I don't see how is America is promoting democracy and stability because now is promoting a new war. Even the allaies are probably now afraid of America. All empires had an end. And if you look what are the options for America this year, a man with serious age related issues and another, with serious legal issues, in my opinion something needs to be changed quickly in the American politics.
John's entire thesis on the cause of the Ukranian conflict hinges entirely on the idea of NATO expansion as an 'existential threat'.
i) How exactly can NATO expansion to Ukraine pose an existential threat against a country with enough nukes to end the world multiple times over? John is never able to explain this, and when asked directly, dodges the question entirely.
ii) John has consistently been wrong on major predictions of Russian behaviour. He first posited that Russia would never invade Ukraine because Putin is way too smart to get entangled in such a conflict, and that the Russo-Ukranian conflict would be a cold war. When this turned out to be wrong, he claimed that Putin's aims were to wreck Ukraine, and not annex its territories. When this turned out to be wrong, he then claimed that Putin's ambitions ecsalated after the inception of the war. His theory simply has no predictive power, and is facile at its core.
iii) John's theory is divorced from reality. Area studies experts routinely point out the flaws with Mearsheimer's theory, citing facts which contradict his central thesis.
iv) The theory is rife with inconsistencies. Why does Finland which share a border with Russia, not pose a similar existential threat to Russia? Why has Putin not taken similar military actions against Finland for its NATO membership?
Furthermore, why is the West responsible for the war per se? Under your theory, aren't states merely blackboxes with no agency, that simply react to world events? Do states have agency on an intermittent basis? Are they blackboxes sometimes, but not all the time?
If you are interested in the perspective of a geopolitics professor (also realist) from the Eastern flank of NATO (Romania) you probably cand do it by using the autotranslate option of YouTube
I don't see how is America is promoting democracy and stability because now is promoting a new war. Even the allaies are probably now afraid of America. All empires had an end. And if you look what are the options for America this year, a man with serious age related issues and another, with serious legal issues, in my opinion something needs to be changed quickly in the American politics.
Does anyone know who are the caricatures on the wall next to Mearsheimer? I think it's Paul Nitze and maybe Paul Gottfried.....
This question has been wrecking my mind for many, many months now.
Thanks so much, I'm glad to hear it's not just me!
LLM-derived summaries and breakdowns: https://open.substack.com/pub/complexiathesinker/p/llm-over-john-mearsheimer-ukraines
Clickbait -- Prof. Mearsheimer has not mentioned here his discussion with Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen yet:
https://complexiathesinker.substack.com/p/llm-over-end-of-escalatory-ladder
It was like a focus a group.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexanderscipio/p/ukraine?r=r6kt1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
John's entire thesis on the cause of the Ukranian conflict hinges entirely on the idea of NATO expansion as an 'existential threat'.
i) How exactly can NATO expansion to Ukraine pose an existential threat against a country with enough nukes to end the world multiple times over? John is never able to explain this, and when asked directly, dodges the question entirely.
ii) John has consistently been wrong on major predictions of Russian behaviour. He first posited that Russia would never invade Ukraine because Putin is way too smart to get entangled in such a conflict, and that the Russo-Ukranian conflict would be a cold war. When this turned out to be wrong, he claimed that Putin's aims were to wreck Ukraine, and not annex its territories. When this turned out to be wrong, he then claimed that Putin's ambitions ecsalated after the inception of the war. His theory simply has no predictive power, and is facile at its core.
iii) John's theory is divorced from reality. Area studies experts routinely point out the flaws with Mearsheimer's theory, citing facts which contradict his central thesis.
iv) The theory is rife with inconsistencies. Why does Finland which share a border with Russia, not pose a similar existential threat to Russia? Why has Putin not taken similar military actions against Finland for its NATO membership?
Furthermore, why is the West responsible for the war per se? Under your theory, aren't states merely blackboxes with no agency, that simply react to world events? Do states have agency on an intermittent basis? Are they blackboxes sometimes, but not all the time?
If you are interested in the perspective of a geopolitics professor (also realist) from the Eastern flank of NATO (Romania) you probably cand do it by using the autotranslate option of YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/live/REm16L4Han8?si=GoNtUQYqkHdR6uyR