ago to give the brave soldiers of Ukraine exactly what they needed to push Russia back into its borders and teach putin a lesson... So many lives would've been spared this way...
Look, Romania ended in the Stalinist side of the world because Russia was more committed, more willing to spend lives to hold territory than US and UK. And because the Balkans are all little guys that won't pull themselves together for common benefit for long. Yes? Putin drew his red line in the sand, which to your good fortune was east of you. Up to Romanians whether they want to get, can I say, romantic and poke the bear for your Ukrainian neighbors. Never heard Putin say anything but to keep stability as it was. Trust but verify as Ronnie Raygun said. (Teaching people lessons is in the category of romance)
I understand your perspective, having endured living in the Soviet Union. My father fought in WW2 against Nazi Germany, and he could not accept that Germany in 1970 was not remotely like Germany between 1935 and 1945. I'd ask you to reconsider whether Russia is not distinctly different from the Soviet Union up to 1991. The world today is dramatically different from the world of 1990. It has changed much more in 30 years than in the previous 45 years when the USA was the sole superpower. Ukraine is a deeply unfortunate victim in a needless proxy conflict between the USA and Russia. I am 100% sure that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the USA had not continued with its determination to push NATO ever more Eastward, exactly as John Meirsheimer eloquently explains I have some Romanian friends whom I discuss geopolitics with, and if I were you, I'd be most concerned that your government doesn't get your country embroiled in a superpower conflict that you should keep out of. You should also be more concerned with the corruption in Romania that is diverting EU financial aid into the pockets of criminals rather than into infrastructure and industrial and agricultural investment. Romania will not fare well if it commits to globalisation and the EU superstate. In common with other smaller nations, it is best served independent and economically and culturally unique with its own sovereign currency. Unfortunately, the Romanians who aspire to be wealthy will sell their country to the gods of globalisation. I feel genuinely sorry for smaller countries as they are always prey to exploitation by global corporations and major powers. I am British and have seen how our country has declined as it hangs onto the coat tails of the USA. This is so that the few can benefit from the special relationship whilst the majority see their country transformed into something that feels alien, where they can't afford to buy or rent a home and increasingly find life getting harder and harder. Britain is fast returning to a society similar to Victorian times with huge inequality and a large struggling population. In theory, the masses ought to revolt, but they won't because they don't realise what's happening and they will not be allowed to starve, but they will live unhealthy lives and be manifestly unhappy.
Our mistake was thinking Russia could become a democracy without any of the prerequisites variables in place. Russian peasants were only freed from serfdom in 1861. In contrast, western Europe had been slowly transitioning away from serfdom to liberal capitalism since the 1500s. This was a process that took the better part of 400 years to complete. Only after all the cultural, economic and institutional prerequisites existed could European states run competent democracies. How realistic is it to expect Russia to do the same thing in just a decade?
The theory of offensive realism in general makes sense, is proven historically, and indeed is tragic as per Mearsheimer's book title. However, Mearsheimer is twisting and misusing the very theory that he advocates to- surprisingly- push a pro-Russian narrative. Tragically (no pun intended) it makes people to associate Mearsheimer's political views with the theory that he promotes, and wrongly makes this theory look invalid and pro-Russian. Supporting Ukraine is indeed in line with offensive realism. Moreover, from a cold-blooded, great power rivalry point of view it crated very favourable circumstances for the US and its allies- they can weaken Russia by merely sending aid to Ukraine, instead of having their own troops on the ground. Similarly, the idea that the US should focus exclusively on China is a very narrow perspective. Things don't exist in isolation in the international system. On the contrary, they have the tendency to cause butterfly effects. As such, supporting Ukraine is in US' and by extension NATO's interest, and that includes taking China into account. Focusing on one strategic region doesn't mean giving a free hand to another major power in another region. Just because the US applied "Europe first" strategy during WW2 didn't mean that it withdrew its forces from Asia and gave Japan a free hand.
"Supporting Ukraine is indeed in line with offensive realism" Yes, for Washington. And by Washington, I mean the people in power in Washington right now. Invading Ukraine is also in line with offensive realism for Moscow. For the rest of us, we have to decide individually. Personally, it makes very little difference to me. There are many other issues which have a much more profound impact on my life.
IMO you're purposefully scoping Mearsheimer's Realism to exclude the consequences supporting his concept of international global politics. It's easy to see Putin loves the idea of a political theory that justifies his Ukraine invasion. And although I'd consider China's Xi likely less likely to be appreciative, Realism justifies anything Xi wants to do, too. Mearsheimer's Realism supports and justifies autocratic rule, particularly by the designated "Big 3" polar powers.
In early 2022 I heard an interview with Mearsheimer wherein his basic premise was that he was afraid that the US was so militarily and technologically superior that the coming victory in Ukraine would lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. Actually, just the opposite has turned out to be the case. Even Mearsheimer was enamored with the US dominance in everything.
Incredible the clarity Mearscheimer brings to every topic he touches. In another life, he’d have been a great businessman. From complex reality, to simple coherent strategic vision.
If someone is wondering how Europe slipped into WW2, seeing clear as day, steps of agression, please remeber people like this dude. We have almost the repeat of the 30s and people are still excusing dictators and madmen.
Also regarding weapons quality. I think the war in Ukraine has proved that western quality is somewhat of a myth. There hasn't been any weapon that had performed that well and it has been quantity that matters. Any tank, armoured vehicle can be destroyed without any issue by a $400 FPV. An F-35 costs $100+m, for that amount you can get about 300,000 fpv drones - the question is which has a bigger impact on the battlefield? Its definitely not the F-35.
What nonsense. Ukraine has had disappointingly minuscule volumes of western weapons & ammo (and no western jets) yet recaptured over 50% of lost territory and destroyed submarines in supposedly highly protected harbors. They have also been able to destroy the vast majority of Russian missiles with western air defence.
What? American M777 howitzers aren't far superior to any Russian artillery in accuracy, range and reliability/ The M3 Bradleys haven't been a big help? The HIMARS haven't been a major asset? The Phalanx aerial defense system hasn't made a big difference? The Javalins and Stingers haven't had a major impact/ is there anything the Ukrainians receved that isn't better than the Soviet equipment Ukraine started off using and Russia is still using?
I have always said that for the US foreign policy to change, the U.S. would have to suffer a catastrophic defeat in a war or in the economic arena. This likely will not happen in my lifetime, but it will someday in future. It won’t look good.
Its ironic that a section is called "How John predicted the Russian invasion" roll the tapes, he was one of the people that said they wouldnt invade until the moment Russia crossed into Ukraine
@@johnvannewhouse John Meisheimer is clear that China is a genuine threat to the USA and that the American State Department has foolishly driven Russia and China together with the Ukraine proxy war. He reminds us that Taiwan is recognised by the international community, including the USA as part of China and not an independent state. If I recall correctly, he has said that it would be a grave mistake if the USA provoked a military conflict between Taiwan and mainland China which could lead to nuclear annihilation. US capital ships in the South China Sea would be a large defenseless target for Chinese missiles and a reaction to thousands of dead American sailors could trigger WW3 It is debatable whether China's rise to become the biggest economic power could have been prevented. Nevertheless,the USA should have done more to prevent transfer of manufacturing from the States to China by carrot and/or stick policies to neutralise the exploitation of cheap Chinese labour. This would have maintained US employment, tax receipts and reduced to a significant degree the growth of the Chinese economy. I believe that Meisheimer advocates protectionist policies to weaken the Chinese economy rather than war which would be bad for everyone. I personally believe it's too late to reverse the ascendancy of China and that we need to find a way to coexist with them without being at their mercy. We need to hope the Chinese have forgotten what we did to them historically otherwise they may have plans to pay us back.
Im surprised at how biased he is, as he minimizes US war crimes since WW2 referring to them as "mistakes", and credits the US as having won the Cold War, as if the US arms build up and covert crimes were the reason the reason the USSR collapsed.
I am Ukrainian, and I will say very openly that no one wants to end this war as quickly as we are. His position is interesting in that, by default, one can accept the fact that there are democracies and authoritarian countries, or something in between, and a balance between these worlds is possible with the right arrangement. But he does not take into account the interests of all others. In his model, there is no Ukraine, no Georgia, no Taiwan essentially. These are just irritants in the balance, not opportunities. Such irritants will be the Baltic countries, Moldova and Poland next, and he will say, "They should not have been invited to NATO." This is the same colonialism. It's interesting to note that in the interview, he never mentioned the EU as a subject, except for Merkel and Sarkozy as supporters of "realistic theory." One can talk a lot about "how it should have been before," but then, after the 90s, the accession of the Baltic States and Romania to NATO, in 2014, it finally became clear that his theory also does not provide all the answers. Approximately 40 million Ukrainians who did not want to be under the wing of Russia were ignored, simply ignoring the fact that Russia is not able to meet the demands of Ukrainians, and Ukrainian society is rapidly moving away from the Russian one. This is a strategic mistake: for 30 years to chew on their realism theories without noticing the state of affairs below the "major power centers." The status quo was disrupted a long time ago, and one needs to look into the details, into social changes. If he proposes to abstractly end the war in Ukraine by restricting the supply of aid and weapons, the result will be the destruction of millions of Ukrainians, genocide, and the continued threat of occupation of the Baltic countries, Moldova, and so on. This war needs to be ended so that in the future, Ukraine can become a strong outpost on the borders of Europe. No one, like Ukrainians, wants to end this war as quickly as possible.
Nothing of Ukraine remained. A twenty some million war-torn, childless, vastly aging destroyed almost landlocked hinterland with no much mineral, industrial, and demographic resources. At best, a kinda of Hungary-like and Hungary-size country may remain of it in far west of Dniester. Your genius politicians turned the biggest country in Europe with a population of 52 million in 1991 to a wasteland dying mini-country.
Baltics and Moldova are not country in the grand scheme of history and politics. They are walled or gated cities that come and go with every sweep of history. You seemingly have taken these concepts and entities very seriously. Read history.
Никто не заинтересован в вас как в "форпосте". Для Штатовских политиков вы ценны лишь тем единственным, что они не могут себе позволить - белковым наполнителем для амуниции. Они сами говорили об этом. Пойми уж наконец.
I think Mearsheimer is wrong about many things, particularly his Anti-Israel arguments. In an interview like this, he shines, and it's clear that he is an intellect that should not be dismissed.
With all due respect he's been proven right in regards to a lot of what he's said about Israel. During one of the Gaza wars in the late 2000s he criticized Israel's actions as being misguided, noting that Israel would be neither able to eliminate Hamas's ability to fire rockets, and that Israel's intervention would not cause Hamas to end its fight in Israel. Furthermore he said that relations would actually continue to deteriorate as a result of the conflict. 15 years later and he's been proven quite correct. What do you think he gets wrong about Israel?
My opinion is limited to what I know, and that is limited to what I have heard him say in many interviews. On the recent Lex Friedman Podcast, Mearsheimer made it clear that he considers the matter in the Middle East, particularly that of Palestine and Israel, to be a settled matter in his mind. This, I believe, is a grave error for a political scientist to make. Orthodox views have their place, but not in the sciences, where fluid events must disrupt any sacrosanct beliefs or ideas. A scientist, to be effective, has to remain agnostic and not take sides. His error was to find fault with one side such that the other side must prevail regardless of context. Such thinking renders his opinion all but useless and indeed feeble-minded, which is sad because he is clearly a thoughtful man, but not in this case.
@@mellochord When you say, "his error was to find fault with one side such that the other side must prevail regardless of context", what exactly do you mean by that?
I took Mearsheimer to mean that in his perception, he has assessed a situation where there are two populations that have committed errors, but one side is historically guilty of a greater error; therefore, he is choosing the lessor of the two as the population that should prevail regardless of how they avail themselves in the present or future.
It seems that the honourable J Anderson is thinking hard about China invading Australia. Will USA come to Australia's aid. Fact is the odds are against USA supporting Taiwan to the last Taiwanese (pay attention Formosans). There is an ocean for supplies to cross. There is no supply chain in USA to meet the needs of the war combatants. It is not about war but the sustainment of the war effort. To bring the MIC up to speed it would require a supreme and sustained effort. Education is the area of greatest need. Being broke (USA) is another problem. But Mr Anderson need not fear! China is not going to invade but if you force the Taiwanese into a "Ukraine" situation, look out!
This Mearsheimer is what the Soviets used to call "useful idiot", and so he is katexochen with the stress on the noun in the term. Sometimes I suspect he is just playing a huge joke on academia and everyone else. But no. He is probably sincere. Also funny, his last name starts with "Mears" which is what the Russian for "scoundrel" also starts with.
It's sad that such an influential person does not acknowledge the freedom of a nation to be what they want to be within, and not tied to what they don't want. Nobody forced anyone to join NATO or EU nor the so called Russian NATO. They join because they want and no superpower should be dictating that they can't. To pretend that is calling for war is completely distrustful. Russia didn't want ukraine to join EU trading bill in 2014 was only for money reasons not for the so called sovereignty of Russia and because ukraine will had a even better standard of living!
If you follow the logic for not attacking Russia but focusing on the real threat of China, we should not have attacked Nazi but focused on the real threat of communism in the coming decades. Right?
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans: You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment Without Americans and Britons losing their lives Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians. "This is a big investment"
Doesn't mean Ukraine is going to 'win'. It's also a pretty callous 'investment' using Ukrainians as cannon fodder, not for the purpose of liberating Ukraine so much as weakening or destroying Russia.
@@BallardianThat was always being the cause right from expansion of Nato to arming of Ukraine. It's a clear policy of containing Russia within it's border and having Ukraine in Nato provides Nato with the Naval facilities of Sevastopol which would completely cutoff Russia from accesing the warm waters . This is the policy going from Catherine the Great to Putin . First British did it and now Americans are doing it .
We keep imposing our views and perceptions of the world on others and keep demanding and expect them to live by what standards we set. Col Macgregor Ret
I would respectfully disagree with professor. The thing is that Ukrainians in particular and Eastern Europe in general have way too many reasons to resist Russia. The lack of the western presence in form of NATO means a Russian influence. There is a strong drive to side with the west in the Eastern Europe. Actually many Eastern European countries are more pro-west and pro-american than Western Europe. Implementation of professor's ideas would throw east European nations into the grip of bloody tyranny that has no civilization project at all (again). Russia offers only death, suffering and misery - one must not underestimate the urge to avoid such a fate.
Anderson is one of very few interviewers who speaks clearly, asks short questions and does not take half the time for himself.Excellent!
He was important part of machine that get us where we are now..he just want to squeese some money from YT..
The depth, breadth and acuity is simply shocking in this discussion with Prof Mearsheimer. Thank you John Anderson for these graduate level courses on meaningful relevant topics.
ROSE PEROT SAID THIS CHINA NAFTA WAS GOING TO DISTROY THE COUNTRY.BUT THEY DIDNT CARE THEN AND THEY DONT CARE NOW.
THE STUPIDEST THING GERMANY DID WAS BREAK THE TREARY WITH RUSSIA
I love this channel. It reminds me of a time when the grown ups were in charge, and discussions were allowed to be serious.
I mean John mersheimer is the guy who said that America was responsible for funding the Soviet Union until it found its way he's not an honest actor
Indeed. I’m Afraid the grown ups are long gone. Just look at UK politics now days, it’s an absolute joke.
mearsheimer is lying that russia was libral democracy during yeltsyn. yelstsyn was communist boss of russia who destroyed ussr to get rid of gorbachev and uzbekistan maybe. he shot at parliemant started bloody wars in chehcnya moldova georgia tajikistan azerbaijan also was supporting serbia genocide in bosnia. basically he appointed putin president to protect his oligach mafia
nato works and ukarine would not have war if they were in nato
mearsheimer forgets that russia is not soviet union not 20% but 1 % of world gdp and role or europe and bringing europe from alliance with russian china. also mearsheimer assumes that russia was not going to join china anyway and not standing out for your alies might have domino effect in the world when us prestige and truthworthiness will be destroyed
Amazing discussions. I wish we western world had politicians with such level of geopolitical understanding and intelligence. The world would become a better place.
Yes! You're killing it with the guests lately John, good work
We studied Mearsheimer at the War College and his book on Great Power Politics influenced how I look at international relations and power politics globally. Thank you for interviewing him and the stimulating conversation.
He keeps talking bout how the US pushed Nato expansion. But it's 30 nations that wanted NATO expansion. And 1 country, Russia, was against it.
It's also important to understand why nations so desperately want to be in NATO. It's because they desire protection from Russia. And to understand why Russia did not want them in NATO. It's because it sees itself as having special rights over Eastern Europe due to the Soviet legacy. As is evident from the war fought today, and the limited supply of arms to Ukraine, the West is extremely carefull not to provoke Russia, let alone attack it indirectly or directly.
Should Eastern European nations deliberately be left in a weak position to appease Russia. Knowing these countries had just endures decades of brutal and bloody occupation by the USSR?
The more you appease and accommodate the bully the more violent the bully becomes. I think it's a self fulfilling prophesy. The more you emphasize how Russia has special rights over its neighbours the more Russia will feel emboldened to exercise such rights. As such Sachs and Maersheimer are Putin apologists.
Russia has no special rights over other nations. It's a poor (compared to the west), and dictatorial country that simply has nothing to offer.
Compared that to NATO and the EU. Countries in those organizations are safe and prosperous.
@@pierman4858 Clinton invited Russia into NATO too. There was no fear after 1991 since Russia was beyond weak. The narrative that they wanted to join NATO is not because of Russia. It's more that NATO has a pacifying effect. Behind closed doors, the European nations call it the American pacifier. Any European nation would want free security paid for by USA. The problem manifests when joining NATO runs counter to security interests, and that's when you find yourself next to a gorilla like Russia. Minor powers should play it smart.
John is a troglodyte and his followers are sheep who promulgate evil behavior by states. People once thought slavery was part of the natural order of things. By believing this, they helped perpetuate it.
@@pierman4858
The quid pro quo we gave the Russians for consenting to have a reunified Germany inside NATO. We needed them to sign away their rights as an occupying power and remove their troops from East Germany. Expanding NATO was an act of treachery that led to the current proxy war between Russia and NATO. There is an even chance of it leading to WW III and killing all of us.
Just one Question. Why haven't US lifted sanctions on Cuba till today ?
This was probably one of the most interesting conversations I have listened to for a very long time.
Shame on you!
I’m from Taiwan and I don’t want US defending it. Another Ukraine?!? Please!
America should mind its own business.
Then you need to get rid of the US puppets such as your current fake PhD that's a president. Unfortunately though the US influence has so ingrained and inbedded itself into the ruling class Chinese who now call themselves Taiwanese that getting rid of the US puppets among themselves is akin to suicide of themselves as the rulers!
Exactly right! USA is the root cause of many wars around the world by stoking tensions with their fear mongering techniques. It’s no wonder USA spends more on weapons and its military than the next 10 countries combined. Only USA benefits from war around the war, let’s not be fooled. It’s never about democracy or freedom. If it were about democracy and freedom, they would have liberated Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam ages ago.
I’m from Taiwan and I would want USA to come to our aid if attacked. I value our democracy and open society. We don’t want to live under the ccp.
Everyone I know in Taiwan shares my views.
@@royhuang6422the usa's aid makes china 1 attacking china 2
The issue is that Taiwan is a part of US business.
This is one of the better UA-cam channels around, very informative. Regards from the Netherlands👍🏻
The Duran to keep you up to date geopolitically! "If you dont have concentration span of a goldfish". Know your history and you know who you are.
@@helenegan1079 The Duran is a valuable resource, I watch it often but they both talk for 30 minutes to say something that only requires 2 minutes. They repeat themselves endlessly. Unfortunately most orators repeat the same message endlessly, it is deliberate psychology intended to force their narrative into our consciousness.
I have a long attention span but that doesn't mean I like to be bored to death with repetition. I watched the whole of the Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin interview, which was rather laborious at the start with Putin going over more than a thousand years of Russian history (not sure how we can be certain any version of history is true as victors tend to write their own version of history). After that the discussion was pure gold. It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike Putin, you got to hear what he said and it wasn't the usual childish rhetoric we hear from Western leaders who use the words democracy and freedom whilst they are imposing tyrannical controls and snooping on our every thought.
There are some really dumb comments on here and I really don't know if they are made by bots, the intelligence services (an oxymoron) or people who are deeply indoctrinated with propaganda.
Meirsheimer knows his history well and his realism is a valid assessment of human nature, or at least human nature of those who seek to rule over us. He doesn't necessarily know all the answers, but he's pretty hard to prove to be lying. It takes no effort to prove that most Western leaders lie a lot. It's hard to prove if Putin is lying because Russia is a closed and controlled state, but there's little evidence to support the claim that Putin has imperial ambitions. Putin's main focus for the past 20 years is to reverse the destruction of Russian that Yeltsin brought about, the creation of the oligarchs and plundering of Russian resources. I am sure Putin is ruthless and it doesn't pay to be his enemy, but I am prepared to believe if you don't threaten him, he will not threaten you. I can't say this for the American deep state/neocons.
At last we have adult-level conversations on politics to learn from and to enjoy, thanks to John Anderson.
There's probibly more corruption in the us government than anywhere in the world
The us thinks it's draining Russia of money and resources but I think Russia is draining the us.or the us is draining its self.
If China stops sending everything to the US the us will collapse. The us produces nuthing in the store .
A very important and intetesting conversation! Mearsheimer's views on international relations are well thought out and historical evidence supporrs it.
Thank you! It’s incredibly important for people to understand why things happened in order to avoid future catastrophe.
When Mearsheimer said that China posts a much greater threat to the US, he really meant China posts a much greater
threat to US hegemony and the US idea of a unipolar world.
For Prof. M I think those are the same thing.
Actually, both.
China's "Middle Kingdom" psyche doesn't allow for China allies the same way American led governance allows for the participation of nations no matter their size or power. In China's transactional world, there are no friends, only trading partners that are potential sources of income.
@@tonysu8860 To be an enemy of the US is dangerous. To be a friend of the US is fatal. Also, the US sees
nations that are large and powerful as a security threat and a threat to its hegemonic mindset.
@@tonysu8860Not at all, American doesn’t have permanent allies, only permanent interests.
Although I appreciate John Maersheimer a lot, I can’t get rid of the feeling that he thinks that he is on the better side of the moral divide. The common denominator in both europe and asia is a country, his country, thousands of miles away.
I personally think that when you leave others alone, they will leave you alone as well
The Chinese, the Swedes, the Ayatollahs, the Russians, Hamas, and the Canucks all think they're on the better side of a moral divide. And I get that feeling from you as well. Hamas would be pretty well satisfied if the Israelis converted to Islam, so while I think stirring hornets nests causes trouble, minding your own business is not a final answer either.
@@johnyoung1761 I guess you are right that they feel the same, but my feeling is that they don't force it onto the world like the USA does. Look up Allen Dulles, he divided the world in good and bad and bad should be fought with all means available
@@OneDayWillFlyAwayOr you can say they have the intent but lacks the capability. How differently will Hamas behave if they have the power of US ? Will they not try to convert entire world into their Muslim ummat when it's their stated policy for existence.
@@harshitsingh1600 yes, but they have not the power of the US. The world should prevent that it is ruled by one super power. There should be balance
Up until Feb 21. 2022 Ukraine thought it could "leave Russia alone."
As someone that has lived in both America and China, I can't imagine how Americans can possibly believe their country to be "safe", by any standard of measurement.
that would assume most American actually travel to China
@@ZZWWYZChina is a safe country to live in while the US is 'safe' in their fake news propaganda n in the minds of the ignorant brainwashed Americans.
China is most likely the least of their concerns.😮
@@kirstinstrand6292 it's already their obsession
Can you expand your point?
Thoughtful, expert and collegial. Well done again. Keep 'em coming...
John is biased,he will never admit that USA has been demoted
I like Meirsheimer's take on Ukraine. But am not sure why containing China is such a big deal, when it is the US (not China) that has caused so much harm geopolitically since 1947. (E.g. 88 governments overthrown, many of them democratic.)
Because the US needs to maintain its economic hegemony. Allowing China to build alliances would threaten that.
What a brilliant mind Prof. John Mearsheimer, he clearly and simply articulates his position that makes sense. However, given the situation I hope for my little fellows sake that China and US don't go toe to toe as it would be disastrous for Australia and of course rest of the world, for what at the end of the day, is it worth it. No in my book. :)
Excellent interview and insight. Thank you !
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney .
The unipolar world may have been a good thing for the U.S., but millions of people suffered (and died) as a result of American bullying, coercion, and outright aggression in order to maintain its top-dog status. A multipolar world is worth the gamble. Neither Russia nor China are as instinctively aggressive as the Americans are. The Russians have a deep aversion to war (the current war was not of their making) and nothing in Chinese history suggests that Beijing is bent on world domination. It's the U.S. that's the biggest threat to peace.
Yep, these are the facts
I’m might not fully agree with you, but I see what you mean, here people often forget what unipolar world was like if you were an Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, etc.
Extremely insightful and enlightening interview! Thank you! 🙏🙏
A democracy is much more prone to being warlike when its population is relatively naive.
You don't read much, do you.
@@ThesilverratHe does, you don’t. Both world wars were initiated by “democracies”. Not mentioning Vietnam or Iraq…
Naive people is not an issue, real issue is that liberal democracy is myth, western democracy is not liberal and does not respect people interests automatically. As a result it is no more or less tyranny than any other political system. It is just one of many types of political hierarchy… It is amusing to see than all of latest “democratic” leaders with exception got literally disgusted by their electorate shortly after election, which is hardly indication of real “democracy” While “tyrant “ Putin is widely and freely accepted by majority of population. What is democracy then?
@@Thesilverratmany democracies are initiators of war in the past 100 years. So these democracies have the freedom and rights to go to war, and go around killing people and destroying other people. There is such in these democracies of evil.
@@dlitvinebecause liberal democracy is not a democracy.
One of the most outstanding interviews on geopolitics I've seen to date. Thank you John for brining John Mearsheimer to your platform, he is without a doubt the master of grand strategy and great power politics. Thank you for allowing him to speak liberally to address this very important topic of US "deep state" control.
Thanks for having him on (balances things out after some of the recent guests)
Dr Mearsheimer's chief virtue (apart from the width/depth of his knowledge/understanding) is his not being personally outraged at the behaviour of states. He regards matters at a personal distance, which means he remains dispassionate and is able to maintain his moral compass. On the other hand, Mr Anderson's countering Dr Mearsheimer's strong criticism of the USA's conduct abroad with the claim that in China, Korea, and the Soviet Union, the people were not safe from their own government couldn't be more tangential/spurious. This is often the case with his observations. One thinks, 'What's that got to do with the price of butter?' And for him to think the Marshall Plan was driven by magnanimity is naïve if not deluded.
One of the problem is how the West view China. They say China is aggressive.
Yet, in the eyes of Chinese, they just come back to its position in the past. China is peaceful, big and great for most of the time in the past thousands of years.
Stopping China becoming big and great is not reasonable and forgiveable, and maybe even impossible but creating conflicts and serious and dangerous confrontation.
Very, very wrong view. The cpp know only struggle and fight. Why is that? Look into the history like this: ua-cam.com/video/JNaEqsPGYBc/v-deo.html 2000 years of war like in Europe.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that John Mearsheimer played the board game RISK as a child. That game teaches you about realism.
Mearsheimer still thinks that the expansion of NATO provided an OK excuse for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It never did. If a majority within a collective (eg. Ukrainians) want to be part of a broader collective (such as NATO or the EU) then so be it. it's not for Russia or any other collective to decide matters. It's also not for the USA to decide matters either.
The question is how did it all started? The infiltration effort took a long time before it took hold in Ukraine.
It started around 1000 years ago. Kyiv existed as an entity long before the house of Moscow expanded itself to become what became the Russian empire controlled by what were called Czars (emperors). Ukrainians among many other collectives that existed within the Russian empire long had their own identities. The existence of NATO and the EU are more recent inventions that the majority of Ukrainians want to be a part of (excluding most of those living in the east that mostly identify with Russia).
Don't you think that it's silly that there are people that still think there's a natural divide between the so-called east and west? What's all that about? To quote my favourite band, "people are people". Peace, love and happiness to all. Cheers to you shanghaity.
He’s not saying it’s OK for Russia to invade because of NATO. He’s saying that, in realist terms, any country would invade if it were in the same position. For example, if Mexico collectively decided to be in a military alliance with China or Russia, the USA would certainly invade it. Is that OK? No it’s not, but the USA will view that as a threat and deal with it.
@@georgek2499 OK. Then realpolitik it is. As you well put it, he's not trying to suggest that the invasion is OK. But still, realpolitik doesn't add up to what's right or wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot, then certainly the USA would commit any horror for its own self-interest. My point is that two wrongs never make a right, and so there's no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Simple logic.
I know that Mearsheimer wasn't suggesting that the war is OK, but he was providing an excuse for it. There is no excuse.
Australians should not allow any political party to drag this country to war in Taiwan by the USA
You sure about that
Are you Australian?
Australia is already at the pre-war with China.
Right now in the south China sea region, the only the following countries strongly confront China: Japan, S Korea, and Australia.
Can you imagine if Trump win the election and does not care about that region, can Australia handle the China's bulliness
Except the politicians only know how to say how high when the US ask them to jump.
To late !
Beware of the Greeks baring gifts. Aust already accepted many such gifts from the US. Dont fight a Proxi war for the US unless you want to go the way of Ukr. Brilliant guest otherwise.
The realism regarding China is thus: the USA has no defense treaty with Taiwan. and the USA recognizes one China and one China only, with its capital being Beijing.
Indeed
Thank God for him and Jeffery Sachs telling the truth.
Why prof Mearsheimer always took China as "Treat" ? What has China did to desrve that label?? Did pull 800 milion people from poverty ? Or made saudi and iran together? Or made it self sufficient in technology? Really what China did??
Because a stronger China would not allow the US act the hegemonial behavior any longer.
It’s not about deserving a label. It’s simply the nature of great power states. Great powers inevitably become rivals.
The capitalist ones, and the US and UK mainly, as the pirate states they are. With China things can go differently. In fact, their relationships with the rest of the world are much more peaciful and beneficial for all sides already.
It is a way of western thinking that’s how they claim the power of the world. And the problem is not China is a threat. It is that elites in DC know that US is declining they have to seek conflict with China as early as possible when they still have the chance to defeat them. On the other side, China has no intention to go to any war with any one. Not even Taiwan, they can wait for another hundred if needed. If you watched ROC inauguration on May 20. You know the separatists know they don’t have time so they need to jump into the conflict.
Great interview. John Mearsheimer is a realist, nothing more. He simply sees things for what they are, not what he wishes they were. And he doesn’t call people names simply because they have a different view then him.
If realism really was realism it should be renamed to Accomondationism
@@DogeickBatemanIt's closer to I-want-to-live-a-lot-ism.
@@rageburst No
Is that some sort of childish sarcastic criticism? Or are you serious? Be clear. @@DogeickBateman
@@RadiusG60 ok Russian boomer 👍
Of coure rse I hugely respect Professor John Mearsheimer for his insights. Minister Anderson's questions can be probing. And in two instances I feel that Professor John Mearsheimer perhaps does not offer sufficient background in his answers.
First. The issue is that US and allies have been found wanting in Ukriane in respect of artillery tubes and shells; not so Russia. Here the Professor syas that capacity is being brought on line without quite explaining by whom and where.
Second. The possibility that US may elect a President happy to settle matters with Russia on terms acceptable to Russia. Here the Professor refers to the almost mystical BLOB- a President can only act as suits this BLOB. Is the BLOB the same as the security state? Does it act on behalf of a certain lobby (or lobbies)? What motivates the BLOB? How does the BLOB see the "national interest"?
Australia relies on the US for its security, and it can well see that the US has come up short in Ukraine: the shift from "as long as it takes" to "as long as we can" can hardly build confidence. Minister Anderson concludes by saying that the Professor has given us much to mull over rather than a happy nod showing agreement
Lets not forget, Moral values you are talking about is a relative idea. What is moral for you is not moral for another culture. So moral is not everything. Being real, means putting yourself in the shoes of other side and coming to reality. This is not defeatism. This is winning in a long run for all sides.
Problem with Mearsheimer and probably most Americans and West culture in general is that cooperation is not an option. It's constant: There can be only One game.
The problem with JM is that he is stucked in Cold War era and he still treats Eastern Europe as Russia's backyard and Russia itself as a special need baby. It is high time he stopped doing it.
@@Blanka1100 Some people dont want to hear the truth because they dont want their illusions destroyed!
@@helenegan1079 are we just gonna ignore that the people holding power in Russia today, especially Putin, dreams of the good ole Imperial Russia?
@@Blanka1100 Look at the map.
@@tolep I do not have to. I live next to Russia and I know what kind of a neighbour Russia is and always was to my country. We owe Russia nothing and our agenda matters. And I am not Ukrainian, Russia needs excuses only, not a reason. Russia blames its victims for their will to be secured by Nato.Russia must look in the mirror first. Putin wants Ukraine. Ukraine had no chance to join Nato anyway.
Thanks Mr Anderson and Mr Mearsheimer for your brillant geopolitic analysis about the Ukranian war and Rusian strategy.
Always fascinated by Mr Mearsheimer, I agree with his view of the power dynamics at play in international politics. Understanding it from the macro perspective is not complicated, much of it is tribal in nature and reflects the basic motivations of the human species, fear and greed. We can apply micro arguments to these foundations but the reality of our behavioral evolutionary model is immutable.
Fear and greed are the drivers of the West. True enough. But there is God. And there is Russia ruled by God. The soul of the world
Salient points on Liberalism, Tolerance in controlling the dark side of Nationalism. Thank You, Professor
Didn’t Mearsheimer & Walt also author “The Israel Lobby”? I think I remember that.
They did. Shockingly they survived that ordeal pretty much unscathed. In the US, bringing up Jewish power is often career suicide.
@@jdelorenzod2725The Israel lobby chose to ignore rather than attack on that one. It was too well researched and Mearsheimer and Walt are too respected in their fields.
@@ProletarianTakeover They do have a tendency to ignore whenever its an academic making valid points. They did it with Kevin Macdonald too.
@@jdelorenzod2725 I agree, those in power don't feel threatened by academics. In most cases they simply fund other and more numerous academics to push their narrative using government tools such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which has no interest in democracy at all.
@@jdelorenzod2725 Ya, AIPAC is the dark hands behind US foreign policies, far beyond just Israel issue!
I only just discovered John Mearsheimer on Piece Morgan interview tonight and am very impressed and agree with everything he's saying. Now going around other interviews to see more of his words.
Same here. Been watching as much as I can of him since I saw him on Morgan's show.👌
Another excellent interview, thanks John! You might also like to consider interviewing Anatol Leiven of the Quincy Institute, another historically aware and eloquent Realist.
John is the most knowledgeable professor in foreign policy discussions. Wish he would be the foreign secretary of USA..
I think it's important to note that John M. is not saying a war with China or even containing China is a good thing from a moral/ethical point of view. He just assumes Great Powers will act to make sure they stay on top, right or wrong. Given this, the US will pivot to Asia. Likewise, China will try to dominate East and Southeast Asia, as a Great Power.
I think that is right. He doesn't think moral or ethical reasons are a factor. He doesn't agree or disagree with intervention in Ukraine for moral reasons. He thinks it was strategically more important for the USA to contain China and befriend Russia than to preserve any influence in Ukraine. The well-being or wishes of Ukrainians don't even enter into his calculations.
Thank you for pointing that out, that people don't understand that his statements precede from a theory regarding how states relate to one another
In the end the wars are fought over resources, which portrays in power. This time we happen to use "protecting democracy" as a reason, other times "dictatorships" or "religion". It´s all about access to oil resources, water and waterways, fishing rights, gas, raw materials ecc.
@@atp5400 In that sense the mistake the West and the US made was not going in much stronger much sooner. Better to have a large resource rich country on your team than on a rival team. On the surface that should be the "realist" perspective but Dr. M jumps around a lot.
@@WilkinsMichael Just would like to add that Mearsheimer said it had been in Ukrainian interests to avoid the conflict. The well-being of Ukrainians was much better before the war. The longer the conflict is going on, the more territory is lost, more Ukrainians leave the country for good and more Ukraine is wreaked.
Prof. Mearsheimer never fails to impress wkth jis knowledge, common sense and realistic appreciation of the Geopolitical realities.
If i understand Mearsheimer, the US has lost the competition with China in Ukraine, by pushing Russia into the arms of China. These 2 together are more powerful than the US. The US shows no inclination to undo this blunder, even if it were possible.
Add to that, that both are allied with Iran which is also in a proxy war.
It's known as hubris!
Hardly. Russia is not that powerful relative to the US. China and Russia together are formidable but the US's network of alliances in Europe and Asia are still far stronger than that pairing, in the order of twice as powerful.
@@WilkinsMichael and how is the US n its NATO allies doing in the Ukraine ?
@@joem0088 Since they chose to not be directly involved from a realist perspective they may be happy with the results. They expended minimum resources to deny Russia control of Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland joined NATO, the other eastern European nations are very wary of Russia, the Russian military has been humiliated and weakened and Russia is in many ways cut off from the parts of the world the US cares about. If Russia annexes 20% of Ukraine and the remaining 80% joins NATO they would be even happier.
Thank you for this view, excellent interview
John is an honest colonizer, I appreciate that. Most are NOT honest. That said he gets the non-Western countries wrong ironically like everyone else
John Mearsheimer is Sinophobe! His logic is flawed by projecting Western aggression onto China! Being a veteran, he cannot shed the indoctrination of aggression of the US military.
What does it mean for us, the people? What if we don’t like it? Is that where this country is headed? Revolution? Not now, but soon.
Mearsheimer is such an amazing, no-nonsense intellect. True breath of fresh air in a world full of virtue signalling noise.
Really? He talks in circles and contradicts himself all the time. For example, here he is asked the simple question, is his version of "realism" essentially "might is right"? Instead of simply saying yes (or no) he talks in circles as if he is denying it but in the end, only confirms that it is indeed essentially might is right. How is that a breath of fresh air?
@@WilkinsMichael you're looking for perfection when most of the alternatives are biased liars, uninformed grifters or corrupt merchants of death.
@@WilkinsMichael The world is not black&white to answer simply "yes/no" for your 5 second attention span. He gave examples first, and in the end said It depends on whether ethics/strategy are in sync or not, which is up to state.
Great interview. Fascinating perspective.
The “realist” school failed to predict the fall of communism and the Soviet Union. Failed to predict Putin’s full scale invasion of Ukraine. This professor never mentions Putin’s philosophical approach defined by Ivan Ilyn, which means he doesn’t understand the basics of Russia’s worldview and belief in “sacred violence”. The “realists” also completely missed the rise of political Islam, which is significant factor shaping international relations. The more you learn about “realism” the less you have confidence in it.
Agreed, but what more could you expect from a Ruscia-friendly "analyst" who blamed NATO for P00ti's huge geopolitical blunder?
That is not true. Realism predicted all of the above, including John Mearsheimer himself on the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine back in 2014 and even before. As far as political Islam, that was predicted by Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations, another realist classic.
Mearsheimer has several papers and discussions on nationalism and the rise of great powers.
Please check his page at the University of Chicago Political Science department
Mearsheimer actually predicted the invasion years ago. you can watch his lecture titled 'why Ukraine is the West's fault'. Also just like most IR theories, realism doesn't account for everything.
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-0 That lecture is pure emotionality. How can any serious person "blame the West" for Russia's actions. Absrud. Again, his framework is thin and outdated. He doesn't understand the basics of Russian imperialism and Putin's motivations.
@@aristidescabeche1506 Political Islam is not tied to a nation-state, and therefore outside of the "realist" framework. Mearsheimer is not an expert on Russian history and it weakens his analysis of the region. I understand he has been paid by the Kremlin via Valdai Group to give lectures, but the analysis is always "The West made Russia do it!" Not very helpful.
Crazy that I just wrote a paper about contrasting realism from liberalism in grad school. This video could’ve helped me articulate my thoughts more clearly
Same Josh! Which graduate school did you attend? Love to hear your thoughts. I have linkedin.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans:
You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget
With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment
Without Americans and Britons losing their lives
Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians.
"This is a big investment"
@@mohamedali2858 Wouldn't that fit into Prof. M's idea of "realism"?
@@WilkinsMichaelI see what you are getting at, but it is the opposite of what Prof. M was arguing here.
I also see two weaknesses in his "realist" ideas. Firstly, it focuses the right and resilience to act on the larger powers. This ignores the actions of states and peoples that aren't major powers, such as Ukraine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Isreal etc. It also ignores the capacity of states to band together, such as EU or NATO.
Secondly, by limiting the thinking to international power interactions, ignoring how internal politics plays into international politics, as well as ignoring concepts such as improving the human condition, which motivates the liberal and conservative views, it suggests that a Machiavellian approach to international politics is appropriate. This was not the approach that the USA had post second world war, as Anderson tried to point out.
«This video could’ve helped me articulate my thoughts more clearly»
--
I do not agree. For me the most precious thing is genuine thinking. Keep on cultivating your genuine thinking. Or, said in other terms, if all articulate their thoughts by comparing to Mearsheimer's, there will be less new Mearheimers in the future.
Very interesting interview that adds another perspective to the geopolitical discussion. The geopolitical world isn’t always as you would like it to be but you have to contend with how it actually is. The world has moved to a multipolar system with the rise of China and to a lesser extent Russia which has provided a lifeline to many countries previously constrained by a American hegemony. Unfortunately with America swarming around China militarily the accident will occur that that once again leads to war. The outcome of this war will be unimaginable but human nature being what it is it’ll be unstoppable.
But how does this fit into Prof. M's ideas of realism? According to the principles he espouses isn't it inevitable and even correct that the US and its allies seek to contain its largest rival China? Words like "swarming around", "accident", and "unimaginable" seem to be emotional responses to his notion of might is right as powerful nations seek to protect their power. In fact that is the basis for his disapproval of the West's actions in Ukraine. He thinks China is the threat and the West should make friends with Russia including accepting whatever they want in Ukraine so Russia will be part of the "swarming around" of China.
Wow, thank you John Anderson!
Many thanks for the worthwhile discussion as heard here.
"Liberal society" is used as a soft power to maintain hegemony.
i don't like the lack of ethics. i don't like the idea of nationalism as a foundation. Nationalism should be a symptom not the cause, nationalism should be secondary to a primary something. People will feel pride in their country if the country is worthy of having pride for.
Thank you for this podcast.
I don't think he would disagree
Neither does Mearsheimer, which is why he often advocates for a world government where matters can be appealed on the grounds of morality instead of all states being in a constant state of anarchy with each other. In this podcast, he is describing reality as it stands rather than what he would like it to be.
There's no point virtue signaling if China or any other totalitarian state with power can roll you over at will.
People feel pride in what is their own, regardless how it compares to the rest.
From a standpoint of a mouse, a cat is the strongest animal of all.
Very poor analysis, but much better than your typical western point of view. Try to explain, why Russia is not afraid of China. And forget about the GDP already. It is fake.
@@richardparker1338 His larger point is that the amoral, anarchist, power based system by which states interact IS reality. Not that it's what he, I or you would like. You could spend a lifetime imagining a better system (and probably still get it wrong) but it wouldn't change what IS.
We need to recognize reality.
Look no further than the insane government we (America) set up in Afghanistan. On paper it was a near Star Trek utopia. It completely ignored the preferences and cultural values of the population and inserted our own made up morals.
It survived almost as long as the money and troops kept flowing and ended up with the US in a hostage situation, bribing the taliban not to attack us very much until we could leave.
I also don't recall him advocating for a one world government. It wouldn't surprise me if he said it in the context of some discussion but I highly doubt he spent much time on it because it's not going to happen. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" type of statement.
I very much appreciate mr. Mearsheimer's analysis and I agree with most of them. However, he did not predict the Russian invasion in Ukraine. As a matter of fact he deemed it very unlikely and a big mistake were it to happen. He deemed Putin to be too rational and too strategic to make such a blunder.
Furthermore, in all likelihood it was Putin personally who decided to invade Ukraine since everyone in his inner circle seems to have been surprised; that is not a state taking a rational decision, it is an individual taking quite an emotional decision.
Mearsheimer did say however that Russia would wreck Ukraine if the West did not back off, and that is what happened, but not in the way mr. Mearsheimer thought it would.
You have to remember that Mearsheimer made that initial speech in 2015 - the Russian SMO didn't happen until 2022. Seven years is a lifetime in geo-politics.
John Mearsheimer, for as wonderful thinker he is, is an even greater orator. His messages and concepts are very easy to follow the way he structures them. Love listening to him make complex concepts simple enough for non policy experts to follow.
This
Not only did Russia try Democracy but they themselves repeatedly asked to join NATO and was making their military increasingly dependent on NATO technology and manufacturing. It is so bizarre to me that people cant understand that Russia would feel the need (imperative) to either be producted by a European military alliance framework or have it as far from its territory and especially the greater Volga and Don river areas as possible.
Russia never applied to join Nato and Russia never wanted to be Nato member like every other. Nato is bs excuse for Putin's greed.
Very scary as an Australian. Hope we get some pragmatic, sensible people in US Foreign policy to manage this transition peacefully
That wont happen becouse the huge Israëli lobby that pays millions to both American political parties. They even wright the laws for them.
As an American, the likelihood that sensible will be in charge of US foreign policy in the near future rapidly approaches zero. I am sorry.
As a fellow Australian I agree. I remember a couple of years ago China threatened to missile us over covid. I never saw that reported outside of Australia. We could easily have been in WW3.
Dont worry Aussie, the Americans will never abandon you in the way they did in Vietnam, Lybia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and and and. They are rock solid.🤣
@@markalexander5124Well we’re not invading Australia are we.
Why is that wars in Europe is horrible and not horrible when it happens in other parts of the world?
I really wanted to like this video because of mister Anderson, but time and time again mr mearsheimer comes with the same argument - russia wanted that and nato did that and "don't go into Ukraine because Russia". But what about Ukraine? Is this guy even able to look at the problem from the little guy's perspective? I'm asking as an almost 50 year old romanian male that really remembers how things were with soviets around. And i swear, if russia goes even a little further into ukraine than the current front i take my family and move into st Helens Island.
If he really wanted to help people of ukraine he should have lobbied 1.5 yers ago to give the brave soldiers of Ukraine exactly what they needed to push Russia back into its borders and teach putin a lesson... So many lives would've been spared this way...
Look, Romania ended in the Stalinist side of the world because Russia was more committed, more willing to spend lives to hold territory than US and UK. And because the Balkans are all little guys that won't pull themselves together for common benefit for long. Yes? Putin drew his red line in the sand, which to your good fortune was east of you. Up to Romanians whether they want to get, can I say, romantic and poke the bear for your Ukrainian neighbors. Never heard Putin say anything but to keep stability as it was. Trust but verify as Ronnie Raygun said. (Teaching people lessons is in the category of romance)
I understand your perspective, having endured living in the Soviet Union. My father fought in WW2 against Nazi Germany, and he could not accept that Germany in 1970 was not remotely like Germany between 1935 and 1945. I'd ask you to reconsider whether Russia is not distinctly different from the Soviet Union up to 1991.
The world today is dramatically different from the world of 1990. It has changed much more in 30 years than in the previous 45 years when the USA was the sole superpower. Ukraine is a deeply unfortunate victim in a needless proxy conflict between the USA and Russia. I am 100% sure that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the USA had not continued with its determination to push NATO ever more Eastward, exactly as John Meirsheimer eloquently explains
I have some Romanian friends whom I discuss geopolitics with, and if I were you, I'd be most concerned that your government doesn't get your country embroiled in a superpower conflict that you should keep out of. You should also be more concerned with the corruption in Romania that is diverting EU financial aid into the pockets of criminals rather than into infrastructure and industrial and agricultural investment. Romania will not fare well if it commits to globalisation and the EU superstate. In common with other smaller nations, it is best served independent and economically and culturally unique with its own sovereign currency. Unfortunately, the Romanians who aspire to be wealthy will sell their country to the gods of globalisation.
I feel genuinely sorry for smaller countries as they are always prey to exploitation by global corporations and major powers. I am British and have seen how our country has declined as it hangs onto the coat tails of the USA. This is so that the few can benefit from the special relationship whilst the majority see their country transformed into something that feels alien, where they can't afford to buy or rent a home and increasingly find life getting harder and harder. Britain is fast returning to a society similar to Victorian times with huge inequality and a large struggling population. In theory, the masses ought to revolt, but they won't because they don't realise what's happening and they will not be allowed to starve, but they will live unhealthy lives and be manifestly unhappy.
According to John Mearsheimer's Realism, Ukraine doesn't count and is obligated to do Putin's bidding. Period.
This is Russia not the USSR get over it!
@@helenegan1079 whats the difference?
Our mistake was thinking Russia could become a democracy without any of the prerequisites variables in place. Russian peasants were only freed from serfdom in 1861. In contrast, western Europe had been slowly transitioning away from serfdom to liberal capitalism since the 1500s. This was a process that took the better part of 400 years to complete. Only after all the cultural, economic and institutional prerequisites existed could European states run competent democracies. How realistic is it to expect Russia to do the same thing in just a decade?
The same odds as Russia being an ally to the US against China.
Care to provide the dates for Jim Crow? By your logic US can't be a democracy either then.
The theory of offensive realism in general makes sense, is proven historically, and indeed is tragic as per Mearsheimer's book title. However, Mearsheimer is twisting and misusing the very theory that he advocates to- surprisingly- push a pro-Russian narrative. Tragically (no pun intended) it makes people to associate Mearsheimer's political views with the theory that he promotes, and wrongly makes this theory look invalid and pro-Russian. Supporting Ukraine is indeed in line with offensive realism. Moreover, from a cold-blooded, great power rivalry point of view it crated very favourable circumstances for the US and its allies- they can weaken Russia by merely sending aid to Ukraine, instead of having their own troops on the ground.
Similarly, the idea that the US should focus exclusively on China is a very narrow perspective. Things don't exist in isolation in the international system. On the contrary, they have the tendency to cause butterfly effects. As such, supporting Ukraine is in US' and by extension NATO's interest, and that includes taking China into account. Focusing on one strategic region doesn't mean giving a free hand to another major power in another region. Just because the US applied "Europe first" strategy during WW2 didn't mean that it withdrew its forces from Asia and gave Japan a free hand.
"Supporting Ukraine is indeed in line with offensive realism"
Yes, for Washington. And by Washington, I mean the people in power in Washington right now.
Invading Ukraine is also in line with offensive realism for Moscow.
For the rest of us, we have to decide individually. Personally, it makes very little difference to me. There are many other issues which have a much more profound impact on my life.
IMO you're purposefully scoping Mearsheimer's Realism to exclude the consequences supporting his concept of international global politics.
It's easy to see Putin loves the idea of a political theory that justifies his Ukraine invasion.
And although I'd consider China's Xi likely less likely to be appreciative, Realism justifies anything Xi wants to do, too.
Mearsheimer's Realism supports and justifies autocratic rule, particularly by the designated "Big 3" polar powers.
In early 2022 I heard an interview with Mearsheimer wherein his basic premise was that he was afraid that the US was so militarily and technologically superior that the coming victory in Ukraine would lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. Actually, just the opposite has turned out to be the case. Even Mearsheimer was enamored with the US dominance in everything.
Incredible the clarity Mearscheimer brings to every topic he touches. In another life, he’d have been a great businessman. From complex reality, to simple coherent strategic vision.
Threat for what? Since when competitor is a threat?
Global hegemony, obviously
If someone is wondering how Europe slipped into WW2, seeing clear as day, steps of agression, please remeber people like this dude. We have almost the repeat of the 30s and people are still excusing dictators and madmen.
Very intelligent and educative content.
Thank you !
Also regarding weapons quality. I think the war in Ukraine has proved that western quality is somewhat of a myth. There hasn't been any weapon that had performed that well and it has been quantity that matters. Any tank, armoured vehicle can be destroyed without any issue by a $400 FPV. An F-35 costs $100+m, for that amount you can get about 300,000 fpv drones - the question is which has a bigger impact on the battlefield? Its definitely not the F-35.
What nonsense. Ukraine has had disappointingly minuscule volumes of western weapons & ammo (and no western jets) yet recaptured over 50% of lost territory and destroyed submarines in supposedly highly protected harbors. They have also been able to destroy the vast majority of Russian missiles with western air defence.
@@dartholemewspaceinvader6333 All the while losing 300K KIA.
What?
American M777 howitzers aren't far superior to any Russian artillery in accuracy, range and reliability/
The M3 Bradleys haven't been a big help?
The HIMARS haven't been a major asset?
The Phalanx aerial defense system hasn't made a big difference?
The Javalins and Stingers haven't had a major impact/
is there anything the Ukrainians receved that isn't better than the Soviet equipment Ukraine started off using and Russia is still using?
Mearsheimer is the Chamberlain of our time. Do you really need to give him talking time. Slava Ukraine!
brainless NPC located
Go back to your daily CNN lies
I fear that this man doesn’t realise the shortcomings of Biden!
Why do you say that?
One of your most important guest to date.
I have always said that for the US foreign policy to change, the U.S. would have to suffer a catastrophic defeat in a war or in the economic arena. This likely will not happen in my lifetime, but it will someday in future. It won’t look good.
With the way we print money, I am not sure.
The economic aspect is already there. Hence Trump and his call for isolationism.
Its ironic that a section is called "How John predicted the Russian invasion" roll the tapes, he was one of the people that said they wouldnt invade until the moment Russia crossed into Ukraine
GREAT conversation....I took Mearshiemer's class when I was at the U of C....I can't say that I am sold on his propositions today....
Please explain why and what your alternative view is.
@@got2bharmony Don't remember at this point...just remember him saying certain things about Taiwan and China and raising my eyebrows....
@@johnvannewhouse John Meisheimer is clear that China is a genuine threat to the USA and that the American State Department has foolishly driven Russia and China together with the Ukraine proxy war. He reminds us that Taiwan is recognised by the international community, including the USA as part of China and not an independent state. If I recall correctly, he has said that it would be a grave mistake if the USA provoked a military conflict between Taiwan and mainland China which could lead to nuclear annihilation. US capital ships in the South China Sea would be a large defenseless target for Chinese missiles and a reaction to thousands of dead American sailors could trigger WW3
It is debatable whether China's rise to become the biggest economic power could have been prevented. Nevertheless,the USA should have done more to prevent transfer of manufacturing from the States to China by carrot and/or stick policies to neutralise the exploitation of cheap Chinese labour. This would have maintained US employment, tax receipts and reduced to a significant degree the growth of the Chinese economy. I believe that Meisheimer advocates protectionist policies to weaken the Chinese economy rather than war which would be bad for everyone.
I personally believe it's too late to reverse the ascendancy of China and that we need to find a way to coexist with them without being at their mercy. We need to hope the Chinese have forgotten what we did to them historically otherwise they may have plans to pay us back.
Im surprised at how biased he is, as he minimizes US war crimes since WW2 referring to them as "mistakes", and credits the US as having won the Cold War, as if the US arms build up and covert crimes were the reason the reason the USSR collapsed.
I am surprised John Mearsheimer would waste his time speaking with John Anderson.
I am Ukrainian, and I will say very openly that no one wants to end this war as quickly as we are.
His position is interesting in that, by default, one can accept the fact that there are democracies and authoritarian countries, or something in between, and a balance between these worlds is possible with the right arrangement.
But he does not take into account the interests of all others. In his model, there is no Ukraine, no Georgia, no Taiwan essentially. These are just irritants in the balance, not opportunities. Such irritants will be the Baltic countries, Moldova and Poland next, and he will say, "They should not have been invited to NATO." This is the same colonialism. It's interesting to note that in the interview, he never mentioned the EU as a subject, except for Merkel and Sarkozy as supporters of "realistic theory."
One can talk a lot about "how it should have been before," but then, after the 90s, the accession of the Baltic States and Romania to NATO, in 2014, it finally became clear that his theory also does not provide all the answers. Approximately 40 million Ukrainians who did not want to be under the wing of Russia were ignored, simply ignoring the fact that Russia is not able to meet the demands of Ukrainians, and Ukrainian society is rapidly moving away from the Russian one. This is a strategic mistake: for 30 years to chew on their realism theories without noticing the state of affairs below the "major power centers." The status quo was disrupted a long time ago, and one needs to look into the details, into social changes.
If he proposes to abstractly end the war in Ukraine by restricting the supply of aid and weapons, the result will be the destruction of millions of Ukrainians, genocide, and the continued threat of occupation of the Baltic countries, Moldova, and so on. This war needs to be ended so that in the future, Ukraine can become a strong outpost on the borders of Europe. No one, like Ukrainians, wants to end this war as quickly as possible.
Nothing of Ukraine remained. A twenty some million war-torn, childless, vastly aging destroyed almost landlocked hinterland with no much mineral, industrial, and demographic resources. At best, a kinda of Hungary-like and Hungary-size country may remain of it in far west of Dniester.
Your genius politicians turned the biggest country in Europe with a population of 52 million in 1991 to a wasteland dying mini-country.
Baltics and Moldova are not country in the grand scheme of history and politics. They are walled or gated cities that come and go with every sweep of history. You seemingly have taken these concepts and entities very seriously. Read history.
Никто не заинтересован в вас как в "форпосте". Для Штатовских политиков вы ценны лишь тем единственным, что они не могут себе позволить - белковым наполнителем для амуниции. Они сами говорили об этом. Пойми уж наконец.
What a great interview... Wisdom and intelligence at the service of a global warning.
I think Mearsheimer is wrong about many things, particularly his Anti-Israel arguments. In an interview like this, he shines, and it's clear that he is an intellect that should not be dismissed.
With all due respect he's been proven right in regards to a lot of what he's said about Israel. During one of the Gaza wars in the late 2000s he criticized Israel's actions as being misguided, noting that Israel would be neither able to eliminate Hamas's ability to fire rockets, and that Israel's intervention would not cause Hamas to end its fight in Israel. Furthermore he said that relations would actually continue to deteriorate as a result of the conflict. 15 years later and he's been proven quite correct. What do you think he gets wrong about Israel?
My opinion is limited to what I know, and that is limited to what I have heard him say in many interviews. On the recent Lex Friedman Podcast, Mearsheimer made it clear that he considers the matter in the Middle East, particularly that of Palestine and Israel, to be a settled matter in his mind. This, I believe, is a grave error for a political scientist to make. Orthodox views have their place, but not in the sciences, where fluid events must disrupt any sacrosanct beliefs or ideas. A scientist, to be effective, has to remain agnostic and not take sides. His error was to find fault with one side such that the other side must prevail regardless of context. Such thinking renders his opinion all but useless and indeed feeble-minded, which is sad because he is clearly a thoughtful man, but not in this case.
@@mellochord When you say, "his error was to find fault with one side such that the other side must prevail regardless of context", what exactly do you mean by that?
I took Mearsheimer to mean that in his perception, he has assessed a situation where there are two populations that have committed errors, but one side is historically guilty of a greater error; therefore, he is choosing the lessor of the two as the population that should prevail regardless of how they avail themselves in the present or future.
Fascinating discussion. Thank you.
It seems that the honourable J Anderson is thinking hard about China invading Australia.
Will USA come to Australia's aid.
Fact is the odds are against USA supporting Taiwan to the last Taiwanese (pay attention Formosans). There is an ocean for supplies to cross. There is no supply chain in USA to meet the needs of the war combatants. It is not about war but the sustainment of the war effort. To bring the MIC up to speed it would require a supreme and sustained effort. Education is the area of greatest need. Being broke (USA) is another problem. But Mr Anderson need not fear! China is not going to invade but if you force the Taiwanese into a "Ukraine" situation, look out!
2022 was the grand opening of the great power competition. And freedom is only found through the tensions of equals in power. This is good.
Boy do you need a history lesson.
@@FireUpChips92 Lol, elaborate? Would like to see your long winded essay over the internet.
The more powerful facts, Realism has are: PAIN, DEATH and TIME. Nobody can't deny reality.
Why does he considers China a threat? China is just trying to do business around the world.
This Mearsheimer is what the Soviets used to call "useful idiot", and so he is katexochen with the stress on the noun in the term. Sometimes I suspect he is just playing a huge joke on academia and everyone else. But no. He is probably sincere. Also funny, his last name starts with "Mears" which is what the Russian for "scoundrel" also starts with.
The letter M is also the first letter of the word Maggot. Definitely wanting be more skeptical after this realization.
@@joshuah5655 You're worse than I am. LOL.
It's sad that such an influential person does not acknowledge the freedom of a nation to be what they want to be within, and not tied to what they don't want. Nobody forced anyone to join NATO or EU nor the so called Russian NATO. They join because they want and no superpower should be dictating that they can't. To pretend that is calling for war is completely distrustful.
Russia didn't want ukraine to join EU trading bill in 2014 was only for money reasons not for the so called sovereignty of Russia and because ukraine will had a even better standard of living!
He's basically sayig that it doesn't matter if it's unethical, as long as the nation state retains power. He's definitely read Macchiavelli.
he is not saying that is his wish, he is saying that realistically, that IS what happens
@@rogeriopenna9014 Exactly. Survival of the fittest.
If you follow the logic for not attacking Russia but focusing on the real threat of China, we should not have attacked Nazi but focused on the real threat of communism in the coming decades. Right?
No logic allowed, sorry.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron from Washington addressing Americans:
You spend an additional 10% of your defense budget
With this, you destroy 50% of Russian defense equipment
Without Americans and Britons losing their lives
Thanks to the courage of the Ukrainians.
"This is a big investment"
Doesn't mean Ukraine is going to 'win'. It's also a pretty callous 'investment' using Ukrainians as cannon fodder, not for the purpose of liberating Ukraine so much as weakening or destroying Russia.
@@BallardianThat was always being the cause right from expansion of Nato to arming of Ukraine. It's a clear policy of containing Russia within it's border and having Ukraine in Nato provides Nato with the Naval facilities of Sevastopol which would completely cutoff Russia from accesing the warm waters . This is the policy going from Catherine the Great to Putin . First British did it and now Americans are doing it .
Full of mind-tickling and know-allism! No-one can predict distant future outcomes, especially when there are so many geopolitical moving parts!
The US might *want* to defend Taiwan. The notion that it *can* defend Taiwan is beyond ridiculous.
Russian artillery shell capability? Why are they going to N Korea? Missles? Why Iran?
Another great one John.
Great stuff. Thanks very much.
We keep imposing our views and perceptions of the world on others and keep demanding and expect them to live by what standards we set.
Col Macgregor Ret
I would respectfully disagree with professor. The thing is that Ukrainians in particular and Eastern Europe in general have way too many reasons to resist Russia. The lack of the western presence in form of NATO means a Russian influence. There is a strong drive to side with the west in the Eastern Europe. Actually many Eastern European countries are more pro-west and pro-american than Western Europe. Implementation of professor's ideas would throw east European nations into the grip of bloody tyranny that has no civilization project at all (again). Russia offers only death, suffering and misery - one must not underestimate the urge to avoid such a fate.
He doesn't care. He is all about US imperialism. He simply thinks it is unwise to focus energy on Russia instead of China in the great powers game.