I have read Syed in the Sunday Times in the UK for years. He is a blatant hypocrite and I have commented as such on his articles. He used to be a sports commentary man, then co-opted to write 'intellectual' articles spouting stuff from the Globalist/Zionist ( check the name) songbook. Its revealing how many Times readers just lap it up. I am a Brit and he makes me feel ashamed.
I’ve known Matthew Syed a long time. He was an international table tennis player, then went into writing about that game. Slowly he migrated to wider sports writing, though he was always really a columnist and never a news journalist. He is not academically or professionally trained but has shown a facility for sharp columns, though he is a neocon politically and entirely allied with a very monochromatic worldview. Given what it takes to succeed at “The Times” these days, everyone in their eyes is morally deranged if they aren’t Zionists and neocons. If you want a truly toxic experience, check out their “readers’ comments”. You’ll soon understand why Trotkyites like me know The Times as The Nuremberg Recorder….
Yes you are morally deranged. You don't support genocide and you don't support the slaughter of Ukrainians to further the west's agenda. What's the matter with you?
In modern political analysis, knowledge of modern history, and ability to make a clear prognosis, you are one of the few leaders of moral normality and health.
And do not even pay attention to the small brainless opportunists.
Prof. Mearsheimer distinguishes himself from other voices in the space of foreign policy by emphasizing a non-moralistic framing. Realism is by definition a non-moralistic framework for understanding why nations act the way they do. In my opinion, this is the most "moral" lens possible, because it considers the "why" when it comes to nation's actions. It was with the help of the professor that I was able to make sense of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the time I could not understand what it was all about, and had not been following the events in Ukraine at all. Like most people, I was unaware of the 2014 coup . . . or at least of American involvement in perpetuating it, nor was I aware of the concerns Russia had been voicing for the previous 20 years involving NATO expansion. I was not aware that a huge swath of the American foreign policy elite themselves recognized NATO expansion to be a hugely provocative step that was destined to eventually result in conflict.
What could be more "moral" than recognizing that one is not the center of the world, that other actors have motivations and concerns. It's fascinating to observe the way the European leadership talks about the war, seemingly ignorant even after three years of the origins stated above. Their idea seems to be that Russia is not entitled to security concerns . . . and so they cheer on a war that has ended the lives of at least a million people, mostly Ukrainian, that will have been sacrificed for nothing. This is true moral derangement, the most apt example of this term that I can think of in recent memory.
I agree realism's strength is a "non-moralistic framing". By emphasizing fact, understanding your opponents interests and possible view and alternatives, its key benefit would be in preventing war. Biden used a false moralistic states have a "right to join NATO" in selling the war to Americans by obscuring the history and political analysis if the conflict. What would have happened if NATO renounced its recruitment of Ukraine a decade ago? Ukraine would still be standing but neutral. Not a bad compromise.
Better than a compromise. As the professor has pointed out, Ukraine should be neutral, a buffer between the nuclear-armed NATO alliance and the nuclear-armed Russia. This is one of the most tragic aspects of the whole debacle . . . the West gains NOTHING by making Ukraine part of NATO, aside from the payouts to American defense contractors for all the hardware that is purchased and installed whenever NATO adds another country. How could it possibly make sense to push out a "defensive" alliance closer to the borders of the ostensible aggressor? To "protect" Ukraine? But pushing NATO into Ukraine wasn't going to defend Ukraine, it was going to destroy Ukraine, given the 2008 promise by the Russians that this was a red line, a promise that they kept (as John likes to point out, Putin doesn't bluff).
The Soviet Union ended 35 years ago. While the U.S. and its NATO proxies have acted aggressively, invading Iraq, bombing Syria and Libya and meddling in a dozen other countries, Russia has been building up its economy, making no aggressive movies toward the Western world whatsoever until Biden tripled down on moving NATO and its inevitable missile systems right up to Russia's border. We did not tolerate it in 1962 and Russia, as Mearsheimer points out, can not tolerate it either.
Yes, it is truly amazing how few people are aware of this analogy. If you bring it up to someone who drinks in the propaganda they've inevitably never made the connection. If we had a functioning news media in this country it would be understood by nearly everyone.
putin and russians in general did not see ukraine with or without nato as an existential threat to moscow. they did see nato as an existential threat to their plans to return ukraine where it belonged: in the russian empire. nato was an existential threat to accomplishing this goal, this dream, this nightmare for ukraine
Wrong. If they wanted to achieve this amazing dream of returning Ukraine to the Russian empire they could have done so many years ago, before Ukraine was stocked with weapons aimed at them. But when we overthrew the democratically elected neutral Ukrainian government run by Yanukovic, and the new puppet state began taking away the rights of Russians in the Eastern part of the country, which is all Russian because it did used to be part of Russia, the Russians became deeply concerned. After all, they warned the world and the U.S. privately in 2007-8 that NATO advancement into Ukraine was a red line. And as long as Trump made no moves in that direction, there was no invasion. Even up until nearly the very end, they were going to let Ukraine keep the Donbass, and had a treaty all but signed in late April 2002 before Biden sent in Boris Johnson to kill the deal.
The U.S. never intended to add Cuba to its empire, but allowing the Soviets to place missiles there aimed at us, with the potential to take out our nuclear deterrent was intolerable and we rejected that, with good reason. The same logic and justification applies to Russia. Do you have a counter argument? I will wait.
Far from being morally deranged professor Mearsheimer uses logic- realistic thinking to try to save lives that the delusional idealists are willing to sacrifice for their ideals. The immorality lies with the idealist's lack of facing reality as they promote more death and destruction.
I have seen the whole show. I have been following almost all of your interventions since 2022. I can only tell you that form my point of view which has nothing to do with IR nor military strategies and capabilities, that I find more consistent and logic your narrative since the very beginning on. I have to say that I also rely on Todd’s theories, French historian confirming your analyses, and using anthropological atavism to explain in other words what you put down with facts and logic. Yet, you can consider that nowadays beeing factual and consistent and always following your point of view is extremely rare and precious. I find way less coherent the narrative about promoting greater Russia. Very basic demographic rates can infirm such statements. Thanks again for you numerous clear explanations, professor.
When people revert to ad hominem attacks it betrays their arguments as weak. The constant emotive language used by the foreign policy blob is an indication that they are much more concerned around emotional manipulation than discussing facts
Freddie , great interview but you let Mr Syed off the hook by not mentioning Gaza , Mr Syed wants to talk in terms of western moral superiority and you never challenged him on that using Gaza’s Genocide as a live example of western Moral Bankruptcy,
He even mentioned the international court and having Putin in the Dock at The Hague and you still gave him a pass
Gaza has Changed the world and for that reason the Conflict in Ukraine and Gaza and other Conflicts are linked because in the west we live in Democracies in name only , The west is not motivated by morality it’s motivated by historical power struggles over money and power .
Truth can sometimes only be found under a pile of Western propaganda. When the brain of someone has been formated to ignore what the USA have been doing, the truths that you have uncovered appear to be so far away from what they are able to swallow, that from their perspective, it is completely unacceptable. This is why they can only use extreme vocabulary to characterize your point of view.
You are not morally deranged. You are an honest academic and by all indications an entirely decent human being.
Straight and to the point. I second the emotion.
I have read Syed in the Sunday Times in the UK for years. He is a blatant hypocrite and I have commented as such on his articles. He used to be a sports commentary man, then co-opted to write 'intellectual' articles spouting stuff from the Globalist/Zionist ( check the name) songbook. Its revealing how many Times readers just lap it up. I am a Brit and he makes me feel ashamed.
I’ve known Matthew Syed a long time. He was an international table tennis player, then went into writing about that game. Slowly he migrated to wider sports writing, though he was always really a columnist and never a news journalist. He is not academically or professionally trained but has shown a facility for sharp columns, though he is a neocon politically and entirely allied with a very monochromatic worldview. Given what it takes to succeed at “The Times” these days, everyone in their eyes is morally deranged if they aren’t Zionists and neocons. If you want a truly toxic experience, check out their “readers’ comments”. You’ll soon understand why Trotkyites like me know The Times as The Nuremberg Recorder….
When they call you names, when they attack your character, you win.
Yes you are morally deranged. You don't support genocide and you don't support the slaughter of Ukrainians to further the west's agenda. What's the matter with you?
Dear Professor Mearsheimer.
In modern political analysis, knowledge of modern history, and ability to make a clear prognosis, you are one of the few leaders of moral normality and health.
And do not even pay attention to the small brainless opportunists.
I wish you every success.
No, your are not, Professor!
Prof. Mearsheimer distinguishes himself from other voices in the space of foreign policy by emphasizing a non-moralistic framing. Realism is by definition a non-moralistic framework for understanding why nations act the way they do. In my opinion, this is the most "moral" lens possible, because it considers the "why" when it comes to nation's actions. It was with the help of the professor that I was able to make sense of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the time I could not understand what it was all about, and had not been following the events in Ukraine at all. Like most people, I was unaware of the 2014 coup . . . or at least of American involvement in perpetuating it, nor was I aware of the concerns Russia had been voicing for the previous 20 years involving NATO expansion. I was not aware that a huge swath of the American foreign policy elite themselves recognized NATO expansion to be a hugely provocative step that was destined to eventually result in conflict.
What could be more "moral" than recognizing that one is not the center of the world, that other actors have motivations and concerns. It's fascinating to observe the way the European leadership talks about the war, seemingly ignorant even after three years of the origins stated above. Their idea seems to be that Russia is not entitled to security concerns . . . and so they cheer on a war that has ended the lives of at least a million people, mostly Ukrainian, that will have been sacrificed for nothing. This is true moral derangement, the most apt example of this term that I can think of in recent memory.
I agree realism's strength is a "non-moralistic framing". By emphasizing fact, understanding your opponents interests and possible view and alternatives, its key benefit would be in preventing war. Biden used a false moralistic states have a "right to join NATO" in selling the war to Americans by obscuring the history and political analysis if the conflict. What would have happened if NATO renounced its recruitment of Ukraine a decade ago? Ukraine would still be standing but neutral. Not a bad compromise.
Better than a compromise. As the professor has pointed out, Ukraine should be neutral, a buffer between the nuclear-armed NATO alliance and the nuclear-armed Russia. This is one of the most tragic aspects of the whole debacle . . . the West gains NOTHING by making Ukraine part of NATO, aside from the payouts to American defense contractors for all the hardware that is purchased and installed whenever NATO adds another country. How could it possibly make sense to push out a "defensive" alliance closer to the borders of the ostensible aggressor? To "protect" Ukraine? But pushing NATO into Ukraine wasn't going to defend Ukraine, it was going to destroy Ukraine, given the 2008 promise by the Russians that this was a red line, a promise that they kept (as John likes to point out, Putin doesn't bluff).
The Soviet Union ended 35 years ago. While the U.S. and its NATO proxies have acted aggressively, invading Iraq, bombing Syria and Libya and meddling in a dozen other countries, Russia has been building up its economy, making no aggressive movies toward the Western world whatsoever until Biden tripled down on moving NATO and its inevitable missile systems right up to Russia's border. We did not tolerate it in 1962 and Russia, as Mearsheimer points out, can not tolerate it either.
Wow!
Finally someone brings up '62. If the US has the Monroe doc, then Russia has the Putin doc.
My sensible sister was extremely frightened during that crisis.
Yes, it is truly amazing how few people are aware of this analogy. If you bring it up to someone who drinks in the propaganda they've inevitably never made the connection. If we had a functioning news media in this country it would be understood by nearly everyone.
putin and russians in general did not see ukraine with or without nato as an existential threat to moscow. they did see nato as an existential threat to their plans to return ukraine where it belonged: in the russian empire. nato was an existential threat to accomplishing this goal, this dream, this nightmare for ukraine
Wrong. If they wanted to achieve this amazing dream of returning Ukraine to the Russian empire they could have done so many years ago, before Ukraine was stocked with weapons aimed at them. But when we overthrew the democratically elected neutral Ukrainian government run by Yanukovic, and the new puppet state began taking away the rights of Russians in the Eastern part of the country, which is all Russian because it did used to be part of Russia, the Russians became deeply concerned. After all, they warned the world and the U.S. privately in 2007-8 that NATO advancement into Ukraine was a red line. And as long as Trump made no moves in that direction, there was no invasion. Even up until nearly the very end, they were going to let Ukraine keep the Donbass, and had a treaty all but signed in late April 2002 before Biden sent in Boris Johnson to kill the deal.
The U.S. never intended to add Cuba to its empire, but allowing the Soviets to place missiles there aimed at us, with the potential to take out our nuclear deterrent was intolerable and we rejected that, with good reason. The same logic and justification applies to Russia. Do you have a counter argument? I will wait.
Far from being morally deranged professor Mearsheimer uses logic- realistic thinking to try to save lives that the delusional idealists are willing to sacrifice for their ideals. The immorality lies with the idealist's lack of facing reality as they promote more death and destruction.
I have seen the whole show. I have been following almost all of your interventions since 2022. I can only tell you that form my point of view which has nothing to do with IR nor military strategies and capabilities, that I find more consistent and logic your narrative since the very beginning on. I have to say that I also rely on Todd’s theories, French historian confirming your analyses, and using anthropological atavism to explain in other words what you put down with facts and logic. Yet, you can consider that nowadays beeing factual and consistent and always following your point of view is extremely rare and precious. I find way less coherent the narrative about promoting greater Russia. Very basic demographic rates can infirm such statements. Thanks again for you numerous clear explanations, professor.
When people revert to ad hominem attacks it betrays their arguments as weak. The constant emotive language used by the foreign policy blob is an indication that they are much more concerned around emotional manipulation than discussing facts
One wonders how many years must pass before the west realizes “ Gee, this isn’t going like we planned “
Columnist for the Sunday Times? Say no more.
Freddie , great interview but you let Mr Syed off the hook by not mentioning Gaza , Mr Syed wants to talk in terms of western moral superiority and you never challenged him on that using Gaza’s Genocide as a live example of western Moral Bankruptcy,
He even mentioned the international court and having Putin in the Dock at The Hague and you still gave him a pass
Gaza has Changed the world and for that reason the Conflict in Ukraine and Gaza and other Conflicts are linked because in the west we live in Democracies in name only , The west is not motivated by morality it’s motivated by historical power struggles over money and power .
Truth can sometimes only be found under a pile of Western propaganda. When the brain of someone has been formated to ignore what the USA have been doing, the truths that you have uncovered appear to be so far away from what they are able to swallow, that from their perspective, it is completely unacceptable. This is why they can only use extreme vocabulary to characterize your point of view.
You mean there WERE no MWD’s in Iraq ? …who knew ?
You may be called “morally deranged “ for what concerns your stance on China.
With regard to Ukraine you are absolutely correct.
No he can’t be called names .
If you disagree on China simply say “ I disagree “ .
Or is that too difficult for you ?