How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2023
- Are states rational? Much of international relations theory assumes that they are. But many scholars believe that political leaders rarely act rationally. John J. Mearsheimer will argue that rational decisions in international politics rest on credible theories about how the world works and emerge from deliberative decisionmaking processes. Using these criteria, he will describe how most states are rational most of the time, even if they are not always successful, and will discuss implications for formulating foreign policy. Join Mearsheimer and Ashley Tellis, a scholar with extensive policy experience, for a discussion of whether states behave rationally.
Submit questions in the comment box on this page and join the conversation on social media using #CatoFP. - Розваги
Love Mearsheimer's lecturing style: no notes, no podium, hand in the pocket, centre-stage, relaxed and confident. He's like a charismatic MC, working the room at a fashionable lounge.
Spot on
Remember he is Professor
Whatvever his style is, he is not an intelligent person. His views on Ukraine are ridiculous, irrational and even immoral. He defends Putin. For Mearsheimer Putin is not a bloody dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people but a benign leader pursuing legitimate goals. What a shame. Simply disgusting.
He's casual, and eloquent, yet ready to jump around. I'd like to see him go toe-to-toe with Stephen Kotkin.
Just sad he talking so much nonsense. Really his style maybe good but the content is unbearable.
3:01 beginning & intro
8:18 J.J. Mearsheimer
10:27 rationality
11:38 rational choice: expected utility maximization
17:08 political psychology: heuristics & analogy
22:59 the definition of state rationality: theoretical world views
26:14 credible vs irrational vs wrong threories
29:14 credible theory
31:20 rational legal discussion
32:36 rational theory
32:59 14 case-studies
35:05 A. Tellis's critics
40:03 substantive & instrumental rationality
41:46 process & internal argument
43:15 issue of policy effectiveness/success
46:07 issue of approximation of rational choice
48:25 issue of deliberation
50:51 justification of international relations theories
55:11 Mearsheimer's response
1:00:27 Tellis: intuition about benefit/risk is necessary
1:02:54 Mearsheimer
1:03:36 Tellis: theory is not algorithm
1:06:00 Mearsheimer: a simple theory leads to single option
1:07:17 theory taxonomy & how to choose between credible theories?
1:16:35 Q&A
1:16:55 armenia-azerbaijan conflict according to balance of power
1:19:03 access to information in choice: problem of unknown unknowns
1:25:21 intuition : one uncredible theory makes it irrational
1:26:52 answer
1:26:13 is invasion of irak irrational
1:29:47 answer
Sağ ol dost
Thanks for your detailed time breakdown of this significant discussion. I wish JM had compared Iraq 1's success with Iraq 2's failure. What rational theory did the Elder Bush successfully apply?. What caused the younger Bushes failure?
rica ederim @@belowsero
Thanks. Well, elder bush did not invade/ topple the government. I think that is a big enough difference...@@johnalden948
Thank you
John Mearsheimer is probably the most brilliant mind of our generation in the IR field. Future generations will look back and wish they could have heard him in person. All policymakers would be wise to heed his prescriptions on foreign policy.
Your intellectual world has to be very small if you say this. Especially on Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine I have heard the man speak such unbearable nonsense it's hard to listen to.
He was pretty much right about everything with regards to the Russia-Ukraine affairs, so don't know what you are talking about @@pierman4858
@@pierman4858 you have made the conclusion the Russia's invasion was unprovoked based on a lack of understanding of recent history in Europe. Therefore you are not rational
Putin was rational for helping not “invade” a eastern Ukraine , half of Ukrainians called Putin for help. The questioning you need to ask yourself is why is the west pushing closer to Russia?
Had a really hart time following Dr. Tellis's monologue vs John's.
John J. Mearsheimer is absolutely essential to understanding foreign affairs.
Thank you for a brilliant discussion. Both very informative and interesting speakers. Discussions such as this are very important and very much appreciated.
Unfortunately, this discussion is just academic now. The choices of going ahead with the War on Iraq in 2003 and the 2008 decision at the NATO Summit in Budapest to eventually induct Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance are well in the past now.
@@user-rg7jt4xp9y Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. At whose expense.
I think that, theory doesn’t mean that the authors have the exclusive power for explaining all that we’ll want to hear. However, it’s not about the truth or false, it’s just a study, a specific field with different argumentation. Theory it’s one of the ways we use our knowledge in scientific context for saying what we found out, by demonstrating the final result. For example, we’ll know that the same theory has taken different arguments so that science became more attractive for those who wants to understand the world.
After all the analysis is done, big decisions are made on emotion and heuristics.
Every complex human system has an establishment. This forms from the people who understand how to benefit from the system disproportionately. Their strong alignment is not organized but self organizes around the ability to gain extra utility from the system.
However once establishments deviate from the realities of the embedding global system, their behavior becomes less, and less optimized in the sense of long term utility gain.
And that also lies with the rather short term view of establishments.
So the more the US Hegemon shuts out information from the global system the more it will diverge from an ideal rational maximum utility behavior without noticing it. It simply lacks enough information to stay aligned and act utile to itself.
As for the the decision process, whether collective or not, it think taht it's a false problem which comes out from the superfluoius distinguishing betweeen internal (individual) resources and external (collective) resoureces. They are both resources and it doesn't matter if an advice comes from another individual, from a re-elaboration of the issue or from a new set of information. A resource is a resource. I think this is the correct approach to the decision making process when analizing the decision active subject(s).
The Key To Figuring Out Whether States Are Rational Solely Depends On During Deliberations When Decisions Are Made By A Handful Of People In The Room, Do They Have Credible Theories Or Do They Suppress Dissenting Theories.
Great Work By John Mearsheimer.
That rules out the USA
Excellent discussion!
I'm going to go read the book now. It would be great if states actually applied credible theories as a pre-requisite to policymaking. What else do we have unless we have a crystal ball of the future or at least be able to associate objective probabilities to desired outcomes?
The sage , JJ Mearsheimer.
The less contact you have with another system the less you know about them and the less you can predict them or even just design your own proper behaviour.
The world has a lot of contact with the USA, and yet the ignorance and stupidity still amazes
At 1:03:00, Ashely Tellis is making a really good argument which I think shows a crack in Mearsheimer and Sebastian's hypothesis.
Simply one of the best minds in IR theory and practice ❤
Excellent.
Does the book discuss the financial implications such as foreign deposits being part of the reason for wars
Nope. Obviously I don't speak for the authors but I think Mearsheimer argues that economic special interests (ie big oil) had very little if anything to do with our middle eastern policy / the iraq war. He thinks the evidence suggests that oil companies wanted to partner with Saddam's gov't
Basically Dr. Tellis ripped a new one of the book. 1:23:09 Exactly on-point and devastatingly correct.
@nicoterradas
Wonderfully pointed out, sir! There’s this theorem called “Godel’s incompleteness theorem’. There will exist truths that cannot be gotten to via any system of logic. So, Dr. Mearshiemer cannot explain all the outcomes, however, he doesn’t claim to. He claims that his theory is right around 75% of the time. And the other prof is roughly talking about Godel’s incompleteness theorem, that sometimes his theory would not be able to predict many outcomes. Which is a comment on not his theory but the system of logic itself, IMHO.
I'm only 47 minutes in, but I think the point about guesses about probability are exactly right. You are reduced to guessing as to probabilities but guess you must.
Tellis talks like a politician - I listened to his 20 min response and his "deep logic" is mostly just rambling he basically said their theories aren't perfect because....they aren't perfect and the basis and conclusions for some of their argument can be debated; he's basically conjecturing himself. He could have said what he tried to say in 20 minutes in 30 seconds. It's basically a debate between individual outcome maximization or rational choice (economic principles) to achieve a (hoped for) outcome or objective mixed in with John's theory (a way of looking at the world) and trying to figure out which one has more impact; but both argue outcomes or results are not perfect predictors of decision-making choice or influence so with no end ability to analyze "correlation" then neither of their arguments can be proven in the mathematical sense of the word. You can find cases which fit or disprove both approaches which are not mutually exclusive because there are single cases which apply to both such as Democratic Peace Theory which has documented evidence of people making decisions solely based on the belief or understanding of that theory, but also had a rational expectation of outcomes or expected outcomes, but also cases in which it was pursued but without a clear link to a rational "high probable" outcome
Meh, devastating is a bit too strong if a word. You might rephrase this as “ you can’t be practical and strictly hold your self to a formal rational system” or “mearscheimer is wrong about the independency of domestic and international political interests” and so on. But do these criticisms make you more pragmatic? Are they a useful way to hold anyone accountable? We should be held accountable for what we decide are worthwhile and rational goals. We can’t simply shrug and begrudge our temporary and/or idiosyncratic goals to rule our policy making. Yes they make a huge difference in the process, but it’s important to distinguish symptoms from the disease.
The notion of nation state survival suggests an evolutionary model where replication is the goal of the objective function.
John starts talking at 8:17
Id like ti hear mire about the Madeline Allbright story.
good work
If you enter a room, you close the door and suddenly you notice there is a tiger in the room. What heuristic do you use to makena decision?
Insightful analysis was made .Though difficult and crical questions were posed but the author responded with deeply concerning analysis. Thank you .
" they found out, people never act rationally" ı laughed hard, thank you🤣🤣🤣 ....unfortunately, it is true and took my 33 years to admit it to myself
I prefer the philosophical distinction of rationality versus empiricism.
Rationality is defined on the terms of the actor being studied and not from the perspective the actor that is doing the study. US history, both from the policy perspective and from the intelligence perspective, is littered with the wreckage of actors (from the US) presuming that their version of what is or is not rational is the calculus within which someone else is operating. The concept of 'states' being rational is dubious due to the anthropomorphic fallacy. Yes, it is probably used a lazy semantic and heuristic description of 'specific individuals within government,' but both uses tend to concretize the fallacy as being patent.
When Putin or XI speaks you hear peace, understanding, compromise, respect and diplomacy. When Washington's representatives or any other if its puppet states speaks, you hear threats, warnings, redlines, wars, conflict, veiled genocidal statements, disrespect and utter bullying.
Great view. And count another fallacy - the American Exceptionalism.
Thats what theories are for... Tellis ji.
John Mearshiemer should have advised every president since the end of the cold war
John J. break the leak. Piia from Finland.
When I look at the world, I understand why it is in a bad shape. The second speaker reminds me of why we have irrational leaders.
@@JohnDoe-hh7eo i mostly agree with your take
Everyone is 'rational' in so far as their own understanding of the world goes.
Maybe rational is the wrong word and everyone is arguing about semantics.
I guarantee you, give Mersheimer the free reign of US foreign policy and he will forsake his rational models before a month is out. Because there are numerous other states and actors with different modes and degrees of rationality.
@@watershed8685 I agree with you on that.
He has no rational policies. Listen to his latest talk on Gaza, Palestine. He gets it wrong.
Does the US need foreign policy? “We are the most powerful country in the world!”
The man can talk.
Knowledge about the human brain and how it works leads to a quick dismissal of rational choice theory.
Manionggor: This prof is true tom.
Tommy: Yes he is true, but what can he do?
Manionggor: Nothing.
Tommy: Lah ya
Deomcracy is all about what the people think which is usually emotionally bias. Therefore politician have to follow the emotion of the people in order to get elected.
Or, they can creates a problem that suits their particular wanted solutions
I am in awe of Mearsheimer's eloquence and realism. I came across his lectures before the Ukraine War broke out, and between him and Col. Macgregor, and my previous attitudes about the bankrupt values of our foreign policy "experts," I knew there was nothing good about our adventures in being the "indispensable nation."
I was a little disappointed though, that when they were talking about goals of foreign policy, they never mentioned peace that I heard. They never mentioned prosperity. They never mentioned saving the planet from global warming or climate change. All this crap we are fed doesn't seem to be a part of the strategy in the halls of power.
Now that Hamas has kicked off a full scale war, which Israel will deal with, and which may draw us and Iran in as well, we see little rational decision making, except I do think it's rational for Israel to want to eliminate Hamas. Whether they can accomplish that is another question.
"It's all about money." -- Marnie Tynen. Absorb this, learn geography and history, and you will be able to predict what states will do. This has nothing to do with what you are told by governments.
Here is a rational goal: Ukraine wanted peace. Putin didn't.
Maersheimer is a Putin apologist and a hopeless dreamer. He thinks if we reward Putin with land he will stop his conquest. Sorry mr Maersheimer, that's not how the world works. Please go back to your writing desk (and check is the latest Kremlin payments have come through)
Thank you very much really the USA review the economic growth that is beautiful so agriculture in the early morning that is beautiful so and other article Where's my younger girls are great younger than you should try to open the shopping center in the morning and happy to follow this system because ilove you ❤❤❤❤
@idk-lz4nl Maersheimer has interesting insights to offer in the workings of politics and leadership.
But the very unfortunate thing is that lately in a lot of video's I have seen he makes statements about events that are not within his expertise and then applies his theoretical framework on that.
The worst example of this is that I heard him say Putin had no intention of conquering Kiev and all Putin was ever interested in is Eastern Ukraine. He made his mistake even worse by claiming there "was no evidence whatsoever" that Putin had such ambitions.
This goes against common sense, and what I heard pretty much any other military analyst say, Western or otherwise. I understand Maersheimer is not a defence expert. So perhaps on this we shouldn't judge the man too hard. But if I then hear him build an entire argument on top of his faulty assumption my fists clench, why?
There are more examples but this is the worst instance I remember. He appears to want to change the facts so his theory still fits reality. .
This is sad because it disqualifies him for a lot of people to comment on Russia's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. While he may otherwise have interesting insights to offer.
I need this book
This was on Oct 3, 2023
Professor Mearsheimer is really in his element when expressing his expertise. Such an impressive individual.
….But just give me a summary!
26:19 "...only one credible theory..."
How States Think by Mearsheimer
Who picked the trip hop? 😂
If two chess players make the most rational moves, the game would most probably end in a draw. As both are presumably aspiring for a win, more risks or irrationality should be expected. As they are both super grandmasters, even the irrationality would be calculated.
Would this result in a draw or a stalemate?
Complete nonsense. Both chess players do pick the most rational choices based on the information they have in their heads, since no two humans thinks and act exactly the same this will most time not result in a stalemate
Well.actually but we can go to the former inorder to get a rice and chicken and vegetables and happiness so you should try to weak up in early morning that is enough is enough so and other article we have to look after the animals because we get many useful from it such as meet leader butter and milk an other things which I can't conclude in this short time so that is my advice because ilove you ❤❤❤
I don't think that installing democracies was ever a real goal. It was just something to say to persuade the public to accept the invasions of other countries.
“Installing” means infiltration that fits our needs.
Before "democracy", they used other words: civilization, christianity, etc
Christianity was used the same 5 centuries ago to colonize the world
GOD BLESS YOU HAUT NEVEL POLICY INSTITUE GOOD JOB GOOD WORKING GOD BLESS ALL AMÉN AMÉN AMÉN
Why is this institute named after inspector Clouseau s Chinese assistant
😊
The idea of determining the rationality of the decision making based on the results of the decision is absurd because the outcome is not certain. You could make the same decision 10 times and get 10 different outcomes. Getting a positive outcome doesn't necessarily mean the decision was rational and vice versa
John was fired from Chicago university ? Because of what he said about Isreal
39:55 Survival of state being a measure of rationality? That sounds especially fallacious. While rationality deals with purely mental process, survival depends on much more hence, there are confounding variables.
You may choose option with 10% potential to kill you over one of 90%, quite rationally, but that doesn't mean you survive.
I also vehemently disagree with this post hoc success definition of rationality, because if you want to ever use the theory in real world, the subject has no post hoc view as you do. Only the theories and information known to him at the time of decision making.
John's way lets you assume subjects decision making as long as you study what are his theories and knowledge/premises at the time of decision-making. Even Mises's rationality (as defined in Human Action) including incredible theories would suffice, given you are aware of them. For the successful outcome, we do not need to use term "rational decision", but a "right decision".
Where I later agree - It is indeed hard to justify exclusive interpretations in this field - I believe we can only make better or worse argument that are more or less logical and contradicting to some of the observations. There is no exclusive right interpretation unless you have all the necessary information which we never have and from what I saw prof. Mearshaimer is acutely aware of that.
Whatever outcome has a good result is the rational idea. There is no definite only one way, like western liberal democracy, to resolve the problem.
9:37 The assumption of rationality presumes a level of education inconsistent with the dialog present in the following video, expressing confusion over the difference between a 2-player game and a 3-player game, and how it changes the definition of the word deterrance ua-cam.com/users/live_aNMOEQ0248?si=jd4k_JaiN54eJDr8&t=8417
You can't establish rationality if you can't establish a universal set of interests that are the foundation for all actors actions. People like to assume that states behave in the interest of maximizing utility for the largest possible number of its constituents which is just fundamentally not true.
States act rationally but to what end??
Hello Gary however got ?
Is the US rational? Does the US need foreign policy? “We are the most powerful country in the world!”
Is a US president or any US actor allowed to think freely and deeply - 19:03 even if he/she is capable of doing so?😅
For example, is anyone of the ruling elites in the US *allowed* to think rationally WHETHER the US will achieve utility maximization if the US should *NOT* subsidize Israel military establishments and withdraw most of the US military presence from the Middle East?
I don't think dr. Tellis interpretation of Kant's categories is correct. I think Kant is in a way a neoplatonist in that he thinks you cannot know the world as it is not 'form' it through categories. But that doesn' t mean that every subject 'forms' different 'things'. Or that all ' facts' are subjective and thus different for each human.
Page 116
Shah-|ban-dar = Harbour Master
41:33
JM talks at length about "rational theories" but grounds them in few if any empirical facts. Henry Kissinger, shortly before his death wrote that he thought, regretfully, that the West should support Ukraine militarily against Russia. I
You grossly missed it based on the ultimate einsteinian Theory k. I. S. S.
Occam's Razor isn't always right though.
🖐🙏✍
Dastigitotir karamatar🎉😊
Why would one choose willful
blindness and assume rationality? That’s lazy
Emotions always can overrule rationality, simply because emotions are more basic, powerful and survival founded. Emotionalizing reality and rationality neutralizes them and enables to steer people into making irrational decisions. Ideologies are the instrument to emotionalize behavior and decision making and thus the instrument to drive people to behave irrational, i.e. self- damaging or self-destructive.
Those , however who instigate emotionalization and create ideologies mostly are rational realists who seek very realistic utility increases= profits.
So the military industrial complex behaves very rationally, while the Ukrainians acting on their rational behalf behave completely emotionalized, irrational and ideologically, as what is profit or Boeing is loss of life for the Ukrainians. What is gain of farmland for BlackRock is loss of land for the Galicians.
What is gain of brain for Europe is brain drain for the Ukraine. What is LNG profits for the Hegemon is energy cost inflation for Europe.
So, what is rational for one party in a system can be very irrational for another. Usually the winner of utility acts rationally while the loser of utility acts ideologically or irrationally.
Hi hello
QUE DIEU REIGNE SUR LES GENIES EN POLICY UNHCR UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY EN POLICY GOD BLESS ALL AMÉN AMÉN AMÉN
Tommy: Hah, now how you watch the
WWE or SmackDown that's what's happening here in this world. 😂🤣😂🤣. Just kidding. 🏈🏈🏈
Hegemonic foreign policy will not stand ! It is totally deplorable that the US spent a disproportionate amount of time on foreign policy rather than domestic policy.
Mu taku anuchi
Mu meet re going on
States don't think. Only individuals do. If Cato was truly Austrian, it would have known that fundamental principle of economic theory.
...
Be problem solfer don't be problem creator NATO waxey Liqday Shacab dhan FALASTIN 🇵🇸 America iyo xulufadisu waxey si axmaqnimo leh utageren yahuda waxeyna siwadajir ah ulaayen Shacab dhan qeybihisa kaladuwan caruur hawen wayeel isbitalo askulo waxey booben dhulkii dahirnaa e Eebe siiyey rer FALASTIN 🇵🇸 tasi ma ahan banii Adamnimo e wajariimo weyn o mudan in la iskula xisaabtamo tariqdina weyqoreysaa
Idaha ariga geela iyo looda anfac bey uleyihin bani Adamaha Caano & hilib baa Laga cuna Laga cabaa dadkana madilaan
America iyo Israel maxey anfac leyihiin o aduunka ey kuso kordhiyeen waa o% Afghanistan Iraq Syria Libya Yaa burburiyen ? Shaydaan ka qarnigaan waa America iyo Israel/yahuuda don't lecture me.
Rationality and policy should not even exist in the same sentence these days. Rational is an opinion. Policy is a set of rules or guidelines. Basically it's a joke.
Asheley ...has a larger view🙂
no theory in IR has ever come close to 30% of the correct predictions of realism. newtonian physics is not correct either. it is demonstrably false, but a useful appproximation
That Netwonian physics has limitations has been known for over 100 years now. There's nothing controversial about it.
@@maxdetrickster6524there isn’t any claim to the contrary in the comment you responded to. Whats your point?
there is an arbitration at stake with the rationalism/ontic argument in this schema. the interlocutor couldn't manage the question of the nature of material dialectics, internal politics aside, whether there was a determinative trajectory at the point of denial of our ethical positivism in the federal government. moral superiority of the nascent gender theory arisen after 9/11 rectified its normative mass dynamism. the most ruthless of our technological apartheids involves the phone repulsion that mirrors this very normativity.
Did you just get a new thesaurus?
Well.actually but iwanna to tell you something is good really i love my children really you should try to weak up in early morning inorder to get a good so go to education go to jobs go to fomers go to sports go to animals go to business plan for tomorrow and it is depend on to weak up in early morning that is enough is enough so you should do everything for you and your family and friends and relatives are you doing now it is going to be okay so morning is a money to pay for it to you and your work going on with your future olso you can reach in that gaol doing might be easier than you think about it so you make me a promise to be high olso if u make a promise u have to keep it never break a promise to be high that is my advice because ilove you promise is morning inorder to reach in your future that is my opinion whether Jewish children or Kirsten or slams or slams or not forget you because ilove you ❤️ 💙 😊
how can the high quality of this content fail to register with a sentient observer?
49:47 ironic pose? "there is a single decision maker" look at the lecturer's pose!
A PRESENTVJE RESTE CROIRE EN DIEU AU COUR DE CETTE SEMAINE POUR JE RECEVERAI MES DOCUMENTS POUR LAISSER CHILE PAS ENCORE RECEVOIR AUCUNE DOCUMENT MAIS JE CROIS QUE DIEU PEUT LE FAIRE POUR MOI JE VOUS ATTEND TOUS QUI ON PREND ENGAGENENT POUR M,AIDER DE TROUVER MES DOCUMENT POUR LAISSER CHILE JE VOUS AIMES BEAUCOUP TOUS MES AUTORITES AMÉN AMÉN 🤙🤙🙏
Bush felt jealousy towards the intellect of Saddam Husein, ever since he has worked for him. And such states of mind remain trough incarnations. Bush was a driving force for American war on Irak. But not as the idea first occurred in his brain. We would have been able to prevent it if the influence of countries were not determent by its brut force but imagination of its people.
However regarding Afganistan he was pushed into it. By that I mean not as much to go into Afganistan but to go as to stay.
Paradoxically our dear dictator Tito has planed a voyage to Iran and Irak as to prevent the war between them, and this was in the last months of his life. War on Irak has happened as to erase the memory on the war between Irak and Iran. Putting that reason aside we would be able to eliminate war on Irak and after that that preceding war also. But western Europe and Amerika do not allow us to have a play ground. Also Croatia was immobilized by Tito. And although he is dead for a long time our leaders didn't get rid of his influence. People stil do their utmost as to present Balkan countries as objects and not as subjects of History.
Situation with Nagorno-Karabakh is almost insignificant in its importance compared with what has happened with Armenians at the beginning of twentieth century. And that should not be forgotten and we should try to eliminate that event. Unknown unknown in this decision is that time reversal happened from time to time and that's because it is possible and because we have become confident in our knowledge as to how to change a course of events, or at least made them work overtime. That case that there is an enclave inside of other country shouldn't have happened. The reason is to remind us on bad fate Armenians have already suffered and to make Russian either to overreact or to feel guilty or weak or guilty and weak.
JE CROIS QUE IMMIGRATION PRENDRE CONSCIENCE AIDE MOI OIM UNHCR KENYA AIDE MOI AVEC LES IMMIGRANTION POUR TROUVER MES DOCUMENT SVP
colonial terrorism AKA foreign policy
Slava ukraini slava Bandera
Tellis is an Asian. He is more concerned with ENDs rather than means.
🙄
Bro, Europeans had tendency to use worst means to achieve worst goals.
So Gandhi must have been European😂
What a bizarre, essentialist claim.
Statements like this sometimes make me think that a large proportion of UA-cam comments are being produced by malfunctioning bots.
Brain washing discussion.
too much hate from you 😞
They can defend themselves if they care. @@44istop
Mearsheimer claims he's a Realist, but ignores reality while opining from his ivory tower loft. He's never had any position of real responsibility in international relations. Tellis is the real deal, but he's too polite to call BS on his former teacher.
Mearsheimer just makes things up and talks in circles. He's always so pleased with himself, however.
He's an academic and working in the field means you have to deal with the complex tribalistic society known as the foreign policy establishment blob with power brokers such as the deceased Madeleine Albright. It's better he trains minds that will go against that toxic environment.
It can also be said that he is already part of the national security state (or deep state), but as part of a minority that isn't into democracy promotion like the progressive liberals.
A strong leader can enact positive changes, but that's not an easy game to play with the current body politic working as the current policymakers. Realism will manifest itself with the intensifying of the security competition between USA and China or other conflict dyads between great powers. We merely have to wait.
😂 pleased with himself... that's funny
How does he "ignore reality"?
@riodejaneiro4793 The "Realism School of International Relations" is well known for its simplistic views. It considers GDP, population, and military headcount as the only factors when it comes to superpowers. Further, it ascribes all superpowers with the same goals: regional hegemony. Criminal invasion of neighboring countries by Russia is not equivalent to the Monroe Doctrine.
There are many refutations of "Realism" right here on UA-cam. Among real pros, it is regarded as a childish "School."
@@robhaythorne4464 It's a social science theory that abstracts a world full of unknowns. How it's judged is based on how well it describes the historical record. I would look at all social science theories and work out how well they fare. Democracy promotion via NATO expansion didn't really work out that well for Ukraine. Case in point is that it is reduced to a dysfunctional rump state when it could have lost nothing. A realist policy would have stopped NATO expansion if you're American. There's no strategically good reason to disrupt the balance of power with NATO. If you're Ukranian, a realist would recognize that Ukraine is limited in what it can do versus a great power.
Also, I have to correct you. realism is a theory based on some fundamental base assumptions that makes it so that nation-states generally try to maximize their power and also to fear other nations. Only great powers who have the wherewithal will try to become a regional hegemon, and only China fits that bill in terms of potential wealth and population. The rest have to fear other nations and to not do anything stupid.
If you have another theory that sees better success, let me know about it. Otherwise, perhaps one day we can invent a crystal ball that accurately predicts the future consequences of political/military decisions.
Finish this liberal democracy on holy world. All country will be free and happy whithout USA obesssion. Live freedom decline (World Economic Forum). Piia from Finland.
Mearsheimer is unfortunately wrong, and arrogant.