I appeared on “Piers Morgan Uncensored” on 26 February 2024 for a long interview about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and a handful of other subjects like the Julian Assange case.
I watched the whole thing. Piers started off a bit confrontational, as always, but your agreeable and respectful demeanor aligned him with your own. Twas a master class on how to keep your cool and how to slowly and intelligently lay out how REAL PROFESSORS actually think...
I'm watching it again, because, along with Alexander Wendt, he is the successor to Kenneth Waltz and new leader of theory in International Politics.
John gets up subsequently, but falls at the first question, on Putin's intentions, because John is very clear in Tragedy that in the anarchy, states cannot be sure of others' intentions. In the same way, Chamberlain mused to his Secretary before going to bed after returning from Munich whether it was the end of an old venture [by Hitler], or the beginning of a new. So John directly contradicts his "Realist worldview", don't you agree, @Joseangelhernandezphd?
The format of Pearce's show is to to attack the guest's opinions and try to place them on the defensive. He argues and attacks from the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view. You masterfully kept a calm demeanor, almost fatherly, and demolished his propaganda with all due politeness and modesty by merely confronting him with facts. You would respond to a question and then he would try to connect it to something utterly unrelated. You looked baffled. You could see Pierce visibly wilting into his chair and his voice became thin and higher pitched. It was astonishing when he made the claim that the Biden's genocide was justified because Hamas resides among the Palestinian civilians. His comment at the end, why can't we all have civil conversations like this, was a joke. He came out right from the start to try to get his ahhaa, gotcha moment against you. But of course, it's difficult to trip someone up when the motivation is relying on facts as opposed to a political agenda. By the way, the only reason why I watched this was because you were his target. With all the smear thrown your way these past years for disagreeing with the propaganda machine, you must take some happy satisfaction that you called it right in Ukraine and about Putin for a long, long, long time. Well done.
Yes you describe the technique piers uses but I really believe he’s all in with the big boys who want to fight Russia. How many decades in the future until we add this war to the list of “here’s why it’s stupid to attack Russia.” And yes we did, beginning in 2014. Even the CIA isn’t hiding it anymore. Their captured organ, the NYTimes, gave generous space to this reality recently. How soon before Piers has to get his chip replaced to deal with that? Will the new chip also allow him to admit that Ukraine isn’t a democracy?
I'll give you another point against Piers Morgan - he often interrupts his guests too early, before they are able to make their case properly.
But this is why I'm responding to you, @NCGG17: "He argues and attacks from the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view". What, pray, is the 'mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view'?
Brilliant. Applying facts & logic to persuade and thereby overcome blinding emotion. Very impressive, and the 1st time I have seen this accomplished on a Piers Morgan show, as his panel guests often end up shouting at each other. So, to get facts based upon evidence & rational analysis derived from logic accross to an even wider global audience, I hope that Professor Mearsheimer will participate in more discussions on the Piers Morgan show. The pause before answering each question, not only allows time for thinking before replying, it also enables the audience to eagerly await a measured and dispassionate reply delivered with courtesy - devastating! It is an old advocacy trick, but one which in the heat of debate takes professional discipline and calm to apply. Kudos to Professor Mearsheimer, and please keep on doing all of the good work that you do.
I was reminded of what Iain Morley KC wrote in the Third Edition of his book - 'The Devil's Advocate', which is like the Bible for Barristers in my jurisdiction:
‘Always, always, always look for a quality of irresistibility in your arguments. It is the hallmark of a truly great advocate. ... A great advocate is not one who argues loudly with noticeably great intellect. Rather he is the one who says things which just seem right. ... It is as if the advocate is not there. There is only one argument. And the answer to the argument should seem obvious. In this way, the advocate is invisible behind the argument. ... But of course the answer was not obvious, until the invisible advocate offers an argument which was utterly irresistible, and makes it look as if there never was anything to argue over in the first place.’ (Morley, pages 44 -45).
Excellent communication John! Piers was jumpy & many times kept interrupting you without letting you finish your thought….. classic Piers style… his way or the highway…. But your calm disposition, clarity of thought & irrefutable examples tamed him into becoming your ardent fan 🤣
People assert that Russia considers western culture to be degenerate. They use this assertion as evidence of a motive for Russia to attack Europe. If that were the case, why wouldn't the Russians just leave the west to self-destruct? As my mother used to say to me, Don't murder someone who is committing suicide. (That's a joke, my mom never said that:)). But I think the logic holds.
Or, as the famous Chinese war expert Shih Tzu said: "Never interrupt your opponent while he is in the middle of making a mistake." But, I think I prefer your version.
People like Piers aren’t interested in learning about what might be true, because they believe they already possess it. Not so great for a journalist interested in informing the public, but wonderful for the perks of being a mouthpiece for the powerful.
John, somehow, wonderfully back in the mainstream, twice in one week. I look forward to watching this afternoon, expecting Piers Morgan to pause in the face of sanity. In fact, I shot the bolt early, like a teen, posting the video link this morning.
Before I start, the reason I can't abide Piers Morgan is due to the despicable way he viciously attacked and attempted to shame anyone who questioned the repressive Covid rules mandating the jabs for public employees or others.
He revealed himself to be a willing tool of a dangerous and oppressive system, to never be trusted again, not that I trusted him much before that.
As to "liberal elites," basically this is what I currently think:
The liberal elites are composed of individuals who have significant power, wealth, or influence - many of whom seem to be driven by oligarchic ideologies - who hold liberal or progressive beliefs that they wish to impose on those they disagree with and who are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people and use their power and influence to advance their own interests or agendas.
They attack, block, silence, ruin and demonize those who promote ideas they consider dangerous to their goals and status.
They seem to believe - again, probably due to their oligarchic ideologies - that it is ok to stifle free speech and to eliminate certain topics from public discussion using any means necessary.
I think that most liberal elites believe in and/or support globalism, wars, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, unlimited abortion rights, transgender participation in women's sports, the WEF, George Soros' financing and support of local DA races throughout the USA - such DAs then refusing to prosecute crimes or using their office to target individuals perceived of as antithetical to liberal agendas, open borders, unrestricted illegal immigration, Covid restrictions on free speech, unlimited money to Ukraine, man-made climate change and CO2 restrictions, hate speech laws, Russiagate, etc.
There are, obviously, different gradations of what are called "liberal elites." The following is kind of funny, but I think it is a good illustration.
1% control the world [probably more like 0.01%, but let's go with 1%]
4% are sell-out puppets [politicians, media pundits, Hollywood, etc. Piers fits in here, I think]
90% are asleep [they believe whatever is told them by the MSM that is controlled by the liberal elites]
5% know what's up and are trying to wake up the 90%
The 1% don't want the 90% to wake up
. . . and so the 1% use the 4% to try and stop the 5% from waking up the 90%.
Yes, I am sympathetic to your point about forcing people to have vaccinations. I had them all, because my wife is vulnerable, but if you didn't have vulnerable people in your bubble, and you were diligent in procedures not to spread the virus, I agree that people should've had the freedom not to have the jabs. That period was a low point in Britain's freedom.
I'm also very sympathetic to most of the rest of what you wrote. I think "liberal" in US English is a little different from the same word in British English. One of my favourite texts is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, and he was a Liberal Member of Parliament.
On Morgan, the more you look into him you might agree that he is more sui generis than typecast - just look at his relationship with Donald Trump and Megan Markle, among (too) many others. Piers is certainly not in favour of men participating in women's professional sports (and, for fun, I refer you to Ricky Gervais' hilarious lampooning of transgenderism, on YouTube). You may be interested to know he edited the Daily Mirror (a Labour-supporting newspaper here in the UK). You might counter that he also worked for Murdoch (who owns in the USA The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox News), so maybe he is what @Bently claimed is the mainstream bit of "the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view". But I've asked Bently to explain what he meant by that too ...
Yes, the old-fashioned meaning of "liberal" is the one you refer to, the one I prefer.
But, like many words these days, the original meaning has been turned on its head.
Nevertheless, until humans evolve some sort of mental telepathy, we are condemned to use words to communicate our thoughts and ideas with one another - ha ha!
I am a lawyer and as you probably know, as part of the drafting of contracts, one of the first sections is for "Definitions" wherein all the important words are specifically defined, and by signing the contract, one agrees to accept these, and only these, definitions.
Imagine if we had to do that - the cumbersomeness of it - before we engaged in theoretical, moral or political debate!
Yet the destruction of language, the undermining of heretofore common concepts, the abandonment of respect for precision in communication - things that us citizens used to rely on - leaves me baffled and frustrated.
But we soldier on, right?
By the way, I agree with the particular instances you mentioned.
I think Piers hooks up with Trump for varied reasons, not the least of which is Trump's hardcore supporters.
And I believe I knew he wasn't onboard with men competing in women's sports [such a terrible idea, and the fact that feminists sit quietly on the sidelines of this issue reveals their galling servitude].
Gervais is such a wild comedic force - bless him for that - for whom there are very few sacred cows.
Excellent comment about language and definitions. The BBC has stopped describing people as terrorists because of the abuse of the word. They will report that someone has called someone else a terrorist, but will not describe people as such themselves.
On the women's sport issue, you'll find that pro sports groups, one after another, are changing their rules, either to test performers for various bio-chemical indicators of being a woman, or even to prohibit male-born "women" from participating at all.
You'll be pleased to know that the transgender issue has torn the feminist movement apart. From 1991, the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival excluded trans women, adopting a "womyn-born womyn" policy. By 1995, pre-op trans-sexual women wanted entry, but the sight of a penis was too much for many to accept. And so this Culture War began. 'TERFs' (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) reject the assertion that trans women are women, the inclusion of trans women in women's spaces, parts of transgender rights legislation including key parts of the (UK) 2004 Gender Recognition Act, and trans' wish to self-identify (this last bit is also a rich source of comedy!). Piers Morgan has alot of fun inviting these two opposing views onto his show.
But this is a massive digression from Mearsheimer ....
Good to see a main-stream media representative, Piers Morgan, and an opinion that rarely deviates from a "conventional" and simplistic one, come to interview an expert contrarian. This is what I've written elsewhere,
I have a reasonable amount of respect for John Mearsheimer, and his "realistic" take on geopolitics, particularly his prescience re the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
However, I have to say he's sometimes rather slow on his mental feet in debate - there was a debate on Youtube about the Ukraine war may be now eighteen months ago, where he was debating on one side and his opponents, US American and Ukraine warriors were advancing the war agenda. Mearsheimer managed to convert a majority opinion of the audience which was on his side prior to the debate, to a majority opinion (quite a large swing) to the hawks on the other - so not a good result. He just wasn't effective'
I think with this interview too. He made some decent points, but he did allow Piers to make some contentious statements without challenging them very effectively. For instance, if Ukraine were in NATO sooner, Russia might well not have invaded. Sorry, John, that's ridiculous. First, NATO's own rules would not have not allowed this, there was a civil war in Ukraine, and problems on its borders with a nuclear armed Russia. Complete no-nos to joining at any time. So the question is irrational and a red herring. Secondly even if Ukraine were part of NATO, Russia might have been willing to call the bluff. Exactly how would NATO effectively mobilise and counter Russia, particularly if Russia's aims were modest, jut to annexed the Donbass. Russia was already in control of Crimea. Not an easy job for NATO to fight here - and all Russia has to do is say, sorry old chap, if you invade Crimea, we will consider this an existential threat and we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons. Just how keen would the US public be supporting yet another war thousands of miles from its own homeland, and of little true strategic interest to the US, unless you buy the discredited and ill-used "domino theory"
I mean it is this total lack of thought in all these wars "What happens next?" and was my original criticism of Putin's invasion in the first place. Putin, "what happens next'?
The other point is the obvious one and that's Mearsheminer's unconditional support of military action over Taiwan and the treatment of China as an existential threat to the US and large parts of Asia and the Pacific. The most serious issue facing the US, he claims. No mention that the US's most serious issues might lie internally - its politics, its economy, its social disintegration.
If Mearsheimer keeps claiming that there's no evidence Putin wants to invade Europe then what evidence can he provide that China wishes to invade half of Asia?
Taiwan is a special case, and Mearsheimer should be much more nuanced as to how we should deal with this. The US/West increasing bellicosity in regard to Taiwan is highly dangerous. Is the present geopolitical situation perfect? Of course not, but perhaps a continuation of the imperfect and a reassurance of the Chinese government is preferable to a total global catastrophe. Mearsheimer, with respect, your "reality" here needs some serious revision.
While the rules for joining NATO have changed many times @JockMoron, the notion of a Membership Action Plan was formalised by the 1999 Summit. Ukraine has never satisfied its criteria, and has also NEVER been offered one, @John J Mearsheimer.
The last time NATO expanded on Russia's borders was 2004. Russia did not invade those Baltic entrants, though it could have done so and taken them back into its Sphere of Influence within a single day.
John has severally argued that it was 2006 and more recently 2008 that Putin decided to use the pretext that NATO was expanding too much. But in 2008 NATO voted AGAINST offering Ukraine a Membership Action Plan. John says the USA had decided Ukraine should enter, but this was voted down by NATO. Putin was there at that Summit in Bucharest, but stomped out (before the vote, I think, but all the same, he would have been informed of the outcome).
The fact that NATO has most recently expanded on Russia's borders with Finland and Sweden's entry and yet has not triggered an invasion surely is the coup de grace to Mearsheimer's (and Putin's) NATO expansion argument, @all-the-Mearsheimer-sycophants-here-too-many-to-tag and @all-Putin-versteyers.
No, this war has nothing to do with NATO expansion. What it turns on is whether Ukraine was to be in the EU or the CIS. The USA had nothing to do with that, less so the CIA, @GrapeSoda
I cannot see any logic to your argument. Why would Putin invade the Baltic States? The Russian identifying population in the Baltic States is around 25% in Estonia and Latvia and 5% in Lithuania, quite unlike the situation in the Donbas where a majority are Russian identifying. Equally, the Russian diaspora in the Baltic states has not been threatened by state sanctions as has happened in Ukraine, nor have thousand been killed, as in Ukraine. Furthermore, these states are small and hardly any existential threat to Russia. In regard to Finland, Russia has lived perfectly peacefully with that country since WW2, again, hardly a threat to Russia.
So Russia hasn't invaded Finland or Sweden? Goodness me, you're demanding a pretty quick reaction from Russia.
Ukraine though? A US backed coup and uprising banishing a Russian leaning or perhaps even neutral regime, to a puppet US regime, billions of dollars spent on re-arming Ukraine, training its army to make it the second largest in Europe, after Russia's own,, installing as we now know 12 "secret" CIA bases doing all sorts billion dollar fundings of clandestine anti-Russian schemes, and quite a number of secret bio-labs. A population of nearly 40 million before the SMO.
Why not believe what Putin has said? Seems the simplest to me. Ukraine was the red line. It has been a red line for twenty years. So was Georgia, and look what that brought Georgia. What one could argue is that Russia and Putin were actually too patient with NATO as the "dominoes" of NATO membership began to fall. As for your statement that implies Ukraine couldn't have joined nato, that's absurd, do yo not recall the US leadership saying repeatedly before the SMO "NATO has an open door policy" thereby rationalising the US's continued refusal to conduct diplomacy in good faith with Russia.
When Russia has finished dealing to Ukraine, Finland will find the bear in its own backyard becoming rather less accommodating. Those refugees at the borders were a sign of that. I think Finland's choice of joining NATO has substantially increased the dangers to that country and they've been extremely foolish to get aboard with NATO, run by the totally out of control and insane country that is now the US.
From one of the Mearsheimer sycophants and Putin versteyers, as you put it. To which I'd say, please don't try to diminish what I think by assuming my intellect is down on the same level as yours. Underestimating your opponent is exactly what has brought the US and NATO this intractable crisis, and has directly caused the bloody death of hundreds of thousands of men, and the displacement of so many Ukrainians. It would be funny in an ironic sort of way, and our loss much deserved, if not so appallingly tragic.
Thanks for replying to a fellow Anglo-Scot, who lived for a decade in Oz; I hope you're enjoying NZ.
Given your comment about "NATO's own rules would not have not allowed this", I think you may be playing Devil's Advocate in your response to mine, but I'm happy to take it at face value. I put my comment under yours because yours was the only one of some 70 or so to mention NATO ...
Putin has not once said that he is only opposed to NATO expansion into Ukraine; he used the excuse of all and any NATO expansion to justify invading Ukraine in 2022. On 21 Feb 2022 his speech declared: "We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure HAS REACHED RUSSIA'S BORDERS" [my emphasis to counter your argument that the Baltics and Finland don't matter] - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
3 days later he reiterated his casus belli: "the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border" - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
The only NATO states that border Russia are the Baltics and Finland.
A Putinversteher is someone who puts Putin's side of the story and believes it, not someone who "diminish[es]" or "underestimat[es]" Putin as an opponent. Since you made "criticism of Putin's invasion" in your first comment, the epithet wouldn't have applied to you, but your second comment does make you a Putinversteher.
As for my jibe of 'Mearsheimer sycophant', you argued against him, so it hardly applies to you. I studied International Politics at a Realist School, and in 2013 and 2014 I was doing business with the EU and Ukraine, and his interpretation of history - and yours - is completely foreign to what I observed: not only was Putin's action in early 2014 nothing to do with NATO, it was all to do with Ukraine wanting to sign an agreement with the EU rather than with the CIS.
On 24 February 2014, the Ukrainian Parliament issued an arrest warrant for Viktor Yanukovych, and in Simferopol (Crimea), a pro-Euromaidan rally was held in support of the new Ukrainian authorities. On 28 February armed men in military uniform without signs of identification seized control of Simferopol International Airport and local TV. These were later that day identified as members of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. If it only took Putin 4 days to start the invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea (an annexation which both Scottish and NZ governments have stated is illegal, Jock - https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-support-displaced-people-ukraine-review-super-sponsor-review/ and https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/europe/ukraine/russian-invasion-of-ukraine/), why am I "demanding a pretty quick reaction from Russia" to invade Finland?
Piers Morgan is repeatedly rude to the prof who is unfailingly polite in response and then has the cheek to ask why we don’t see more polite public debate??????
Gah. I’m having to hold back my gag reflex listening to Piers. He does however, illustrate that the chief skill of a top journalist is to reflect the conventional wisdom of the ruling class. If he has to do this by mind reading, well, he’s got “experts” like Ann Applebaum to confirm he knows what Putin thinks. This is what passes for journalism these days: a duel of experts, but always heavily weighted towards the views of those in power. It’s deliciously ironic that Piers notices a point of view in JM, while pretending that AA’s very partisan view is the absolute truth. Kudos to JM for enduring this clown. Maybe just maybe there are people out there interested in examining what’s really going on, and will not just take as true the speculations that Piers and his cronies insist upon.
I probably need to clarify my example: you agreed that Taiwan’s sovereignty needed defending from China, that the US should do that as an interest of the US. The terms of sovereignty, defense, interest are controversial, but you both conceded no need for further debate. I beg to disagree!
I disagree with professor's determination that Israel is engaged in genocide.
From Wikipedia - genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
There is no Israeli plan or goal to do that.
What Israel can be charged with is at least a partial disregard for Palestinian life in achieving its objective of destroying a geocidal organization - in this case Hamas. So, Israel is trying to avoid killing "innocent civilians", but endangering them and potentially killing them does not stop Israel from attacking the enemies and protecting its citizens.
There is an obvious plan (their officials professed it publicly multiple times) to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. But agreed, this constant screaming of genocide, by the people that should now better, is a virtual Holocaust denial (to paraphrase Chomsky).
I understand that means get rid of a specific race or ethnic identify - like Germans wanted to "cleanse" Europe of Jews, Ukrainians wanted to get rid of Russians in Ukraine, Hutus wanted to kill all Tutsis in Rwanda.
But I don't see any calls from Israelis to kill all Arabs and occupy Gaza all to themselves. Am I missing something?
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous."
Having grown up in the States in the 60's and 70's, I also was "zionized," as I'm certain the vast majority of Americans were and are, due to continuous indoctrination regarding the terrible things that happened to Jews during the last part of Germany's 3rd Reich.
I grew up totally pro-Israel.
I loved the movie "Exodus" and loved the book as well.
Then I found out about what happened to the USS Liberty and started digging deeper and reading more widely, and the horror and rot underlying the propaganda that I had been fed for years gradually became apparent, mostly thanks to Norm Finkelstein, Miko Peled, "Breaking the Silence," etc.
My eyes were finally opened and I realized that things were much more complicated.
Nevertheless, thanks to the unremitting propaganda onslaught, Zionism is literally part of Americans' intellectual DNA - proven by the blind - yet growingly uncomfortable - support by a very large percentage of US citizens for Israel's massive killing, organized starvation and ethnic cleansing of the Gazans and, indeed, the Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
Quo vadis, America?
AIPAC - which literally is the tail that wags the US Congress and Senate dog - and the ADL are having their work cut out for them as they try to bludgeon their craven mouthpieces into continuing to keep a lid on Americans' growing conscience and wavering support regarding the horror that Israel is inflicting on the Gazans - [Sanych has a problem with the word "genocide," and probably "apartheid" as well - geez, talk about getting hung up on terminology! yeesh!].
I lived in the US for 23yrs and HAD to get out after Gorge Bush got in. I was called all sorts of names: Pinko/Communist etc.
IF I had not lived where we did in a small Canyon in LA County we would not have lasted as long as we did.
Topanga Canyon was McCarthy's bette noir. Woody Guthrie and Will Geer started up a theatre called the Theatricum Botanicum. It was an outside theatre which put on 'subersive'
plays. It is still going with the Geer family.
We had so many left wing parties after Mc Carthy was demonised. We stayed because of Topanga.
Now it is the home of the rich although many of my friends are still there.
I agree with you but one of the nice things about the interview was that the Professor started many sentences with "I would argue." That is an entirely appropriate thing to do as he, for the most part, was providing his opinions/judgments and not facts which are not yet fully developed. Just wish people would stop thinking everything is black and white; it ain't.
I watched the whole thing. Piers started off a bit confrontational, as always, but your agreeable and respectful demeanor aligned him with your own. Twas a master class on how to keep your cool and how to slowly and intelligently lay out how REAL PROFESSORS actually think...
I'm watching it again, because, along with Alexander Wendt, he is the successor to Kenneth Waltz and new leader of theory in International Politics.
John gets up subsequently, but falls at the first question, on Putin's intentions, because John is very clear in Tragedy that in the anarchy, states cannot be sure of others' intentions. In the same way, Chamberlain mused to his Secretary before going to bed after returning from Munich whether it was the end of an old venture [by Hitler], or the beginning of a new. So John directly contradicts his "Realist worldview", don't you agree, @Joseangelhernandezphd?
I deeply admire your clarity and the way you respond to nonsense and provocations in a polite and well-documented manner.
Superlative patience and composure while building inroads to the marketplace of ideas.
Exactly!
The format of Pearce's show is to to attack the guest's opinions and try to place them on the defensive. He argues and attacks from the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view. You masterfully kept a calm demeanor, almost fatherly, and demolished his propaganda with all due politeness and modesty by merely confronting him with facts. You would respond to a question and then he would try to connect it to something utterly unrelated. You looked baffled. You could see Pierce visibly wilting into his chair and his voice became thin and higher pitched. It was astonishing when he made the claim that the Biden's genocide was justified because Hamas resides among the Palestinian civilians. His comment at the end, why can't we all have civil conversations like this, was a joke. He came out right from the start to try to get his ahhaa, gotcha moment against you. But of course, it's difficult to trip someone up when the motivation is relying on facts as opposed to a political agenda. By the way, the only reason why I watched this was because you were his target. With all the smear thrown your way these past years for disagreeing with the propaganda machine, you must take some happy satisfaction that you called it right in Ukraine and about Putin for a long, long, long time. Well done.
Yes you describe the technique piers uses but I really believe he’s all in with the big boys who want to fight Russia. How many decades in the future until we add this war to the list of “here’s why it’s stupid to attack Russia.” And yes we did, beginning in 2014. Even the CIA isn’t hiding it anymore. Their captured organ, the NYTimes, gave generous space to this reality recently. How soon before Piers has to get his chip replaced to deal with that? Will the new chip also allow him to admit that Ukraine isn’t a democracy?
Very well put, Bently. Clear and precise.
I'll give you another point against Piers Morgan - he often interrupts his guests too early, before they are able to make their case properly.
But this is why I'm responding to you, @NCGG17: "He argues and attacks from the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view". What, pray, is the 'mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view'?
Brilliant. Applying facts & logic to persuade and thereby overcome blinding emotion. Very impressive, and the 1st time I have seen this accomplished on a Piers Morgan show, as his panel guests often end up shouting at each other. So, to get facts based upon evidence & rational analysis derived from logic accross to an even wider global audience, I hope that Professor Mearsheimer will participate in more discussions on the Piers Morgan show. The pause before answering each question, not only allows time for thinking before replying, it also enables the audience to eagerly await a measured and dispassionate reply delivered with courtesy - devastating! It is an old advocacy trick, but one which in the heat of debate takes professional discipline and calm to apply. Kudos to Professor Mearsheimer, and please keep on doing all of the good work that you do.
I was reminded of what Iain Morley KC wrote in the Third Edition of his book - 'The Devil's Advocate', which is like the Bible for Barristers in my jurisdiction:
‘Always, always, always look for a quality of irresistibility in your arguments. It is the hallmark of a truly great advocate. ... A great advocate is not one who argues loudly with noticeably great intellect. Rather he is the one who says things which just seem right. ... It is as if the advocate is not there. There is only one argument. And the answer to the argument should seem obvious. In this way, the advocate is invisible behind the argument. ... But of course the answer was not obvious, until the invisible advocate offers an argument which was utterly irresistible, and makes it look as if there never was anything to argue over in the first place.’ (Morley, pages 44 -45).
Excellent communication John! Piers was jumpy & many times kept interrupting you without letting you finish your thought….. classic Piers style… his way or the highway…. But your calm disposition, clarity of thought & irrefutable examples tamed him into becoming your ardent fan 🤣
Great work John. In the end he listened. And was prepared to concur. Your voice is being heard. And it needs to be heard a lot more.
People assert that Russia considers western culture to be degenerate. They use this assertion as evidence of a motive for Russia to attack Europe. If that were the case, why wouldn't the Russians just leave the west to self-destruct? As my mother used to say to me, Don't murder someone who is committing suicide. (That's a joke, my mom never said that:)). But I think the logic holds.
Or, as the famous Chinese war expert Shih Tzu said: "Never interrupt your opponent while he is in the middle of making a mistake." But, I think I prefer your version.
People like Piers aren’t interested in learning about what might be true, because they believe they already possess it. Not so great for a journalist interested in informing the public, but wonderful for the perks of being a mouthpiece for the powerful.
They are afraid of influence on their citizens' behavior and tolerance of illiberal institutions.
John, somehow, wonderfully back in the mainstream, twice in one week. I look forward to watching this afternoon, expecting Piers Morgan to pause in the face of sanity. In fact, I shot the bolt early, like a teen, posting the video link this morning.
You were excellent… he’s a blow hard/idiot & hasn’t changed since he wanted the Unvaxxed locked up
Piers Morgan is without credibility - he's beyond ridicule in my view.
He's such a sell-out, a mouthpiece for the liberal elites.
I wouldn't have even watched this but for the fact that Prof. Mearsheimer was being interviewed.
I'm interested in your idea of who the "liberal elites" are, @johnboy, and maybe, if you have the time and Substack the space, what they believe in
Sure, Charles. I can do that for you.
Before I start, the reason I can't abide Piers Morgan is due to the despicable way he viciously attacked and attempted to shame anyone who questioned the repressive Covid rules mandating the jabs for public employees or others.
He revealed himself to be a willing tool of a dangerous and oppressive system, to never be trusted again, not that I trusted him much before that.
As to "liberal elites," basically this is what I currently think:
The liberal elites are composed of individuals who have significant power, wealth, or influence - many of whom seem to be driven by oligarchic ideologies - who hold liberal or progressive beliefs that they wish to impose on those they disagree with and who are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people and use their power and influence to advance their own interests or agendas.
They attack, block, silence, ruin and demonize those who promote ideas they consider dangerous to their goals and status.
They seem to believe - again, probably due to their oligarchic ideologies - that it is ok to stifle free speech and to eliminate certain topics from public discussion using any means necessary.
I think that most liberal elites believe in and/or support globalism, wars, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, unlimited abortion rights, transgender participation in women's sports, the WEF, George Soros' financing and support of local DA races throughout the USA - such DAs then refusing to prosecute crimes or using their office to target individuals perceived of as antithetical to liberal agendas, open borders, unrestricted illegal immigration, Covid restrictions on free speech, unlimited money to Ukraine, man-made climate change and CO2 restrictions, hate speech laws, Russiagate, etc.
There are, obviously, different gradations of what are called "liberal elites." The following is kind of funny, but I think it is a good illustration.
1% control the world [probably more like 0.01%, but let's go with 1%]
4% are sell-out puppets [politicians, media pundits, Hollywood, etc. Piers fits in here, I think]
90% are asleep [they believe whatever is told them by the MSM that is controlled by the liberal elites]
5% know what's up and are trying to wake up the 90%
The 1% don't want the 90% to wake up
. . . and so the 1% use the 4% to try and stop the 5% from waking up the 90%.
Basically.
Yes, I am sympathetic to your point about forcing people to have vaccinations. I had them all, because my wife is vulnerable, but if you didn't have vulnerable people in your bubble, and you were diligent in procedures not to spread the virus, I agree that people should've had the freedom not to have the jabs. That period was a low point in Britain's freedom.
I'm also very sympathetic to most of the rest of what you wrote. I think "liberal" in US English is a little different from the same word in British English. One of my favourite texts is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, and he was a Liberal Member of Parliament.
On Morgan, the more you look into him you might agree that he is more sui generis than typecast - just look at his relationship with Donald Trump and Megan Markle, among (too) many others. Piers is certainly not in favour of men participating in women's professional sports (and, for fun, I refer you to Ricky Gervais' hilarious lampooning of transgenderism, on YouTube). You may be interested to know he edited the Daily Mirror (a Labour-supporting newspaper here in the UK). You might counter that he also worked for Murdoch (who owns in the USA The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox News), so maybe he is what @Bently claimed is the mainstream bit of "the mainstream-government propaganda-media's point of view". But I've asked Bently to explain what he meant by that too ...
Thanks for your kind response, Charles.
Yes, the old-fashioned meaning of "liberal" is the one you refer to, the one I prefer.
But, like many words these days, the original meaning has been turned on its head.
Nevertheless, until humans evolve some sort of mental telepathy, we are condemned to use words to communicate our thoughts and ideas with one another - ha ha!
I am a lawyer and as you probably know, as part of the drafting of contracts, one of the first sections is for "Definitions" wherein all the important words are specifically defined, and by signing the contract, one agrees to accept these, and only these, definitions.
Imagine if we had to do that - the cumbersomeness of it - before we engaged in theoretical, moral or political debate!
Yet the destruction of language, the undermining of heretofore common concepts, the abandonment of respect for precision in communication - things that us citizens used to rely on - leaves me baffled and frustrated.
But we soldier on, right?
By the way, I agree with the particular instances you mentioned.
I think Piers hooks up with Trump for varied reasons, not the least of which is Trump's hardcore supporters.
And I believe I knew he wasn't onboard with men competing in women's sports [such a terrible idea, and the fact that feminists sit quietly on the sidelines of this issue reveals their galling servitude].
Gervais is such a wild comedic force - bless him for that - for whom there are very few sacred cows.
Excellent comment about language and definitions. The BBC has stopped describing people as terrorists because of the abuse of the word. They will report that someone has called someone else a terrorist, but will not describe people as such themselves.
On the women's sport issue, you'll find that pro sports groups, one after another, are changing their rules, either to test performers for various bio-chemical indicators of being a woman, or even to prohibit male-born "women" from participating at all.
You'll be pleased to know that the transgender issue has torn the feminist movement apart. From 1991, the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival excluded trans women, adopting a "womyn-born womyn" policy. By 1995, pre-op trans-sexual women wanted entry, but the sight of a penis was too much for many to accept. And so this Culture War began. 'TERFs' (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) reject the assertion that trans women are women, the inclusion of trans women in women's spaces, parts of transgender rights legislation including key parts of the (UK) 2004 Gender Recognition Act, and trans' wish to self-identify (this last bit is also a rich source of comedy!). Piers Morgan has alot of fun inviting these two opposing views onto his show.
But this is a massive digression from Mearsheimer ....
Good to see a main-stream media representative, Piers Morgan, and an opinion that rarely deviates from a "conventional" and simplistic one, come to interview an expert contrarian. This is what I've written elsewhere,
I have a reasonable amount of respect for John Mearsheimer, and his "realistic" take on geopolitics, particularly his prescience re the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
However, I have to say he's sometimes rather slow on his mental feet in debate - there was a debate on Youtube about the Ukraine war may be now eighteen months ago, where he was debating on one side and his opponents, US American and Ukraine warriors were advancing the war agenda. Mearsheimer managed to convert a majority opinion of the audience which was on his side prior to the debate, to a majority opinion (quite a large swing) to the hawks on the other - so not a good result. He just wasn't effective'
I think with this interview too. He made some decent points, but he did allow Piers to make some contentious statements without challenging them very effectively. For instance, if Ukraine were in NATO sooner, Russia might well not have invaded. Sorry, John, that's ridiculous. First, NATO's own rules would not have not allowed this, there was a civil war in Ukraine, and problems on its borders with a nuclear armed Russia. Complete no-nos to joining at any time. So the question is irrational and a red herring. Secondly even if Ukraine were part of NATO, Russia might have been willing to call the bluff. Exactly how would NATO effectively mobilise and counter Russia, particularly if Russia's aims were modest, jut to annexed the Donbass. Russia was already in control of Crimea. Not an easy job for NATO to fight here - and all Russia has to do is say, sorry old chap, if you invade Crimea, we will consider this an existential threat and we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons. Just how keen would the US public be supporting yet another war thousands of miles from its own homeland, and of little true strategic interest to the US, unless you buy the discredited and ill-used "domino theory"
I mean it is this total lack of thought in all these wars "What happens next?" and was my original criticism of Putin's invasion in the first place. Putin, "what happens next'?
The other point is the obvious one and that's Mearsheminer's unconditional support of military action over Taiwan and the treatment of China as an existential threat to the US and large parts of Asia and the Pacific. The most serious issue facing the US, he claims. No mention that the US's most serious issues might lie internally - its politics, its economy, its social disintegration.
If Mearsheimer keeps claiming that there's no evidence Putin wants to invade Europe then what evidence can he provide that China wishes to invade half of Asia?
Taiwan is a special case, and Mearsheimer should be much more nuanced as to how we should deal with this. The US/West increasing bellicosity in regard to Taiwan is highly dangerous. Is the present geopolitical situation perfect? Of course not, but perhaps a continuation of the imperfect and a reassurance of the Chinese government is preferable to a total global catastrophe. Mearsheimer, with respect, your "reality" here needs some serious revision.
While the rules for joining NATO have changed many times @JockMoron, the notion of a Membership Action Plan was formalised by the 1999 Summit. Ukraine has never satisfied its criteria, and has also NEVER been offered one, @John J Mearsheimer.
The last time NATO expanded on Russia's borders was 2004. Russia did not invade those Baltic entrants, though it could have done so and taken them back into its Sphere of Influence within a single day.
John has severally argued that it was 2006 and more recently 2008 that Putin decided to use the pretext that NATO was expanding too much. But in 2008 NATO voted AGAINST offering Ukraine a Membership Action Plan. John says the USA had decided Ukraine should enter, but this was voted down by NATO. Putin was there at that Summit in Bucharest, but stomped out (before the vote, I think, but all the same, he would have been informed of the outcome).
The fact that NATO has most recently expanded on Russia's borders with Finland and Sweden's entry and yet has not triggered an invasion surely is the coup de grace to Mearsheimer's (and Putin's) NATO expansion argument, @all-the-Mearsheimer-sycophants-here-too-many-to-tag and @all-Putin-versteyers.
No, this war has nothing to do with NATO expansion. What it turns on is whether Ukraine was to be in the EU or the CIS. The USA had nothing to do with that, less so the CIA, @GrapeSoda
I cannot see any logic to your argument. Why would Putin invade the Baltic States? The Russian identifying population in the Baltic States is around 25% in Estonia and Latvia and 5% in Lithuania, quite unlike the situation in the Donbas where a majority are Russian identifying. Equally, the Russian diaspora in the Baltic states has not been threatened by state sanctions as has happened in Ukraine, nor have thousand been killed, as in Ukraine. Furthermore, these states are small and hardly any existential threat to Russia. In regard to Finland, Russia has lived perfectly peacefully with that country since WW2, again, hardly a threat to Russia.
So Russia hasn't invaded Finland or Sweden? Goodness me, you're demanding a pretty quick reaction from Russia.
Ukraine though? A US backed coup and uprising banishing a Russian leaning or perhaps even neutral regime, to a puppet US regime, billions of dollars spent on re-arming Ukraine, training its army to make it the second largest in Europe, after Russia's own,, installing as we now know 12 "secret" CIA bases doing all sorts billion dollar fundings of clandestine anti-Russian schemes, and quite a number of secret bio-labs. A population of nearly 40 million before the SMO.
Why not believe what Putin has said? Seems the simplest to me. Ukraine was the red line. It has been a red line for twenty years. So was Georgia, and look what that brought Georgia. What one could argue is that Russia and Putin were actually too patient with NATO as the "dominoes" of NATO membership began to fall. As for your statement that implies Ukraine couldn't have joined nato, that's absurd, do yo not recall the US leadership saying repeatedly before the SMO "NATO has an open door policy" thereby rationalising the US's continued refusal to conduct diplomacy in good faith with Russia.
When Russia has finished dealing to Ukraine, Finland will find the bear in its own backyard becoming rather less accommodating. Those refugees at the borders were a sign of that. I think Finland's choice of joining NATO has substantially increased the dangers to that country and they've been extremely foolish to get aboard with NATO, run by the totally out of control and insane country that is now the US.
From one of the Mearsheimer sycophants and Putin versteyers, as you put it. To which I'd say, please don't try to diminish what I think by assuming my intellect is down on the same level as yours. Underestimating your opponent is exactly what has brought the US and NATO this intractable crisis, and has directly caused the bloody death of hundreds of thousands of men, and the displacement of so many Ukrainians. It would be funny in an ironic sort of way, and our loss much deserved, if not so appallingly tragic.
Cheers.
Thanks for replying to a fellow Anglo-Scot, who lived for a decade in Oz; I hope you're enjoying NZ.
Given your comment about "NATO's own rules would not have not allowed this", I think you may be playing Devil's Advocate in your response to mine, but I'm happy to take it at face value. I put my comment under yours because yours was the only one of some 70 or so to mention NATO ...
Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security in May 1997: NATO has adhered to its promise that it would not station nuclear weapons in new members nor permanent bases in them (Section 4 - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm?selectedLocale=en).
Putin has not once said that he is only opposed to NATO expansion into Ukraine; he used the excuse of all and any NATO expansion to justify invading Ukraine in 2022. On 21 Feb 2022 his speech declared: "We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure HAS REACHED RUSSIA'S BORDERS" [my emphasis to counter your argument that the Baltics and Finland don't matter] - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
3 days later he reiterated his casus belli: "the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border" - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843
The only NATO states that border Russia are the Baltics and Finland.
A Putinversteher is someone who puts Putin's side of the story and believes it, not someone who "diminish[es]" or "underestimat[es]" Putin as an opponent. Since you made "criticism of Putin's invasion" in your first comment, the epithet wouldn't have applied to you, but your second comment does make you a Putinversteher.
As for my jibe of 'Mearsheimer sycophant', you argued against him, so it hardly applies to you. I studied International Politics at a Realist School, and in 2013 and 2014 I was doing business with the EU and Ukraine, and his interpretation of history - and yours - is completely foreign to what I observed: not only was Putin's action in early 2014 nothing to do with NATO, it was all to do with Ukraine wanting to sign an agreement with the EU rather than with the CIS.
On 24 February 2014, the Ukrainian Parliament issued an arrest warrant for Viktor Yanukovych, and in Simferopol (Crimea), a pro-Euromaidan rally was held in support of the new Ukrainian authorities. On 28 February armed men in military uniform without signs of identification seized control of Simferopol International Airport and local TV. These were later that day identified as members of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. If it only took Putin 4 days to start the invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea (an annexation which both Scottish and NZ governments have stated is illegal, Jock - https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-support-displaced-people-ukraine-review-super-sponsor-review/ and https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/europe/ukraine/russian-invasion-of-ukraine/), why am I "demanding a pretty quick reaction from Russia" to invade Finland?
Piers Morgan is repeatedly rude to the prof who is unfailingly polite in response and then has the cheek to ask why we don’t see more polite public debate??????
Gah. I’m having to hold back my gag reflex listening to Piers. He does however, illustrate that the chief skill of a top journalist is to reflect the conventional wisdom of the ruling class. If he has to do this by mind reading, well, he’s got “experts” like Ann Applebaum to confirm he knows what Putin thinks. This is what passes for journalism these days: a duel of experts, but always heavily weighted towards the views of those in power. It’s deliciously ironic that Piers notices a point of view in JM, while pretending that AA’s very partisan view is the absolute truth. Kudos to JM for enduring this clown. Maybe just maybe there are people out there interested in examining what’s really going on, and will not just take as true the speculations that Piers and his cronies insist upon.
So what do you think is "really going on", @GrapeSode?
I probably need to clarify my example: you agreed that Taiwan’s sovereignty needed defending from China, that the US should do that as an interest of the US. The terms of sovereignty, defense, interest are controversial, but you both conceded no need for further debate. I beg to disagree!
I disagree with professor's determination that Israel is engaged in genocide.
From Wikipedia - genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
There is no Israeli plan or goal to do that.
What Israel can be charged with is at least a partial disregard for Palestinian life in achieving its objective of destroying a geocidal organization - in this case Hamas. So, Israel is trying to avoid killing "innocent civilians", but endangering them and potentially killing them does not stop Israel from attacking the enemies and protecting its citizens.
There is an obvious plan (their officials professed it publicly multiple times) to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. But agreed, this constant screaming of genocide, by the people that should now better, is a virtual Holocaust denial (to paraphrase Chomsky).
What is "ethnically cleanse"?
I understand that means get rid of a specific race or ethnic identify - like Germans wanted to "cleanse" Europe of Jews, Ukrainians wanted to get rid of Russians in Ukraine, Hutus wanted to kill all Tutsis in Rwanda.
But I don't see any calls from Israelis to kill all Arabs and occupy Gaza all to themselves. Am I missing something?
Even WikiTrash gives a valid definition:
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous."
So?
What?
How does that definition change or challenge anything I had written?
Try writing a couple of words instead of just copy-n-paste.
Sanych. YOU need to do some in depth reading before you post you assinine comment on here.
Thanks, Jenny!
Now fuck off.
Very democratic of you.
Poor Sanych. Totally "zionized" or so it seems.
Having grown up in the States in the 60's and 70's, I also was "zionized," as I'm certain the vast majority of Americans were and are, due to continuous indoctrination regarding the terrible things that happened to Jews during the last part of Germany's 3rd Reich.
I grew up totally pro-Israel.
I loved the movie "Exodus" and loved the book as well.
Then I found out about what happened to the USS Liberty and started digging deeper and reading more widely, and the horror and rot underlying the propaganda that I had been fed for years gradually became apparent, mostly thanks to Norm Finkelstein, Miko Peled, "Breaking the Silence," etc.
My eyes were finally opened and I realized that things were much more complicated.
Nevertheless, thanks to the unremitting propaganda onslaught, Zionism is literally part of Americans' intellectual DNA - proven by the blind - yet growingly uncomfortable - support by a very large percentage of US citizens for Israel's massive killing, organized starvation and ethnic cleansing of the Gazans and, indeed, the Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
Quo vadis, America?
AIPAC - which literally is the tail that wags the US Congress and Senate dog - and the ADL are having their work cut out for them as they try to bludgeon their craven mouthpieces into continuing to keep a lid on Americans' growing conscience and wavering support regarding the horror that Israel is inflicting on the Gazans - [Sanych has a problem with the word "genocide," and probably "apartheid" as well - geez, talk about getting hung up on terminology! yeesh!].
What a wonderful comment. Thank you.
I lived in the US for 23yrs and HAD to get out after Gorge Bush got in. I was called all sorts of names: Pinko/Communist etc.
IF I had not lived where we did in a small Canyon in LA County we would not have lasted as long as we did.
Topanga Canyon was McCarthy's bette noir. Woody Guthrie and Will Geer started up a theatre called the Theatricum Botanicum. It was an outside theatre which put on 'subersive'
plays. It is still going with the Geer family.
We had so many left wing parties after Mc Carthy was demonised. We stayed because of Topanga.
Now it is the home of the rich although many of my friends are still there.
I agree with you but one of the nice things about the interview was that the Professor started many sentences with "I would argue." That is an entirely appropriate thing to do as he, for the most part, was providing his opinions/judgments and not facts which are not yet fully developed. Just wish people would stop thinking everything is black and white; it ain't.