You should be really proud of the newstatesman article, that's great achivement. By speaking truth you have irritated the political elites so much that they had to turn their propaganda machinery toward discrediting you personally. You have exibited so much influence as to become non-ignorable thorn in the eyes of the political establishment. It's easy to understand, your clear logic, solid reasoning and extensive knowledge and background on the subject of Ukraine radiates and opens the eyes of the neutral bystanders seeking the truth, which is immensly different of what is being served in the mainstream propaganda outlets. You are the antidote to the poison spread by the massive propaganda machinery, and western rulling political elites definitely do not like that.
"Lawrence Freedman told me that Mearsheimer was now an “isolated” figure." - sure, that's why he wrote that article about Prof. Mearsheimer
What I find most interesting about the New Statesman article is that none of the critics seem to have any concern for all the bloodshed. Maybe it is because the casualties are mostly Ukrainian (and Russian), so who cares? Let us pat ourselves in the back for being such great people and ignore the slaughter we could have stopped.
Watch the interview of Elizabeth Warren and the two other officials in Kyiv, they are being asked if US help is worth it, the reply is: "No american has died, and for each dollar sent to Ukraine Russia is weakened, so every penny help to Ukraine is totally worth it". I was shocked at the reply, it was not in a TV debate or podcast, it was an interview in the middle of Kyiv, but it shows what's going on in their heads and how they think about Ukrainians - disposable comodity. One beggs the question, how could Ukrainians accept this arrangement - losing their country, dying by the thousands, advancing western interests, all for the fantasy promisses of washington london berlin and paris....
So Hamas has attacked Israel and taken civllian hostages and troops who might arguably be considered legitimate targets. In a "realist" world, wouldn't you bomb every facility they are located at (killing hostages) to show the pointlessness of such efforts in the future?
I say this not to suggest this course of action and I acknowledge I have no idea what course of action is appropriate but it is a situation where no obvious "best alternative" exists so parties feel their way forward making the best decisions they can with general guidelines but no hard and fast rules guarding their behavior given the lack of rules covering such situations.
The New Statesman piece bent over backward on behalf of conventional wisdom, but it’s something and you got to say your piece so cheers to that I reckon.
I do not understand the argument that the US does not want any other country to be a regional hegemon. US might not want another hegemon that threatens US interests but US sure did nothing for an extended period of time with regard to rise of Imperial Japan, Nazi and Imperial Germany. Just to be a little obnoxious for a moment I have to twist the words of William Wilberforce for a moment. "The US system of government is sublime, pure beneficient, while CCP is mean, licentious and cruel." I don't honestly think we're perfect but we are pretty good and if Japan, Germany or any other government became a hegemon, we'd be o.k. with it if they upheld the same values.
I found this part of the New Statesman article fascinating - "China believes that there must be a way for it to rise peacefully. But it’s not going to happen. If China continues to rise, there is going to be a security competition with the US. They are interested in engaging with me for the purpose of undermining my argument."
Very interesting to see the pushback you get from around the world! As someone interested in the social sciences, the pushback against realism mirrors how individuals trick themselves into thinking they believe things due to rational arguments, when they are really using forces like cognitive dissonance to backfill their assigned positions.
I’m not sure cognitive dissonance is the cause of the pushback against realism but, rather, an effect produced when real world events fail to align with one’s expectations. However, you’re right that the dissonance is rooted in a confusion of what we believe “ought to be” with what “is”. It’s not a failure of rationality (after all, moral arguments can be rational) but a category mistake between descriptive judgments -- i.e. those that interest Mearsheimer -- and prescriptive judgments, which is where liberalism begins and ends.
To explain a bit, I'm comparing it to the notion that "US has talked like a liberal but acted like a realist" on both sides of the unipolar moment.
We are able to state that Ukraine should be able to choose their alliances, while pressuring the distant Solomon Islands to prevent them hosting a Chinese millitary base.
I think those in the blob rationalize the inconsistency into something that makes sense to them. Most likely: "we are the good guys".
I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond about that specific, but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not the U.S. has been behaving as realists would predict since 2017. I concur that they are, yet they dismiss realist behavior in all other contexts and pretend it no longer exists. There is a sort of sickness about that. For if the blob truly believes that there is a new global order that is not realist they are going to overreact when other nations do entirely predictable things. A very dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.
I do agree with your proposition that people/countries decide what they want to do and then back into the reasons later but rules do constrain us. It's not a wide-open, anything-goes world. It's a mix and overreactions are common. Unfortunately, you can't know if it is an overreaction until long after the fact most of the time.
We talk about "rules based order" a lot, but what is an example where rules have constrained the United States from something it believed it needed to do for national security reasons?
Could have made life so painful for Afghanistan's people that they feared choosing the Taliban. It would have been easy to support the Northern Alliance, who would have done the dirty work in much the same way the Baathists did in Iraq. I provide that as an example, but I think it was viewed as being in our national interests to treat the Afghani and Iraqis reasonably well following the invasions. In Afghanistan's case, they ultimately chose the Taliban, and as long as they don't send terrorists our way, we don't care. We even send aid and will send a lot more, assuming they treat their people in a fashion we find a little less objectionable.
Wanted to add that the USSR behaved the same way as the US did in Afghanistan. That, along with the fact that Putin has not gone "Total Stalin" in Ukraine, gives me some hope that things can be worked out. I agree with Dr. Mershheimer that the ultimate outcome is probably a Ukrainian rump state but as long as they hold on to Odessa, I think, but don't know, that it would be a tolerable outcome. Does that make any sense?
what I want or probably you as well on this topic is totally irrelevant, what matters is what the policy makers in the power centers want, and they clearly don't want it to end, and as Prof. Mearsheimer has explained many times - they started it, deliberately, it's not like it was an accident, Merkel Holande Poroshenko were all lying to Putin to buy time and arm Ukraine. Remember german analena baerbock said I don't care what voters want, I will deliver weapons to Ukraine, there you can deduce the thinking of western officials, no this active war will last for 10-20 years at least, that would be my wild educated guess.
What I want... I want this war to never have started, since it is going on I want it to and asap, but we all know that's not gonna happen, it is what it is
absolutely, the net zero is complete scam, they simply use it to steal taxpayers money and impose policies to their liking regardless of the consequences
Congratulations Prof. Mearsheimer!
You should be really proud of the newstatesman article, that's great achivement. By speaking truth you have irritated the political elites so much that they had to turn their propaganda machinery toward discrediting you personally. You have exibited so much influence as to become non-ignorable thorn in the eyes of the political establishment. It's easy to understand, your clear logic, solid reasoning and extensive knowledge and background on the subject of Ukraine radiates and opens the eyes of the neutral bystanders seeking the truth, which is immensly different of what is being served in the mainstream propaganda outlets. You are the antidote to the poison spread by the massive propaganda machinery, and western rulling political elites definitely do not like that.
"Lawrence Freedman told me that Mearsheimer was now an “isolated” figure." - sure, that's why he wrote that article about Prof. Mearsheimer
Have you been following the ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenians from their ancestral homelands in the Caucasus? The EU and US have not sanctioned the perpetrators - Azerbaijan: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/artsakh-christian-armenian-genocide-azerbaijan
What I find most interesting about the New Statesman article is that none of the critics seem to have any concern for all the bloodshed. Maybe it is because the casualties are mostly Ukrainian (and Russian), so who cares? Let us pat ourselves in the back for being such great people and ignore the slaughter we could have stopped.
Watch the interview of Elizabeth Warren and the two other officials in Kyiv, they are being asked if US help is worth it, the reply is: "No american has died, and for each dollar sent to Ukraine Russia is weakened, so every penny help to Ukraine is totally worth it". I was shocked at the reply, it was not in a TV debate or podcast, it was an interview in the middle of Kyiv, but it shows what's going on in their heads and how they think about Ukrainians - disposable comodity. One beggs the question, how could Ukrainians accept this arrangement - losing their country, dying by the thousands, advancing western interests, all for the fantasy promisses of washington london berlin and paris....
So Hamas has attacked Israel and taken civllian hostages and troops who might arguably be considered legitimate targets. In a "realist" world, wouldn't you bomb every facility they are located at (killing hostages) to show the pointlessness of such efforts in the future?
I say this not to suggest this course of action and I acknowledge I have no idea what course of action is appropriate but it is a situation where no obvious "best alternative" exists so parties feel their way forward making the best decisions they can with general guidelines but no hard and fast rules guarding their behavior given the lack of rules covering such situations.
The New Statesman piece bent over backward on behalf of conventional wisdom, but it’s something and you got to say your piece so cheers to that I reckon.
It would be headlines if it wasn't China (or Russia).
China's Proposals and Actions: A Global Community of Shared Future - https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202309/t20230926_11150122.html
I do not understand the argument that the US does not want any other country to be a regional hegemon. US might not want another hegemon that threatens US interests but US sure did nothing for an extended period of time with regard to rise of Imperial Japan, Nazi and Imperial Germany. Just to be a little obnoxious for a moment I have to twist the words of William Wilberforce for a moment. "The US system of government is sublime, pure beneficient, while CCP is mean, licentious and cruel." I don't honestly think we're perfect but we are pretty good and if Japan, Germany or any other government became a hegemon, we'd be o.k. with it if they upheld the same values.
I found this part of the New Statesman article fascinating - "China believes that there must be a way for it to rise peacefully. But it’s not going to happen. If China continues to rise, there is going to be a security competition with the US. They are interested in engaging with me for the purpose of undermining my argument."
Very interesting to see the pushback you get from around the world! As someone interested in the social sciences, the pushback against realism mirrors how individuals trick themselves into thinking they believe things due to rational arguments, when they are really using forces like cognitive dissonance to backfill their assigned positions.
I’m not sure cognitive dissonance is the cause of the pushback against realism but, rather, an effect produced when real world events fail to align with one’s expectations. However, you’re right that the dissonance is rooted in a confusion of what we believe “ought to be” with what “is”. It’s not a failure of rationality (after all, moral arguments can be rational) but a category mistake between descriptive judgments -- i.e. those that interest Mearsheimer -- and prescriptive judgments, which is where liberalism begins and ends.
To explain a bit, I'm comparing it to the notion that "US has talked like a liberal but acted like a realist" on both sides of the unipolar moment.
We are able to state that Ukraine should be able to choose their alliances, while pressuring the distant Solomon Islands to prevent them hosting a Chinese millitary base.
I think those in the blob rationalize the inconsistency into something that makes sense to them. Most likely: "we are the good guys".
That’s exactly right and, sadly, about as sophisticated an analysis as the blob appears to be capable of.
No one attains perfection in this world. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978 was clearly illegal but who isn't glad it happened?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond about that specific, but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not the U.S. has been behaving as realists would predict since 2017. I concur that they are, yet they dismiss realist behavior in all other contexts and pretend it no longer exists. There is a sort of sickness about that. For if the blob truly believes that there is a new global order that is not realist they are going to overreact when other nations do entirely predictable things. A very dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.
I do agree with your proposition that people/countries decide what they want to do and then back into the reasons later but rules do constrain us. It's not a wide-open, anything-goes world. It's a mix and overreactions are common. Unfortunately, you can't know if it is an overreaction until long after the fact most of the time.
We talk about "rules based order" a lot, but what is an example where rules have constrained the United States from something it believed it needed to do for national security reasons?
Could have made life so painful for Afghanistan's people that they feared choosing the Taliban. It would have been easy to support the Northern Alliance, who would have done the dirty work in much the same way the Baathists did in Iraq. I provide that as an example, but I think it was viewed as being in our national interests to treat the Afghani and Iraqis reasonably well following the invasions. In Afghanistan's case, they ultimately chose the Taliban, and as long as they don't send terrorists our way, we don't care. We even send aid and will send a lot more, assuming they treat their people in a fashion we find a little less objectionable.
Wanted to add that the USSR behaved the same way as the US did in Afghanistan. That, along with the fact that Putin has not gone "Total Stalin" in Ukraine, gives me some hope that things can be worked out. I agree with Dr. Mershheimer that the ultimate outcome is probably a Ukrainian rump state but as long as they hold on to Odessa, I think, but don't know, that it would be a tolerable outcome. Does that make any sense?
they invested so much to make it happen, and you want it to just stop?? I dont see that happening...
what I want or probably you as well on this topic is totally irrelevant, what matters is what the policy makers in the power centers want, and they clearly don't want it to end, and as Prof. Mearsheimer has explained many times - they started it, deliberately, it's not like it was an accident, Merkel Holande Poroshenko were all lying to Putin to buy time and arm Ukraine. Remember german analena baerbock said I don't care what voters want, I will deliver weapons to Ukraine, there you can deduce the thinking of western officials, no this active war will last for 10-20 years at least, that would be my wild educated guess.
What I want... I want this war to never have started, since it is going on I want it to and asap, but we all know that's not gonna happen, it is what it is
absolutely, the net zero is complete scam, they simply use it to steal taxpayers money and impose policies to their liking regardless of the consequences