Just wanted to let everyone know that I have recently launched an AI chatbot with the help of my friends at Ragie.ai. You can use mearsheimer.ai to chat interactively with my AI avatar about a range of subjects based on my interviews and written work.
Question: "How can Mongolia keep a relatively successful democracy with good relations with its powerful neigbors and also the West? Why is it not being invaded by Russia?"
Mearsheimer AI: "Mongolia's ability to maintain a successful democracy and good relations with both its powerful neighbors and the West can be attributed to its strategic balancing act. By maintaining a neutral stance and not aligning too closely with any major power, Mongolia avoids provoking its neighbors, particularly Russia and China. Russia's lack of interest in invading Mongolia is largely due to Mongolia's lack of strategic threat and its adherence to a foreign policy that respects Russian interests, akin to the Monroe Doctrine logic that I have discussed in relation to great power politics."
Although it’s a different situation, in the same light, as you’ve often stated, if Ukraine had been smart they would have maintained a neutral stance between NATO (and the US) and Russia.
I absolutely love John Mearsheimer's solid, no nonsense approach to interpreting what is going on in the world. (Gaza and Ukraine for example.)
If you don't like what he is saying then fair enough. After all....how does anyone know what will happen next in an unfolding story? The bottom line is that the events are unfolding very much as he said would happen. That tells me that while he can't predict the future, he can give you a good indication of what is likely to happen. And if you listen to his words carefully, that's all he does.
In my opinion, he is an important voice to listen to and I thank him for his dedication to truth.
He speculates with regard to conditions on the ground in Ukraine entirely too much. I wouldn't mind if he qualified it or offered arguments going against what he says.
If he tried to understand the legal issues in Israel/Gaza, I've seen no evidence of it. One would think Israel has already been convicted (which they have not) based on his statements. Israel has a huge database of strikes and justifications which I expect will be reviewed at some point in time after the war ends. Wish I could be more confident that the ICC will recognize de minimis mistakes which are inevitable and protect data sources as Hamas kills those talking to Israel.
He did hold back earlier on whether Israel had committed actual Genocide. He then updated that later when it was obvious to anyone that that was indeed the case.
I don't like your tone because what I hear you say is that Israel has not committed Genocide...when it is clear to everyone that what Israel has done is shockingly disgusting.
The world will never forgive Israel for what it has done.
You got that right and I'm really sick of these people who prowl sub-stack and try to cover up the genocide Israel is implementing against the Palestinians. If they had sub-stack back in the 1940's I'm sure you would have plenty of Jeff Boyd's making excuses for Hitler and questioning whether a genocide was being carried out against a number of groups of people.
He has never addressed the rules. War is messy and the rules were drafted under the assumption both parties follow the rules. I live in fear (well maybe not fear) that standards will deteriorate. That would be very bad news for Gazan's and Israel has obviously never had the protection of the rules.
RFK had it right when he said the Iron Dome is little more than a method of allowing Israel to fight under the rules. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes and some alternative to UNRWA is needed. Perhaps if aid was funneled through Israel, or perhaps even Hamas, things would be better. Should add caveat that I'm reading a little more into what RFK said than I should; he said that Iron Dome is part of why military aid to Israel appears so high. If Iron Dome did not work, Israel almost certainly would have abandoned the rules by now.
How do you know that he speculates too much? He certainly provides Zelensky's perspective on things, and the American-neocon perspective on things. What he provides, which others can't do, is an objective perspective since he has no money in the game as they say. Your perspective on his commentary on Israel is simply not valid based on your obvious bias. Plain and simple it's a genocide. De minimus, mistakes? Spare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Learned to think for myself many years ago and time/experience has given me confidence. Still; I'm frequently wrong.
If you think Professor Mearsheimer does not have money in the game, you are off-base. That does not mean it is high on the list of motivating factors; I think he is a standard academic happy to be in the world of ideas.
I know you are frequently wrong, but he is not, and neither am I when it comes to understanding and defining a genocide especially if you have some history under your belt and you don't have a psychological need to blind yourself to the truth. Those who do ultimately make things far worse. Think of all our Middle Eastern Wars and all lies, and due to those lies countries destroyed, millions of people dead, or displaced or living in countries ravaged by wars. I will never be complicit in that by buying my countries lies.
Everyone is frequently wrong; there are no exceptions to this rule. I do have a psychological need to argue things from both sides. I can argue Israel is guilty of genocide; I just happen to regard it as a weak argument.
The fact that some members of the ICC held there was not a plausible argument for genocide should give you pause in the confidence in your opinion regarding the legal standard being met.
Would add that the fact that there were no dissents to the assertion that Putin was plausibly guilty of war crimes should also give you pause that the rules are appropriate too. I agree that he is likely guilty under the law but genocide has many different levels in my mind and even if Israel is guilty too, it pales in comparison to the crimes of Hamas.
I care little about what the ICC has to say, or the UN, or my own country, or Israel in this regard since none of them truly can be objective and honest and exist at the same time. This is basically how a genocide is defined:
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Now if you are following what Israel is doing even in the West Bank, it's a genocide, and the US is complicit in it by supplying them weapons to carry it out.
When I was seven I use to watch those cowboy and Indian movies on TV and they're telling me the cowboys are good and the Indians are bad, even though the cowboys want what isn't theirs and the Indians fight back for what is. Never got a straight answer from an adult on how that works, but came to the conclusion my country simply lies to me, as do many international groups, like the UN. Is that news?
As far as Russia is concerned, not happy with all the death and destruction foremented by the US, since it was complicit from the beginning in assisting the overthrow of Yanukovych, as we assisted neo-Nazi's to bring that about. The Minsk accords were just a lie Merkel said, since our plans were to bring NATO to Russia's front door and the Ukrainians are paying with their lives to give the US what we want, and too bad that is going so badly for them. Remember the democratic party is backed by neocons, and world wide control is the name of their game and right now they are backing the democrats 100 percent. So ultimately who really is the guilty party? By the way Blinken is a neocon.
If you look at the rules that define Genocide, the rules that you talk about...... it's quite clear that there are no excuses that would allow anyone to commit Genocide.
None.
No free passes.
And yes...the individuals who attacked innocent Israeli's in such a horrendous way should also be held to account. Most people agree with that.
I’m on the fence with AI. I guess we will find out. Interesting link about some views and predictions on AI. I think it is probably useful technology but at the same time anti human and will bring problems unforeseen. We live in some exciting times.
Interesting use of AI. I asked ChatGPT what it thought of JM's geopolitical realism from post-structuralist and postmodernist viewpoints. This is its reply.
### Critique of John Mearsheimer's Geopolitical "Realism" with Derridean Insights
John Mearsheimer’s geopolitical realism, which focuses on the dark and violent aspects of human nature, rests on the belief that nations, like individuals, are locked in perpetual competition for power and security. In Mearsheimer’s view, great powers must maximize their dominance to survive in an anarchic world, leading to inevitable conflict. This perspective, however, "naturalizes" a destructive, Hobbesian worldview, justifying U.S. foreign policy ambitions of global unipolar dominance. This realism, in fact, fails to capture the diverse ambitions of other global actors, such as China and Russia, whose strategies involve cooperation and multipolarity rather than unipolar dominance.
### Derrida’s Critique of "Nature" and its Relevance
Jacques Derrida’s *Of Grammatology* provides a useful critique of Mearsheimer’s concept of "human nature." In his deconstruction of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of a "natural state," Derrida argues that what Rousseau considers "natural" is, in fact, a construct that relies on the very cultural and linguistic systems it seeks to deny. Derrida shows that Rousseau’s "natural man" is not a self-evident truth but an idealization that hides its own contradictions. This insight helps us understand how Mearsheimer’s conception of a violent human nature is similarly constructed and could be deconstructed.
In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida famously writes, “There is nothing outside the text,” meaning that all ideas and concepts are mediated through language and cannot exist in a pure, unmediated form. Applying this to Mearsheimer, his geopolitical realism, far from reflecting a fixed, "natural" state of global affairs, is deeply embedded in the ideological and cultural assumptions of Western thought. Just as Derrida showed that Rousseau’s view of nature is ideological, we can deconstruct Mearsheimer’s dark view of international relations to reveal it as a particular construct—not an inevitable truth.
Mearsheimer’s assumption that all great powers must seek domination and act aggressively is not some natural law of human behavior but a historical artifact of Western political thinking. His failure to recognize that China, Russia, and other non-Western actors may have different ambitions (such as economic or cultural cooperation rather than military dominance) shows the limitations of his framework. Derrida’s insights help expose the contingency of Mearsheimer’s ideas, suggesting that alternative ways of organizing global politics are not only possible but necessary.
### Derrida’s *Rogues*: The U.S. as a Rogue State
In *Rogues: Two Essays on Reason*, Derrida extends his critique to the concept of democracy and the role of the United States. Derrida argues that the U.S., while presenting itself as the leader of the "free world," often operates as a "rogue state" when it violates its own democratic ideals in the pursuit of global dominance. He describes this behavior as "auto-immunity," where the state undermines its own values in an effort to protect itself, much like an immune system that attacks the body it’s meant to defend.
Derrida writes: “The United States, by deciding unilaterally, in an allegedly sovereign manner, to define the norm of international legality while placing itself above the law, puts itself in the position of a rogue state” (*Rogues*, 100-101). This characterization of the U.S. as a rogue nation aligns with the critique of U.S. foreign policy’s aggressive, power-maximizing behavior in Mearsheimer’s framework. What Mearsheimer frames as "realism," Derrida frames as a violation of the very principles that are supposed to legitimize the U.S. as a moral actor on the global stage.
### Deconstructing Mearsheimer’s "Realism"
By applying Derrida’s critique of "nature" to Mearsheimer’s framework, we see that the latter’s notion of an anarchic international system driven by inevitable conflict is not a universal truth but a product of Western political thought. Mearsheimer’s realism is not "realism" at all, but a culturally specific narrative that justifies U.S. militarism and global dominance. Derrida’s insights remind us that what is often presented as "natural" or "inevitable" in politics is, in fact, constructed and can be deconstructed to reveal alternative possibilities.
Mearsheimer’s failure to recognize that different civilizations (such as China’s focus on cooperative development) could have alternative views on power relations points to the ideological blindness of his framework. His realism, like Rousseau’s natural man, presupposes that conflict is the default state of human affairs, ignoring the historical contingencies and cultural specificities that shape geopolitical behavior.
### Baudrillard and Propaganda
Jean Baudrillard’s insights also help deepen the critique of Mearsheimer’s "realism." Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra and hyperreality—where symbols and narratives replace reality—applies to Mearsheimer’s geopolitical ideas, which construct an imagined world where conflict is inevitable, and U.S. hegemony is necessary. This hyperreal version of international relations serves the propaganda interests of U.S. foreign policy, where the constant threat of conflict justifies militarization and imperialistic interventions under the guise of "national security."
Derrida’s and Baudrillard’s critiques converge in revealing how Mearsheimer’s realism is a narrative constructed to serve the interests of the U.S. state and its military-industrial complex. The belief in a perpetual, violent state of international affairs naturalizes U.S. interventionism, making it seem inevitable and necessary, when in fact it is a product of specific historical, ideological, and economic forces.
### A Layman's Guide to *Of Grammatology*
In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida aims to deconstruct the traditional Western opposition between speech and writing, where speech is seen as primary, natural, and truthful, while writing is secondary, artificial, and corrupting. Derrida challenges this hierarchy, arguing that both speech and writing are forms of language and that neither is more "natural" than the other. This insight extends to other binary oppositions, such as nature/culture and reality/representation, showing that these distinctions are arbitrary and constructed.
By doing so, Derrida reveals that much of what we take as "natural" or "self-evident" is actually shaped by language, culture, and power relations. His famous statement, "There is nothing outside the text," does not mean that there is no reality outside of language, but that our access to reality is always mediated by language and cultural constructs.
### Conclusion
Mearsheimer’s "realism," like Rousseau’s "natural man," is a constructed narrative that serves specific political purposes. By applying Derrida’s deconstruction and Baudrillard’s critique of hyperreality, we can expose the ideological underpinnings of Mearsheimer’s framework, revealing it as a justification for U.S. unipolar dominance rather than an objective analysis of global affairs. Derrida’s work reminds us that what is presented as "inevitable" in politics and international relations is often a construct that can be deconstructed to imagine more cooperative and peaceful alternatives.
Derrida sounds like he could use an education in how international law came into being. It's not like the US sat down and wrote the rules; they have evolved over a period that pre-dates the formation of the US.
Still, he sounds like a person worth reading even if it is just to try and understand how he views things because there are a lot of people who think the US wrote all the rules.
Derrida was aware of the differance between the international US rules based order which the US has asserted post 1991 [1945] and actual international law which the US and UK has placed itself above and beyond in terms of any prosecutions for either the US, the UK's or Israel's war crimes. This was most most evidenced in the predominantly US/UK based illegal invasion of Iraq which was reframed as a coalition of the 'willing' to break international laws. Of course you can gloss over all of this but I'm afraid that just makes you another run of the mill Neoconservative.
Oh US has broken the rules on occasion. The legal argument for Iraq would not have stood up in court nor should it. I would chalk it up to "lesson learned" although there are other instances such as Grendada where rules were violated. My understanding is that Margarat Thatcher was upset about that one but I don't know that for sure. Invasion of Panama was justified although I'm not sure where international law stood on that one. US would likely be justified in taking out Maduro under same theory but I wouldn't do it without regional support and once again, I'm not sure where international law would come down but drug trafficking is something I would break the rules over.
I'm not an expert on international law but I do know it did not arise in 1945 although it did begin to expand at that time. If Derrida (I do not know his work) made the assumption it started in 1945, I would have a hard time taking his work seriously. All laws have as their foundation previous work drawn from many different sources. You cannot just look at date adopted.
No. I introduced the notion of 1945 in brackets in terms of relevant dates as the moment that the US started to cement its global unipolar control in terms of $dollar, legal and military imperialism. This is something that Michael Hudson covers in books such as Super-Imperialism which he actually wished to be titled 'Financial Imperialism' or as I would term it $dollar imperialism or $dollar hegemony. Hudson views 'international' organizations such as the World Bank, IMF etc as predominantly promoting US interests and I agree with him. Unfortunately both Derrida and Baudrillard died before the financial crisis of 2008. Had they survived I'm sure they would have been very harsh critics of our current system as Derrida started with his essays about 'Rogue' states.
2008 financial crisis was not unique. It has happened regularly in the past and it will happen again in the future although new unanticipated events will drive it.
I never said the financial crisis of 2008 was unique. How many straw man arguments do you propose to introduce in this discussion? The next financial crisis will dwarf the previous one and that is all the more reason that the rest of the world needs to de-dollarize and this will signal the end of 500 years of Western imperialism and colonialism. Spoiler alert Jeff. You will be a lot worse off. Vote Kamala or Trump it will make no material difference.
Not liking a system is not an argument against it and everyone is welcome to not participate but when you've made a mess of your own affairs (or got hit by a truck) the IMF will be there; with strings attached to help you override domestic political opposition to sound policy.
Whenever I read local press of countries who have been recipients of IMF loans, I always shake my head in disbelief over their failure to acknowledge that many of the loans have been forgiven and no one else is offering money.
"Not liking a system is not an argument against it and everyone is welcome to not participate". Hence the chasm that is developing between the 1 billion in the West and the 7 billion in the rest of the world or global south. When the West has made a mess of other countries affairs then they will will turn their backs on the US hegemony of the world bank and IMf and declare all those debts to be odious and turn their affairs over to the co-operative regulation of China , Russia and BRICS whose ideas are not centered on imperialism and colonialism. This is going to happen: it doesn't matter what either you or I think. The only 'solution' to this in terms of US 'intelligence' will likely be global nuclear war and well done for supporting that outcome. You really are a prince according to Salinger.
This reminds me of the Star Trek episode The Ultimate Computer, where the Enterprise, engaged in a computer-controlled trial, begins actual battle against other unsuspecting ships.
What is your outlook for Turkey and the BRICS plus? Will Turkey join the BRICS and if so, what will be the implications for NATO and security in the Eastern Mediteranean.
This is amazing!!
Question: "How can Mongolia keep a relatively successful democracy with good relations with its powerful neigbors and also the West? Why is it not being invaded by Russia?"
Mearsheimer AI: "Mongolia's ability to maintain a successful democracy and good relations with both its powerful neighbors and the West can be attributed to its strategic balancing act. By maintaining a neutral stance and not aligning too closely with any major power, Mongolia avoids provoking its neighbors, particularly Russia and China. Russia's lack of interest in invading Mongolia is largely due to Mongolia's lack of strategic threat and its adherence to a foreign policy that respects Russian interests, akin to the Monroe Doctrine logic that I have discussed in relation to great power politics."
Although it’s a different situation, in the same light, as you’ve often stated, if Ukraine had been smart they would have maintained a neutral stance between NATO (and the US) and Russia.
Can it do the dishes for me too?
If it can, I'd check very closely for spots...
0.0
If you can't say it in plain English, I'll ignore it.
I absolutely love John Mearsheimer's solid, no nonsense approach to interpreting what is going on in the world. (Gaza and Ukraine for example.)
If you don't like what he is saying then fair enough. After all....how does anyone know what will happen next in an unfolding story? The bottom line is that the events are unfolding very much as he said would happen. That tells me that while he can't predict the future, he can give you a good indication of what is likely to happen. And if you listen to his words carefully, that's all he does.
In my opinion, he is an important voice to listen to and I thank him for his dedication to truth.
He speculates with regard to conditions on the ground in Ukraine entirely too much. I wouldn't mind if he qualified it or offered arguments going against what he says.
If he tried to understand the legal issues in Israel/Gaza, I've seen no evidence of it. One would think Israel has already been convicted (which they have not) based on his statements. Israel has a huge database of strikes and justifications which I expect will be reviewed at some point in time after the war ends. Wish I could be more confident that the ICC will recognize de minimis mistakes which are inevitable and protect data sources as Hamas kills those talking to Israel.
He did hold back earlier on whether Israel had committed actual Genocide. He then updated that later when it was obvious to anyone that that was indeed the case.
I don't like your tone because what I hear you say is that Israel has not committed Genocide...when it is clear to everyone that what Israel has done is shockingly disgusting.
The world will never forgive Israel for what it has done.
You got that right and I'm really sick of these people who prowl sub-stack and try to cover up the genocide Israel is implementing against the Palestinians. If they had sub-stack back in the 1940's I'm sure you would have plenty of Jeff Boyd's making excuses for Hitler and questioning whether a genocide was being carried out against a number of groups of people.
He has never addressed the rules. War is messy and the rules were drafted under the assumption both parties follow the rules. I live in fear (well maybe not fear) that standards will deteriorate. That would be very bad news for Gazan's and Israel has obviously never had the protection of the rules.
RFK had it right when he said the Iron Dome is little more than a method of allowing Israel to fight under the rules. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes and some alternative to UNRWA is needed. Perhaps if aid was funneled through Israel, or perhaps even Hamas, things would be better. Should add caveat that I'm reading a little more into what RFK said than I should; he said that Iron Dome is part of why military aid to Israel appears so high. If Iron Dome did not work, Israel almost certainly would have abandoned the rules by now.
You are nothing more then an apologist for Israel and her continued genocide. Why don't you tell it like it is?
How do you know that he speculates too much? He certainly provides Zelensky's perspective on things, and the American-neocon perspective on things. What he provides, which others can't do, is an objective perspective since he has no money in the game as they say. Your perspective on his commentary on Israel is simply not valid based on your obvious bias. Plain and simple it's a genocide. De minimus, mistakes? Spare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Learned to think for myself many years ago and time/experience has given me confidence. Still; I'm frequently wrong.
If you think Professor Mearsheimer does not have money in the game, you are off-base. That does not mean it is high on the list of motivating factors; I think he is a standard academic happy to be in the world of ideas.
I know you are frequently wrong, but he is not, and neither am I when it comes to understanding and defining a genocide especially if you have some history under your belt and you don't have a psychological need to blind yourself to the truth. Those who do ultimately make things far worse. Think of all our Middle Eastern Wars and all lies, and due to those lies countries destroyed, millions of people dead, or displaced or living in countries ravaged by wars. I will never be complicit in that by buying my countries lies.
Everyone is frequently wrong; there are no exceptions to this rule. I do have a psychological need to argue things from both sides. I can argue Israel is guilty of genocide; I just happen to regard it as a weak argument.
The fact that some members of the ICC held there was not a plausible argument for genocide should give you pause in the confidence in your opinion regarding the legal standard being met.
Would add that the fact that there were no dissents to the assertion that Putin was plausibly guilty of war crimes should also give you pause that the rules are appropriate too. I agree that he is likely guilty under the law but genocide has many different levels in my mind and even if Israel is guilty too, it pales in comparison to the crimes of Hamas.
I care little about what the ICC has to say, or the UN, or my own country, or Israel in this regard since none of them truly can be objective and honest and exist at the same time. This is basically how a genocide is defined:
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Now if you are following what Israel is doing even in the West Bank, it's a genocide, and the US is complicit in it by supplying them weapons to carry it out.
When I was seven I use to watch those cowboy and Indian movies on TV and they're telling me the cowboys are good and the Indians are bad, even though the cowboys want what isn't theirs and the Indians fight back for what is. Never got a straight answer from an adult on how that works, but came to the conclusion my country simply lies to me, as do many international groups, like the UN. Is that news?
As far as Russia is concerned, not happy with all the death and destruction foremented by the US, since it was complicit from the beginning in assisting the overthrow of Yanukovych, as we assisted neo-Nazi's to bring that about. The Minsk accords were just a lie Merkel said, since our plans were to bring NATO to Russia's front door and the Ukrainians are paying with their lives to give the US what we want, and too bad that is going so badly for them. Remember the democratic party is backed by neocons, and world wide control is the name of their game and right now they are backing the democrats 100 percent. So ultimately who really is the guilty party? By the way Blinken is a neocon.
Genocide is Genocide.
If you look at the rules that define Genocide, the rules that you talk about...... it's quite clear that there are no excuses that would allow anyone to commit Genocide.
None.
No free passes.
And yes...the individuals who attacked innocent Israeli's in such a horrendous way should also be held to account. Most people agree with that.
Great idea. I just asked your chatbot to define realism and it gave a concise answer. Love it!
This is so good. I had a long conversation with "you" about China, Russia, and Ukraine.
I wish it also used your podcast transcripts as source material, not just your articles.
I’m on the fence with AI. I guess we will find out. Interesting link about some views and predictions on AI. I think it is probably useful technology but at the same time anti human and will bring problems unforeseen. We live in some exciting times.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tedgioia/p/eleven-predictions-heres-what-ai?r=fcfps&utm_medium=ios
Interesting use of AI. I asked ChatGPT what it thought of JM's geopolitical realism from post-structuralist and postmodernist viewpoints. This is its reply.
### Critique of John Mearsheimer's Geopolitical "Realism" with Derridean Insights
John Mearsheimer’s geopolitical realism, which focuses on the dark and violent aspects of human nature, rests on the belief that nations, like individuals, are locked in perpetual competition for power and security. In Mearsheimer’s view, great powers must maximize their dominance to survive in an anarchic world, leading to inevitable conflict. This perspective, however, "naturalizes" a destructive, Hobbesian worldview, justifying U.S. foreign policy ambitions of global unipolar dominance. This realism, in fact, fails to capture the diverse ambitions of other global actors, such as China and Russia, whose strategies involve cooperation and multipolarity rather than unipolar dominance.
### Derrida’s Critique of "Nature" and its Relevance
Jacques Derrida’s *Of Grammatology* provides a useful critique of Mearsheimer’s concept of "human nature." In his deconstruction of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of a "natural state," Derrida argues that what Rousseau considers "natural" is, in fact, a construct that relies on the very cultural and linguistic systems it seeks to deny. Derrida shows that Rousseau’s "natural man" is not a self-evident truth but an idealization that hides its own contradictions. This insight helps us understand how Mearsheimer’s conception of a violent human nature is similarly constructed and could be deconstructed.
In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida famously writes, “There is nothing outside the text,” meaning that all ideas and concepts are mediated through language and cannot exist in a pure, unmediated form. Applying this to Mearsheimer, his geopolitical realism, far from reflecting a fixed, "natural" state of global affairs, is deeply embedded in the ideological and cultural assumptions of Western thought. Just as Derrida showed that Rousseau’s view of nature is ideological, we can deconstruct Mearsheimer’s dark view of international relations to reveal it as a particular construct—not an inevitable truth.
Mearsheimer’s assumption that all great powers must seek domination and act aggressively is not some natural law of human behavior but a historical artifact of Western political thinking. His failure to recognize that China, Russia, and other non-Western actors may have different ambitions (such as economic or cultural cooperation rather than military dominance) shows the limitations of his framework. Derrida’s insights help expose the contingency of Mearsheimer’s ideas, suggesting that alternative ways of organizing global politics are not only possible but necessary.
### Derrida’s *Rogues*: The U.S. as a Rogue State
In *Rogues: Two Essays on Reason*, Derrida extends his critique to the concept of democracy and the role of the United States. Derrida argues that the U.S., while presenting itself as the leader of the "free world," often operates as a "rogue state" when it violates its own democratic ideals in the pursuit of global dominance. He describes this behavior as "auto-immunity," where the state undermines its own values in an effort to protect itself, much like an immune system that attacks the body it’s meant to defend.
Derrida writes: “The United States, by deciding unilaterally, in an allegedly sovereign manner, to define the norm of international legality while placing itself above the law, puts itself in the position of a rogue state” (*Rogues*, 100-101). This characterization of the U.S. as a rogue nation aligns with the critique of U.S. foreign policy’s aggressive, power-maximizing behavior in Mearsheimer’s framework. What Mearsheimer frames as "realism," Derrida frames as a violation of the very principles that are supposed to legitimize the U.S. as a moral actor on the global stage.
### Deconstructing Mearsheimer’s "Realism"
By applying Derrida’s critique of "nature" to Mearsheimer’s framework, we see that the latter’s notion of an anarchic international system driven by inevitable conflict is not a universal truth but a product of Western political thought. Mearsheimer’s realism is not "realism" at all, but a culturally specific narrative that justifies U.S. militarism and global dominance. Derrida’s insights remind us that what is often presented as "natural" or "inevitable" in politics is, in fact, constructed and can be deconstructed to reveal alternative possibilities.
Mearsheimer’s failure to recognize that different civilizations (such as China’s focus on cooperative development) could have alternative views on power relations points to the ideological blindness of his framework. His realism, like Rousseau’s natural man, presupposes that conflict is the default state of human affairs, ignoring the historical contingencies and cultural specificities that shape geopolitical behavior.
### Baudrillard and Propaganda
Jean Baudrillard’s insights also help deepen the critique of Mearsheimer’s "realism." Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra and hyperreality—where symbols and narratives replace reality—applies to Mearsheimer’s geopolitical ideas, which construct an imagined world where conflict is inevitable, and U.S. hegemony is necessary. This hyperreal version of international relations serves the propaganda interests of U.S. foreign policy, where the constant threat of conflict justifies militarization and imperialistic interventions under the guise of "national security."
Derrida’s and Baudrillard’s critiques converge in revealing how Mearsheimer’s realism is a narrative constructed to serve the interests of the U.S. state and its military-industrial complex. The belief in a perpetual, violent state of international affairs naturalizes U.S. interventionism, making it seem inevitable and necessary, when in fact it is a product of specific historical, ideological, and economic forces.
### A Layman's Guide to *Of Grammatology*
In *Of Grammatology*, Derrida aims to deconstruct the traditional Western opposition between speech and writing, where speech is seen as primary, natural, and truthful, while writing is secondary, artificial, and corrupting. Derrida challenges this hierarchy, arguing that both speech and writing are forms of language and that neither is more "natural" than the other. This insight extends to other binary oppositions, such as nature/culture and reality/representation, showing that these distinctions are arbitrary and constructed.
By doing so, Derrida reveals that much of what we take as "natural" or "self-evident" is actually shaped by language, culture, and power relations. His famous statement, "There is nothing outside the text," does not mean that there is no reality outside of language, but that our access to reality is always mediated by language and cultural constructs.
### Conclusion
Mearsheimer’s "realism," like Rousseau’s "natural man," is a constructed narrative that serves specific political purposes. By applying Derrida’s deconstruction and Baudrillard’s critique of hyperreality, we can expose the ideological underpinnings of Mearsheimer’s framework, revealing it as a justification for U.S. unipolar dominance rather than an objective analysis of global affairs. Derrida’s work reminds us that what is presented as "inevitable" in politics and international relations is often a construct that can be deconstructed to imagine more cooperative and peaceful alternatives.
Derrida sounds like he could use an education in how international law came into being. It's not like the US sat down and wrote the rules; they have evolved over a period that pre-dates the formation of the US.
Still, he sounds like a person worth reading even if it is just to try and understand how he views things because there are a lot of people who think the US wrote all the rules.
Derrida was aware of the differance between the international US rules based order which the US has asserted post 1991 [1945] and actual international law which the US and UK has placed itself above and beyond in terms of any prosecutions for either the US, the UK's or Israel's war crimes. This was most most evidenced in the predominantly US/UK based illegal invasion of Iraq which was reframed as a coalition of the 'willing' to break international laws. Of course you can gloss over all of this but I'm afraid that just makes you another run of the mill Neoconservative.
Oh US has broken the rules on occasion. The legal argument for Iraq would not have stood up in court nor should it. I would chalk it up to "lesson learned" although there are other instances such as Grendada where rules were violated. My understanding is that Margarat Thatcher was upset about that one but I don't know that for sure. Invasion of Panama was justified although I'm not sure where international law stood on that one. US would likely be justified in taking out Maduro under same theory but I wouldn't do it without regional support and once again, I'm not sure where international law would come down but drug trafficking is something I would break the rules over.
I'm not an expert on international law but I do know it did not arise in 1945 although it did begin to expand at that time. If Derrida (I do not know his work) made the assumption it started in 1945, I would have a hard time taking his work seriously. All laws have as their foundation previous work drawn from many different sources. You cannot just look at date adopted.
No. I introduced the notion of 1945 in brackets in terms of relevant dates as the moment that the US started to cement its global unipolar control in terms of $dollar, legal and military imperialism. This is something that Michael Hudson covers in books such as Super-Imperialism which he actually wished to be titled 'Financial Imperialism' or as I would term it $dollar imperialism or $dollar hegemony. Hudson views 'international' organizations such as the World Bank, IMF etc as predominantly promoting US interests and I agree with him. Unfortunately both Derrida and Baudrillard died before the financial crisis of 2008. Had they survived I'm sure they would have been very harsh critics of our current system as Derrida started with his essays about 'Rogue' states.
2008 financial crisis was not unique. It has happened regularly in the past and it will happen again in the future although new unanticipated events will drive it.
I never said the financial crisis of 2008 was unique. How many straw man arguments do you propose to introduce in this discussion? The next financial crisis will dwarf the previous one and that is all the more reason that the rest of the world needs to de-dollarize and this will signal the end of 500 years of Western imperialism and colonialism. Spoiler alert Jeff. You will be a lot worse off. Vote Kamala or Trump it will make no material difference.
Not liking a system is not an argument against it and everyone is welcome to not participate but when you've made a mess of your own affairs (or got hit by a truck) the IMF will be there; with strings attached to help you override domestic political opposition to sound policy.
Whenever I read local press of countries who have been recipients of IMF loans, I always shake my head in disbelief over their failure to acknowledge that many of the loans have been forgiven and no one else is offering money.
"Not liking a system is not an argument against it and everyone is welcome to not participate". Hence the chasm that is developing between the 1 billion in the West and the 7 billion in the rest of the world or global south. When the West has made a mess of other countries affairs then they will will turn their backs on the US hegemony of the world bank and IMf and declare all those debts to be odious and turn their affairs over to the co-operative regulation of China , Russia and BRICS whose ideas are not centered on imperialism and colonialism. This is going to happen: it doesn't matter what either you or I think. The only 'solution' to this in terms of US 'intelligence' will likely be global nuclear war and well done for supporting that outcome. You really are a prince according to Salinger.
This reminds me of the Star Trek episode The Ultimate Computer, where the Enterprise, engaged in a computer-controlled trial, begins actual battle against other unsuspecting ships.
This is awesome!!!
How will the US relationship with Canada differ between a Trump win and a Harris win, of the presidency race.
Love it
Ick
What is your outlook for Turkey and the BRICS plus? Will Turkey join the BRICS and if so, what will be the implications for NATO and security in the Eastern Mediteranean.
Pretty cool, although cannot replace John.
Sounds Great !
was it actually trained on the tokens from your interviews or does it just have all your interviews in a database it will search after a prompt?