On 12 April 2024, I was on “The Duran” with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris. We talked at length about Ukraine, focusing on the potential for escalation and how best to shut down the Ukraine war and keep Europe peaceful.
I cannot believe that the best options this year in America are the 2. I mean, we are speaking about a country with over 300 million people and a long history of democracy, which theoretically improves the selection of the party members and presidential candidates. I don' know the reason/s but the candidates selection process is biased.
Dear John: rather than hearing your arguments again and again -although well founded and better presented- I would really appreciate your answer to the LonerBox's controversial article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE-t2ePFEDc&t=131s on you.
It really matters to me and to your followers. Thank you in advance.
Holy Mackerel, after all the trouble and misery caused by NATO+USSA in Europe, these experts still cannot bring themselves to cheer for NATO dissolution. I oppose being taxed and ruined to keep European nationalists from killing each other. In a sane world, America would be a neutral commercial colossus...wealthy peaceful and productive. Sadly, that's never to be.
The talks with Diesen and Mercouris are my favorite. They're deep and thorough and the speakers let the other person speak out their thoughts completely. The best interviewers are actually the best listeners. But I think there is an aspect that many Americans miss when they discuss Europe. Some Europeans have what must be a partially genetic distaste for their neighbors. Even a gentle adolescent young lady can glass over her eyes and get a set to her mouth when considering an aspect of the rights of a minority of a previous occupying power. This is something I think most Americans can't understand because we haven't been invaded or occupied (maybe Native Americans feel this way about my sort) but it's a factor in policy setting in most parts of Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Perhaps Professor Mearsheimer too readily dismisses the possibility of pressure by Russia on the Balts. There has been no/very little recent evidence of this, but has he considered the possibility that a small country could react against the local minority out of fear to the extent that it makes reaction by Moscow against them inevitable? Does the alliance have a responsibility, or at least is it in the alliance's best interest, to reassure its smallest eastern members so that they don't take counsel with fear? And under no circumstances abuse these small countries' trust by exploiting that fear and using them like chips in a Great Power game? This little corner of Europe is a potential flashpoint that I personally hope the Professor might focus his prodigious powers of analysis upon to give us some insight. Thank you.
I think it is a caricature of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer done for the magazine article in the Atlantic Monthly. But there was some controversy with the article and according to wikipedia it was printed in the London Review of Books. I think the same thing happened with Hersh's article about the death of OBL.
The concept of managed escalation is closely linked to proxy wars, covert wars and any conflict that does not involve a declared war between Superpowers US, China and Russia. But it does involve their interests and agendas, and proxy militias. The US is the worst perpetrator of such wars.
What’s ignored is the scale of suffering from wars that keep the lid on a formal superpower clash. Fatalities from these 'not World Wars' since World War 2 are at least 38 million civilian and combat deaths. A world war, in other words.
For example, the US funded Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1988, in order to weaken but not to actually engage in direct war with Moscow. The cost of the war to the USSR contributed to its fall in 1992. The Afghan rebels went on to form the Taliban. https://philippajanewinkler.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-escalation-control-the
Three brilliant thinkers sharing another exceptional discussion.
Thank you so very much!
The sociopaths who rule over us would without hesitation annihilate us all rather than give up their perches.
Understatement.
A thought provoking discussion and hopefully the kind of reflective discussion the U.S. and the major NATO powers will have going forward. Thank you.
LLM-derived breakdowns and summaries of that discussion: https://complexiathesinker.substack.com/p/llm-over-end-of-escalatory-ladder
I cannot believe that the best options this year in America are the 2. I mean, we are speaking about a country with over 300 million people and a long history of democracy, which theoretically improves the selection of the party members and presidential candidates. I don' know the reason/s but the candidates selection process is biased.
Dear John: rather than hearing your arguments again and again -although well founded and better presented- I would really appreciate your answer to the LonerBox's controversial article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE-t2ePFEDc&t=131s on you.
It really matters to me and to your followers. Thank you in advance.
Holy Mackerel, after all the trouble and misery caused by NATO+USSA in Europe, these experts still cannot bring themselves to cheer for NATO dissolution. I oppose being taxed and ruined to keep European nationalists from killing each other. In a sane world, America would be a neutral commercial colossus...wealthy peaceful and productive. Sadly, that's never to be.
The talks with Diesen and Mercouris are my favorite. They're deep and thorough and the speakers let the other person speak out their thoughts completely. The best interviewers are actually the best listeners. But I think there is an aspect that many Americans miss when they discuss Europe. Some Europeans have what must be a partially genetic distaste for their neighbors. Even a gentle adolescent young lady can glass over her eyes and get a set to her mouth when considering an aspect of the rights of a minority of a previous occupying power. This is something I think most Americans can't understand because we haven't been invaded or occupied (maybe Native Americans feel this way about my sort) but it's a factor in policy setting in most parts of Europe that shouldn't be ignored. Perhaps Professor Mearsheimer too readily dismisses the possibility of pressure by Russia on the Balts. There has been no/very little recent evidence of this, but has he considered the possibility that a small country could react against the local minority out of fear to the extent that it makes reaction by Moscow against them inevitable? Does the alliance have a responsibility, or at least is it in the alliance's best interest, to reassure its smallest eastern members so that they don't take counsel with fear? And under no circumstances abuse these small countries' trust by exploiting that fear and using them like chips in a Great Power game? This little corner of Europe is a potential flashpoint that I personally hope the Professor might focus his prodigious powers of analysis upon to give us some insight. Thank you.
Does anyone know who the caricatures are on Prof. Mearsheimer's wall? My guess is Paul Gottfried and Paul Nitze.....
I think it is a caricature of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer done for the magazine article in the Atlantic Monthly. But there was some controversy with the article and according to wikipedia it was printed in the London Review of Books. I think the same thing happened with Hersh's article about the death of OBL.
Thanks so much for the info!
The concept of managed escalation is closely linked to proxy wars, covert wars and any conflict that does not involve a declared war between Superpowers US, China and Russia. But it does involve their interests and agendas, and proxy militias. The US is the worst perpetrator of such wars.
What’s ignored is the scale of suffering from wars that keep the lid on a formal superpower clash. Fatalities from these 'not World Wars' since World War 2 are at least 38 million civilian and combat deaths. A world war, in other words.
For example, the US funded Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan from 1980 to 1988, in order to weaken but not to actually engage in direct war with Moscow. The cost of the war to the USSR contributed to its fall in 1992. The Afghan rebels went on to form the Taliban. https://philippajanewinkler.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-escalation-control-the