In the summer of 1976, after I had just completed my first year of graduate school at Cornell University, I received the first issue of a brand new journal called International Security. Volume 1, Number 1. Of course, it quickly became the leading scholarly journal dealing with security affairs as well as one of the elite journals in the broader field of international relations. I never imagined at the time that there would be a 50th anniversary issue, much less that I would write an article for that distant issue. But here we are, 50 years later.
In you article you wrote: "Russia-Ukraine War makes no strategic sense for the United States; "
Wrong. USA is far more threatened by Europe+Russia than China+Russia. Europe+Russia combination has the potential to push USA out of Europe, Africa, Arabian peninsula and maybe even Latin America and Canada eventually. Whereas Asia is lost to USA regardless of whether China has Russia backing or not, such is Chinese economic power. Ukraine war makes perfect strategic sense for USA as a way to keep Europe and Russia apart. Once Russia pacifies Ukraine, USA will surely try to start another war between Europe and Russia. UK, serving as USA attack dog in exchange for the permission to profit from money laundering, will help USA create this war.
Frank, thank you for saying it so directly. We need much more of this.
Hypocrisy, lies, manipulation and deliberate deception are behind much of the mess we see in the world today. Even fundamentally conflicting interests can be negotiated and compromises found when the parties understand what the real interests are.
Conflict becomes far more dangerous when deception replaces honesty about interests.
We may disagree about interests. That is normal. But when manipulation becomes an instrument of politics, diplomacy and war, societies can no longer even understand what they are fighting for — or whose interests they are actually serving.
What about a more friendly relationship between China and Europe? I think it is happening. China is on a track to be the supreme power in the world (minus nuclear options, which should never be used by any country because they serve no purpose when used since major powers have them). The traditional Western powers could reignite their people and main street economies, but it will require lifting up the prosperity of a majority of their populations strategically.
Professor Mearsheimer, on this point I believe Frank Revelo gets closer to the heart of the matter.
The war may make little sense if we assume that the overriding U.S. interest is simply containing China. But it makes considerably more strategic sense from the perspective of the permanent U.S. national-security establishment — the structure commonly described as the “deep state” — if one of its long-term objectives is to prevent Europe and Russia from ever developing a relationship capable of reducing American dominance in Europe.
On this central point, Frank and I strongly agree.
But there is a far more disturbing question: **how did Ukraine and Europe fail to recognize their own proxy role in this geopolitical struggle?**
Ukraine is being destroyed. Ukrainians and Russians are dying in enormous numbers. Europe has damaged its economy, increased its security dependence and surrendered much of its remaining strategic autonomy — while presenting this loss of sovereignty as geopolitical leadership.
And still the killing continues.
Why?
Because EU political elites have repeatedly followed U.S. strategic priorities instead of independently defining European interests. Alternative positions advocating genuine European sovereignty, a European security architecture and pragmatic coexistence with Russia — including those advanced by Libertas Europa, https://libertaseuropa.eu/ — are drowned out politically and in the dominant media environment.
This exposes something much bigger than Ukraine.
**A democracy in which citizens bear the consequences of war while a narrow political and security establishment determines the geopolitical choices is democracy in name more than substance.**
And a Europe that cannot say “no” to Washington is not America's sovereign partner.
**Partnership requires sovereignty. Partnership without the freedom and capacity to say “no” is dependency. Persistent dependency is subordination.**
But even this language is too comfortable.
We discuss “containment,” “balance of power,” “strategic interests,” “spheres of influence” and “proxy wars” as though we were moving pieces across a chessboard.
The pieces are human beings.
Behind every geopolitical calculation are people who are killed, mutilated, displaced, traumatized and deprived of their futures. Entire generations can be sacrificed so that states, institutions, industries or small circles of powerful people can preserve influence, money or geopolitical advantage.
And perhaps the greatest scandal is how normal we have allowed this to become.
**If political leaders knowingly accept the destruction of millions of human lives for geopolitical or material advantage, we should stop sanitizing it with the vocabulary of strategy. We should begin asking where strategy ends and criminal moral responsibility begins.**
No flag makes such conduct moral.
No alliance makes it moral.
No geopolitical theory makes it moral.
This is why the decisive question for Europe is not whether Washington or Moscow has the better narrative.
It is: **Who gave anyone the right to sacrifice Ukraine — or Europe — for somebody else's geopolitical interests?**
And when will Europeans finally understand that sovereignty means the capacity to think for ourselves, define our own interests and refuse to sacrifice our people for the interests of others?
Your article is a masterful industrial-age synthesis, but it ignores the systemic forces that will actually define 2076.
First, your wealth metric is a mirage. The U.S. is a leveraged services bubble with a hollowed manufacturing base, while China controls critical minerals and physical surplus capacity. Demographic projections are obsolete; AI and automation will decouple workforce size from productivity.
Second, Russia will not "flip sides." It is physically welded to China via pipelines and de-dollarized clearing. Infrastructural path dependency outweighs your strategic abstractions. Meanwhile, Europe is quietly centralizing defense (common debt, PESCO)—creating a fourth pole you dismiss.
Third, you omit thermodynamics. Reinsurers are already abandoning high climate risk areas and it will only get worse, $30 trillion in real estate collateral backing sovereign bonds will be uninsurable. Insurer insolvency will trigger a sovereign debt seizure. The U.S. cannot afford a peer arms race while spending 40% of its budget on climate bailouts and sea walls.
Finally, even conceding nuclear winter ensures MAD persists (a limited exchange would suffocate global agriculture), that only makes your conventional arms-race projection more irrelevant. If direct war is off the table, competition moves to economic and industrial survivability—precisely where U.S. financial fragility is most exposed. The true iron cage is not anarchy; it is fiscal fragility, physical supply chains, and biophysical collapse. By 2076, states won't be maximizing power—they'll be scrambling for solvency.
Having long engaged with your work on offensive realism and structural geopolitics, I have spent recent years expanding upon these foundational concepts to address broader systemic and existential challenges facing our species—specifically at the intersection of geopolitical stability, civilizational sustainability, and the accelerating development of artificial intelligence.
While systemic change often builds from the bottom up, the rapid pace of technological acceleration demands focused leadership and structural solutions from the top down. To that end, I have developed a concrete framework addressing both the root causes of these convergence risks and practical paths forward, which forms the core foundation of my upcoming 2028 presidential bid.
My primary goal, however, is grounded in service and rigorous discourse. I would welcome the opportunity to present a selection of short films and deliver a brief talk to your graduate students or department at the University of Chicago. The objective is to share these ideas, engage in constructive debate, and offer a distinct perspective on long-term civilizational alignment and global governance.
Please consider whether a student-led seminar, informal presentation, or departmental guest lecture might be an appropriate venue for this discussion. I would be honored to visit Chicago and share this work with your academic community.
Thank you for your time and continued contributions to the field.
A real big compliment to Gorazd Hladnik. Goradz scored the biggest bullseye in his op-ed here.
One sentence sums up the US international betrayal: Who gave the February 2014 POTUS Barry Obama Democrat Cabal the right to sacrifice Ukraine - Or Europe - back in 2013-14?
Boy, 2014 Barry + his tout Carney blathered on daily how the US had the FREE World right to Balkanize Independent Ukraine as long as the US scammed talk about Sanctions.
The Prof will never admit that he did zip all to stop that international betrayal of Ukraine- therefore the WEST- in 2013-14!! The Prof did not have the cognitive ability to understand what facts were before his eyes + obscured with the Wizard of Oz blather from good ole Barry Boy.
Today, The Prof adores in his Semantic the Motherland Kremlin Muscovy descendent from that infamous 1939 fervent fascist forever Love Marriage with NAZI Hitler Fatherland.
Yes, the very same Kremlin Muscovy Ethnics who welcome North Koreans to invade Ukrainian soil as the Prof sees "nothink".
Yes, the very same Kremlin Muscovy Ethnics who advise North Koreans how to aim their super duper Hwasong 18 + Hwasong 19 ballistic missiles on every city inside Mainland USA over 500,000 in population.
The Prof does not choose to tell his faithful that the Hwasong 18 hits nice CEP inside US cities at 15,000 km.
The Prof does not choose to tell his faithful that the Hwasong 19 hits OK CEP inside US cities at 17,000 km.
If states never encounter international structure directly, but only through human perception and judgment, where does structural necessity end and interpretation begin?
And if those interpretations produce the actions through which the system reproduces itself, is the “iron cage” entirely structural—or partly constructed through the judgments of those living inside it?
Thank you, very insightful. I have some doubts on your assessment of the first place for the US in the future. The US is economically in big trouble and American society is in bad shape, both in comparison to China. The population of China will remain moreover considerably larger than that of the US. So the US will lose on latent power. Now already you can see some prospects of this in the failed Iran war.
In you article you wrote: "Russia-Ukraine War makes no strategic sense for the United States; "
Wrong. USA is far more threatened by Europe+Russia than China+Russia. Europe+Russia combination has the potential to push USA out of Europe, Africa, Arabian peninsula and maybe even Latin America and Canada eventually. Whereas Asia is lost to USA regardless of whether China has Russia backing or not, such is Chinese economic power. Ukraine war makes perfect strategic sense for USA as a way to keep Europe and Russia apart. Once Russia pacifies Ukraine, USA will surely try to start another war between Europe and Russia. UK, serving as USA attack dog in exchange for the permission to profit from money laundering, will help USA create this war.
Frank, thank you for saying it so directly. We need much more of this.
Hypocrisy, lies, manipulation and deliberate deception are behind much of the mess we see in the world today. Even fundamentally conflicting interests can be negotiated and compromises found when the parties understand what the real interests are.
Conflict becomes far more dangerous when deception replaces honesty about interests.
We may disagree about interests. That is normal. But when manipulation becomes an instrument of politics, diplomacy and war, societies can no longer even understand what they are fighting for — or whose interests they are actually serving.
What about a more friendly relationship between China and Europe? I think it is happening. China is on a track to be the supreme power in the world (minus nuclear options, which should never be used by any country because they serve no purpose when used since major powers have them). The traditional Western powers could reignite their people and main street economies, but it will require lifting up the prosperity of a majority of their populations strategically.
Professor Mearsheimer, on this point I believe Frank Revelo gets closer to the heart of the matter.
The war may make little sense if we assume that the overriding U.S. interest is simply containing China. But it makes considerably more strategic sense from the perspective of the permanent U.S. national-security establishment — the structure commonly described as the “deep state” — if one of its long-term objectives is to prevent Europe and Russia from ever developing a relationship capable of reducing American dominance in Europe.
On this central point, Frank and I strongly agree.
But there is a far more disturbing question: **how did Ukraine and Europe fail to recognize their own proxy role in this geopolitical struggle?**
Ukraine is being destroyed. Ukrainians and Russians are dying in enormous numbers. Europe has damaged its economy, increased its security dependence and surrendered much of its remaining strategic autonomy — while presenting this loss of sovereignty as geopolitical leadership.
And still the killing continues.
Why?
Because EU political elites have repeatedly followed U.S. strategic priorities instead of independently defining European interests. Alternative positions advocating genuine European sovereignty, a European security architecture and pragmatic coexistence with Russia — including those advanced by Libertas Europa, https://libertaseuropa.eu/ — are drowned out politically and in the dominant media environment.
This exposes something much bigger than Ukraine.
**A democracy in which citizens bear the consequences of war while a narrow political and security establishment determines the geopolitical choices is democracy in name more than substance.**
And a Europe that cannot say “no” to Washington is not America's sovereign partner.
**Partnership requires sovereignty. Partnership without the freedom and capacity to say “no” is dependency. Persistent dependency is subordination.**
But even this language is too comfortable.
We discuss “containment,” “balance of power,” “strategic interests,” “spheres of influence” and “proxy wars” as though we were moving pieces across a chessboard.
The pieces are human beings.
Behind every geopolitical calculation are people who are killed, mutilated, displaced, traumatized and deprived of their futures. Entire generations can be sacrificed so that states, institutions, industries or small circles of powerful people can preserve influence, money or geopolitical advantage.
And perhaps the greatest scandal is how normal we have allowed this to become.
**If political leaders knowingly accept the destruction of millions of human lives for geopolitical or material advantage, we should stop sanitizing it with the vocabulary of strategy. We should begin asking where strategy ends and criminal moral responsibility begins.**
No flag makes such conduct moral.
No alliance makes it moral.
No geopolitical theory makes it moral.
This is why the decisive question for Europe is not whether Washington or Moscow has the better narrative.
It is: **Who gave anyone the right to sacrifice Ukraine — or Europe — for somebody else's geopolitical interests?**
And when will Europeans finally understand that sovereignty means the capacity to think for ourselves, define our own interests and refuse to sacrifice our people for the interests of others?
Professor Mearsheimer,
Your article is a masterful industrial-age synthesis, but it ignores the systemic forces that will actually define 2076.
First, your wealth metric is a mirage. The U.S. is a leveraged services bubble with a hollowed manufacturing base, while China controls critical minerals and physical surplus capacity. Demographic projections are obsolete; AI and automation will decouple workforce size from productivity.
Second, Russia will not "flip sides." It is physically welded to China via pipelines and de-dollarized clearing. Infrastructural path dependency outweighs your strategic abstractions. Meanwhile, Europe is quietly centralizing defense (common debt, PESCO)—creating a fourth pole you dismiss.
Third, you omit thermodynamics. Reinsurers are already abandoning high climate risk areas and it will only get worse, $30 trillion in real estate collateral backing sovereign bonds will be uninsurable. Insurer insolvency will trigger a sovereign debt seizure. The U.S. cannot afford a peer arms race while spending 40% of its budget on climate bailouts and sea walls.
Finally, even conceding nuclear winter ensures MAD persists (a limited exchange would suffocate global agriculture), that only makes your conventional arms-race projection more irrelevant. If direct war is off the table, competition moves to economic and industrial survivability—precisely where U.S. financial fragility is most exposed. The true iron cage is not anarchy; it is fiscal fragility, physical supply chains, and biophysical collapse. By 2076, states won't be maximizing power—they'll be scrambling for solvency.
Dear Dr. Mearsheimer,
I hope this note finds you well.
Having long engaged with your work on offensive realism and structural geopolitics, I have spent recent years expanding upon these foundational concepts to address broader systemic and existential challenges facing our species—specifically at the intersection of geopolitical stability, civilizational sustainability, and the accelerating development of artificial intelligence.
While systemic change often builds from the bottom up, the rapid pace of technological acceleration demands focused leadership and structural solutions from the top down. To that end, I have developed a concrete framework addressing both the root causes of these convergence risks and practical paths forward, which forms the core foundation of my upcoming 2028 presidential bid.
My primary goal, however, is grounded in service and rigorous discourse. I would welcome the opportunity to present a selection of short films and deliver a brief talk to your graduate students or department at the University of Chicago. The objective is to share these ideas, engage in constructive debate, and offer a distinct perspective on long-term civilizational alignment and global governance.
Please consider whether a student-led seminar, informal presentation, or departmental guest lecture might be an appropriate venue for this discussion. I would be honored to visit Chicago and share this work with your academic community.
Thank you for your time and continued contributions to the field.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Flynn
kevincflynn1@gmail.com
A real big compliment to Gorazd Hladnik. Goradz scored the biggest bullseye in his op-ed here.
One sentence sums up the US international betrayal: Who gave the February 2014 POTUS Barry Obama Democrat Cabal the right to sacrifice Ukraine - Or Europe - back in 2013-14?
Boy, 2014 Barry + his tout Carney blathered on daily how the US had the FREE World right to Balkanize Independent Ukraine as long as the US scammed talk about Sanctions.
The Prof will never admit that he did zip all to stop that international betrayal of Ukraine- therefore the WEST- in 2013-14!! The Prof did not have the cognitive ability to understand what facts were before his eyes + obscured with the Wizard of Oz blather from good ole Barry Boy.
Today, The Prof adores in his Semantic the Motherland Kremlin Muscovy descendent from that infamous 1939 fervent fascist forever Love Marriage with NAZI Hitler Fatherland.
Yes, the very same Kremlin Muscovy Ethnics who welcome North Koreans to invade Ukrainian soil as the Prof sees "nothink".
Yes, the very same Kremlin Muscovy Ethnics who advise North Koreans how to aim their super duper Hwasong 18 + Hwasong 19 ballistic missiles on every city inside Mainland USA over 500,000 in population.
The Prof does not choose to tell his faithful that the Hwasong 18 hits nice CEP inside US cities at 15,000 km.
The Prof does not choose to tell his faithful that the Hwasong 19 hits OK CEP inside US cities at 17,000 km.
If states never encounter international structure directly, but only through human perception and judgment, where does structural necessity end and interpretation begin?
And if those interpretations produce the actions through which the system reproduces itself, is the “iron cage” entirely structural—or partly constructed through the judgments of those living inside it?
Thank you, very insightful. I have some doubts on your assessment of the first place for the US in the future. The US is economically in big trouble and American society is in bad shape, both in comparison to China. The population of China will remain moreover considerably larger than that of the US. So the US will lose on latent power. Now already you can see some prospects of this in the failed Iran war.
Thank you Professor.
Professor Mearsheimer, thank you for sharing the articles.