John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct with regard to everything he’s weighed in on. One of his observations is that might makes right and those countries with the most power make and/or break the rules as they see fit. One irony with this observation is that if during the unipolar moment the US had used its power to stay smart, stay as powerful as possible, lead by example and stay on the right side of history, we’d be in a much better position to influence what happens from here on out the world stage. Instead we were lead by foolish idiots who squandered that prime opportunity. Now we’re being lead by short sighted, foolish cowards who are more worried about staying in power than staying on the right side of history. As he points out, the US is so powerful and geographically isolated so as not to be affected by all of the mistakes we’ve made and are making. But for better or for worse that bound to change. Because of our short sighted foolishness our power is decreasing and what little moral high ground we might have enjoyed after world war 2 has been severely eroded. Despite the ideals we say we represent the majority of the world see the US as being extremely hypocritical. Now those who can are starting to push back in the form of things like the BRICS alliance. What’s truly a shame is that an idiot like me from Ohio could have told the fools running the show what the best course of action would have been at every turn and at every step along the way. This is also true of the big picture as to how we should be trying to conduct ourselves as a species - which in large part is an extension of the same type of actions it takes in order to have a sensible foreign policy. Allot of what it would take to right the ship is a combination of the understanding of power, a healthy appreciation for respect for others along with a fervent desire to try our best to stay on the right side of history.
John often expresses bafflement at the logic of the State Dept in Ukraine, being the realist that he is. Could it be that there is more pragmatic U.S. self-interest being served than we give DOS credit for?
Let's keep in mind that this is the first big war where the internet "PR front" is just as important as the military front. John and his podcasts are part of the former "front". So not everything will be logical in strict military terms.
The "PR front" is particularly important for managing USA home front politically. Long wars of attrition in distant lands are not popular in the U.S., given our limited attention span and stinginess with foreign aid..
The great benefit of this war to NATO is that the meat grinder is entirely in Ukraine (with the recent exception of Kursk). Only Ukraine's and Russia's blood is being spilled. This suits NATO just fine. This means the key objective is to keep Ukraine motivated to stay in this war. The U.S. seems to prize any cost inflicted on Russia as worth whatever the cost (in blood and carnage) is incurred by Ukraine. Oddly, Ukraine doesn't seem to realize its is being played as a pawn that can be easily sacrificed in NATO's game, as it soon will be. They think they are fighting to win! Of course, Zelensky has his PR front as well. It's really the Ukrainian people who are being played.
This helps explain the Kursk invasion: it's a PR stunt to make Ukraine look stronger than it is, and Russia weaker than it is. It keeps the EU loans flowing and hopefully makes Ukraine look like it's still in the fight-- hopefully until November. Might another PR objective of the Kursk invasion to Ukraine (e.g. with capture of the Kursk nuclear power plant) have been to draw the U.S. further into the war (e.g. committing troops)?
The problem is that the military front in the Donbass may collapse sooner than that. That would be inconvenient, and would speed up the sacrifice of the pawn.
John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct with regard to everything he’s weighed in on. One of his observations is that might makes right and those countries with the most power make and/or break the rules as they see fit. One irony with this observation is that if during the unipolar moment the US had used its power to stay smart, stay as powerful as possible, lead by example and stay on the right side of history, we’d be in a much better position to influence what happens from here on out the world stage. Instead we were lead by foolish idiots who squandered that prime opportunity. Now we’re being lead by short sighted, foolish cowards who are more worried about staying in power than staying on the right side of history. As he points out, the US is so powerful and geographically isolated so as not to be affected by all of the mistakes we’ve made and are making. But for better or for worse that bound to change. Because of our short sighted foolishness our power is decreasing and what little moral high ground we might have enjoyed after world war 2 has been severely eroded. Despite the ideals we say we represent the majority of the world see the US as being extremely hypocritical. Now those who can are starting to push back in the form of things like the BRICS alliance. What’s truly a shame is that an idiot like me from Ohio could have told the fools running the show what the best course of action would have been at every turn and at every step along the way. This is also true of the big picture as to how we should be trying to conduct ourselves as a species - which in large part is an extension of the same type of actions it takes in order to have a sensible foreign policy. Allot of what it would take to right the ship is a combination of the understanding of power, a healthy appreciation for respect for others along with a fervent desire to try our best to stay on the right side of history.
John often expresses bafflement at the logic of the State Dept in Ukraine, being the realist that he is. Could it be that there is more pragmatic U.S. self-interest being served than we give DOS credit for?
Let's keep in mind that this is the first big war where the internet "PR front" is just as important as the military front. John and his podcasts are part of the former "front". So not everything will be logical in strict military terms.
The "PR front" is particularly important for managing USA home front politically. Long wars of attrition in distant lands are not popular in the U.S., given our limited attention span and stinginess with foreign aid..
The great benefit of this war to NATO is that the meat grinder is entirely in Ukraine (with the recent exception of Kursk). Only Ukraine's and Russia's blood is being spilled. This suits NATO just fine. This means the key objective is to keep Ukraine motivated to stay in this war. The U.S. seems to prize any cost inflicted on Russia as worth whatever the cost (in blood and carnage) is incurred by Ukraine. Oddly, Ukraine doesn't seem to realize its is being played as a pawn that can be easily sacrificed in NATO's game, as it soon will be. They think they are fighting to win! Of course, Zelensky has his PR front as well. It's really the Ukrainian people who are being played.
This helps explain the Kursk invasion: it's a PR stunt to make Ukraine look stronger than it is, and Russia weaker than it is. It keeps the EU loans flowing and hopefully makes Ukraine look like it's still in the fight-- hopefully until November. Might another PR objective of the Kursk invasion to Ukraine (e.g. with capture of the Kursk nuclear power plant) have been to draw the U.S. further into the war (e.g. committing troops)?
The problem is that the military front in the Donbass may collapse sooner than that. That would be inconvenient, and would speed up the sacrifice of the pawn.