We haven't learned from history and keep repeating the same patterns of brutal expansion and the race for resources, with more devastating weapons and propaganda devices.
Why do you never mention this when you discuss RuSSia, Ukraine and NATO. You all point to 2007, but you lack very important information on this matter.
In the early 2000s, Putin and Lavrov publicly took a very different position on Ukraine and NATO than the Kremlin does today.
In 2002, Putin stated that Ukraine’s possible NATO membership was a matter for Ukraine and NATO themselves, and that Ukraine had the sovereign right to make its own security decisions. He also said he did not believe such a move would necessarily damage Russia–Ukraine relations. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21614
“Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the way of ensuring its own security itself.”
In 2005, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly said that Ukraine and Georgia were free to choose whether they wanted closer integration with NATO or the EU, and that Russia would respect those decisions. https://www.rferl.org/a/1056670.html
This is important historical context because it shows that the Kremlin’s later claim that Ukrainian NATO membership was always an intolerable “existential threat” does not fully match Russia’s own public statements from that period.
I'm part of what is called gen x , I learned from history by asking my family a million questions, read a lot( good and bad books ), got to live in different parts of the world and always continue to this day to broaden my horizon.
As parents, we also owe it to our children to talk to them about what is not taught in school/ what is being taught through the lense of colonialism etc.
If there's a will, there's a way.
I live in he global south, so it might be a bit easier to remember the past as we still suffer from the ramifications.
On the other hand, It is never too late to wake up from the slumber, like millions upon millions of people have learned an unfortunate truth.
I am grateful there are those with the will, capacity and time to be self taught. I commend it. Unfortunately, society will not benefit from the sparse population of individuals who dedicate their time to learning history on their own.
John, one thread I keep coming back to in your framework is the idea that the US-Israel relationship is deeply embedded (almost “joined at the hip”) yet at the same time increasingly exposed to the same structural pressures you describe as reshaping the broader international system. In the transcript, you argue that the US is being forced by structure to pivot toward East Asia and China, while also being pulled into a far more consequential and unwinnable conflict with Iran, in large part because of its alignment with Israel. That creates a tension that feels qualitatively different from prior episodes of disagreement - less about policy divergence, and more about competing strategic imperatives operating on different time horizons.
So, the question I’m trying to sharpen is this: where, when, and under what conditions do those incentives begin to materially misalign in a way that actually stresses the relationship - not rhetorically, but structurally? Put differently, is there a plausible path in which the U.S., under pressure from a deteriorating global position (China containment, resource constraints, economic fallout from conflicts like Iran), begins to view its alignment with Israel as a net strategic liability rather than an asset? And if so, what would be the catalyst—does it emerge gradually through overstretch and reprioritization, or does it require a discrete event (for example, an escalation dynamic with Iran that the U.S. cannot control but is forced to absorb)?
Related to that, you make the point that domestic political constraints—particularly the influence of Israel and its supporters in the US - effectively limit Washington’s ability to cut a deal even when it is the only rational outcome. But that raises a second-order question: are there scenarios where structural pressures overwhelm those domestic constraints? In other words, what are the plausible pathways (from here) that could lead not just to tactical divergence, but to a genuine fracture in alignment? Is that something that only happens at the tail end of systemic stress (e.g., economic crisis, major military failure), or can it emerge earlier as part of the transition into a multipolar system you describe?
When the state of Israel was first formed about 80 years ago; Europe held HIGH HOPES for its future. Today the bulk of the Palestinian people are refugees in their own land. Current residents did not lose title just because God supposedly gave the area to the Jews several thousand years ago. That some number were evacuated from a relatively small area; does not mean we want to duplicate the exercise over a much larger area. In consequence Israel is surrounded by neighbors aggrieved by the manner with which the Palestinians have been treated. While both Netanyahu & Trump should be charged as TERRORISTS.
What went wrong is your assumed answer that you think involves players who EVER meant any good for humanity to come out of empire building. You and Glenn have spent that last 20 years replaying the same stale commentary about East and West rather than Wrong and Right. Every President and Congress gets away with it because you and we let them. Read new material... Deliver new material. It's not like people never told you.
"The government drew a different lesson. Not that the lies should stop. Not that the wars should end. Not that citizens deserved the truth about what was being done in their name. The lesson the government drew was that the mechanism of exposure had to be sealed shut."
Why do you never mention this when you discuss RuSSia, Ukraine and NATO. You all point to 2007, but you lack very important information on this matter.
In the early 2000s, Putin and Lavrov publicly took a very different position on Ukraine and NATO than the Kremlin does today.
In 2002, Putin stated that Ukraine’s possible NATO membership was a matter for Ukraine and NATO themselves, and that Ukraine had the sovereign right to make its own security decisions. He also said he did not believe such a move would necessarily damage Russia–Ukraine relations. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21614
“Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the way of ensuring its own security itself.”
In 2005, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly said that Ukraine and Georgia were free to choose whether they wanted closer integration with NATO or the EU, and that Russia would respect those decisions. https://www.rferl.org/a/1056670.html
This is important historical context because it shows that the Kremlin’s later claim that Ukrainian NATO membership was always an intolerable “existential threat” does not fully match Russia’s own public statements from that period.
Still can't figure out the "Reply" button? Smells like a Jacob Roth-schild-man sockpuppet.
The same zero content snipes.
So what's your persona this time, the rude 'wealthy 90-y/o Zionist atheist' one not working for ya anymore?
Seems pretty black/white to me. Try moving the goalposts on when this started back to the Zionist Rothschilds and their tidy post-WW1 Sykes/Picot carve-up of the Ottoman Empire. No caps required. At least to the 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically-elected Mossedegh, who dared to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The CIA installing the vicious, illegitimate dictator Pahlavi and his SAVAK thugs.
100 years is more than long enough putting up with Zio-US/European nonsense.
Ooh, use of capitalisation! As the state that sponsors the houthis, hamas and hezbollah, it's fair to say this is just the latest iteration in a conflict going since the late 70s. Given this malignant and very consistent animosity, your rather silly points become irrelevant in decisions made due to perceived existential imperatives. There is no black and white in this - the sides have severe conflicts of interests, and that's that.
Another(?) one who can't find the "Reply" button to tie your post to the thread... don't want your post to appear below others? You're already well off the initial page of comments. DUH. The Jacob Rothman Zio-troll pulled the same lame tactic, to no avail.
Claiming to be seeking the 'middle ground'... the Zionists are 'my way or the highway', and Trumpty and Nutty repeat that approach nearly daily. The US/Israel combine has continually demonstrated it is Negotiation and Agreement Incapable.
The US has been serially involved in inciting wars (direct and proxy), regime change and genocides for all but a couple decades of its warmongering existence. But that is ignored and politically rationalized (glorified?)as the Exceptionalist US 'defending, spreading' Democracy™.
In that same time, Persia/Iran STARTED how many wars, overthrew how many gov't/s worldwide? Other than a couple late-1700s, early-1800s defensive confrontations with (Now Ally) Russia, Iran attacked NO other countries. Just like the Iraq/Iran war was 100% defensive, with the US backing Iraq to use chemical WMDs. In short, NONE.
As noted, it supported other Shia groups/countries who were being attacked by... the US/Europeans and their Zio-satraps.
The Zio-propaganda machine is in full-throat mode, trying to cover for Trumpty Dumbdy and NuttyYahoo being unable to force the Iranians to bow to their blood-thirsty insanity.
Now the TACO US attack is next week... maybe losing another MQ drone and an air-tanker, Iran shooting back in general has set the CIA/Mossad military 'planners' back on their heels... Iran is DESTROYED, right? FAFO
EDIT: Apparently Saudi Arabia and Kuwait cut off US access to launch attacks from their bases and over-fly rights. There are also rumours the Saudis were the ones that bombed the Fujairah oil terminal.
In other news, the dogs of war bark and the international caravan moves on. The US Empire is a dead empire walking. It's over. Take the softer (not soft, but better than total collapse) landing offered by China/Russia or suffer the consequences.
From the Rothschild/WEF 'you will own nothing' video:
"The US will be one power among many in the coming Multipolar world."
Except it is not going to be on the Rothschild Great Reset terms.
Whether the Rothschild Class or China/Russia prevail, the US will no longer be the Sole Superpower, and not the strongest among the surviving powers.
“A one-man wrecking ball.” That’s what he’s here for. He did it first term and is finishing it up this term. Just an observation. Let me know what I’m missing? Remember the wrecking ball, is attached to a chain, which is attached to a vehicle with is operated by a system.
We haven't learned from history and keep repeating the same patterns of brutal expansion and the race for resources, with more devastating weapons and propaganda devices.
Why do you never mention this when you discuss RuSSia, Ukraine and NATO. You all point to 2007, but you lack very important information on this matter.
In the early 2000s, Putin and Lavrov publicly took a very different position on Ukraine and NATO than the Kremlin does today.
In 2002, Putin stated that Ukraine’s possible NATO membership was a matter for Ukraine and NATO themselves, and that Ukraine had the sovereign right to make its own security decisions. He also said he did not believe such a move would necessarily damage Russia–Ukraine relations. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21614
“Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the way of ensuring its own security itself.”
In 2004, Putin again stated that every country has the right to choose the security arrangements it considers best for itself. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22494
In 2005, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly said that Ukraine and Georgia were free to choose whether they wanted closer integration with NATO or the EU, and that Russia would respect those decisions. https://www.rferl.org/a/1056670.html
This is important historical context because it shows that the Kremlin’s later claim that Ukrainian NATO membership was always an intolerable “existential threat” does not fully match Russia’s own public statements from that period.
You can’t learn from history if you’re never taught it. As schools STEAM ahead, history and social studies get left behind.
I understand the sentiment.
I'm part of what is called gen x , I learned from history by asking my family a million questions, read a lot( good and bad books ), got to live in different parts of the world and always continue to this day to broaden my horizon.
As parents, we also owe it to our children to talk to them about what is not taught in school/ what is being taught through the lense of colonialism etc.
If there's a will, there's a way.
I live in he global south, so it might be a bit easier to remember the past as we still suffer from the ramifications.
On the other hand, It is never too late to wake up from the slumber, like millions upon millions of people have learned an unfortunate truth.
Security is an illusion.
I am grateful there are those with the will, capacity and time to be self taught. I commend it. Unfortunately, society will not benefit from the sparse population of individuals who dedicate their time to learning history on their own.
Agreed. Planting a seed alone does not result in a full grown forrest.
Our systems are designed to keep us busy with just surviving.
Change is never easy, smooth or without losses, human or otherwise.
But the status quo can not be maintained.
Something will and has to give.
Starting a seed at home is a first step, as our children and grandchildren will be our future.
So there will be yet another revolution of some sort, and again some form of history repeating itself.
Excellent discussion Professor Mearsheimer
CANADA
John, one thread I keep coming back to in your framework is the idea that the US-Israel relationship is deeply embedded (almost “joined at the hip”) yet at the same time increasingly exposed to the same structural pressures you describe as reshaping the broader international system. In the transcript, you argue that the US is being forced by structure to pivot toward East Asia and China, while also being pulled into a far more consequential and unwinnable conflict with Iran, in large part because of its alignment with Israel. That creates a tension that feels qualitatively different from prior episodes of disagreement - less about policy divergence, and more about competing strategic imperatives operating on different time horizons.
So, the question I’m trying to sharpen is this: where, when, and under what conditions do those incentives begin to materially misalign in a way that actually stresses the relationship - not rhetorically, but structurally? Put differently, is there a plausible path in which the U.S., under pressure from a deteriorating global position (China containment, resource constraints, economic fallout from conflicts like Iran), begins to view its alignment with Israel as a net strategic liability rather than an asset? And if so, what would be the catalyst—does it emerge gradually through overstretch and reprioritization, or does it require a discrete event (for example, an escalation dynamic with Iran that the U.S. cannot control but is forced to absorb)?
Related to that, you make the point that domestic political constraints—particularly the influence of Israel and its supporters in the US - effectively limit Washington’s ability to cut a deal even when it is the only rational outcome. But that raises a second-order question: are there scenarios where structural pressures overwhelm those domestic constraints? In other words, what are the plausible pathways (from here) that could lead not just to tactical divergence, but to a genuine fracture in alignment? Is that something that only happens at the tail end of systemic stress (e.g., economic crisis, major military failure), or can it emerge earlier as part of the transition into a multipolar system you describe?
When the state of Israel was first formed about 80 years ago; Europe held HIGH HOPES for its future. Today the bulk of the Palestinian people are refugees in their own land. Current residents did not lose title just because God supposedly gave the area to the Jews several thousand years ago. That some number were evacuated from a relatively small area; does not mean we want to duplicate the exercise over a much larger area. In consequence Israel is surrounded by neighbors aggrieved by the manner with which the Palestinians have been treated. While both Netanyahu & Trump should be charged as TERRORISTS.
In a nutshell, Trumps Brutish geopolitics.
The newly anointed King of the repackaged olde British Empire.
“The New World Order Refuses to Die Quietly"
China is rapidly undermining US power through economic development and trade links with countries around the world.
The US seeks to forestall and reverse this process through the political coercion of friends and conducting military assaults against foes.
What went wrong is your assumed answer that you think involves players who EVER meant any good for humanity to come out of empire building. You and Glenn have spent that last 20 years replaying the same stale commentary about East and West rather than Wrong and Right. Every President and Congress gets away with it because you and we let them. Read new material... Deliver new material. It's not like people never told you.
"The government drew a different lesson. Not that the lies should stop. Not that the wars should end. Not that citizens deserved the truth about what was being done in their name. The lesson the government drew was that the mechanism of exposure had to be sealed shut."
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/who-owns-your-life-or-whos-your-daddy
Thank You Sean
It sounded like ai.
The deep kimchi seems to have become the unalterable force of quicksand.
Let Europe and the UK go it alone. US should stop meddling in other countries especially with Trump in charge of the US.
Take your troops back and give the bases back.
Why do you never mention this when you discuss RuSSia, Ukraine and NATO. You all point to 2007, but you lack very important information on this matter.
In the early 2000s, Putin and Lavrov publicly took a very different position on Ukraine and NATO than the Kremlin does today.
In 2002, Putin stated that Ukraine’s possible NATO membership was a matter for Ukraine and NATO themselves, and that Ukraine had the sovereign right to make its own security decisions. He also said he did not believe such a move would necessarily damage Russia–Ukraine relations. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21614
“Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to choose the way of ensuring its own security itself.”
In 2004, Putin again stated that every country has the right to choose the security arrangements it considers best for itself. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22494
In 2005, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly said that Ukraine and Georgia were free to choose whether they wanted closer integration with NATO or the EU, and that Russia would respect those decisions. https://www.rferl.org/a/1056670.html
This is important historical context because it shows that the Kremlin’s later claim that Ukrainian NATO membership was always an intolerable “existential threat” does not fully match Russia’s own public statements from that period.
Ooh, more capitalisations. Yawn!
Still can't figure out the "Reply" button? Smells like a Jacob Roth-schild-man sockpuppet.
The same zero content snipes.
So what's your persona this time, the rude 'wealthy 90-y/o Zionist atheist' one not working for ya anymore?
Seems pretty black/white to me. Try moving the goalposts on when this started back to the Zionist Rothschilds and their tidy post-WW1 Sykes/Picot carve-up of the Ottoman Empire. No caps required. At least to the 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically-elected Mossedegh, who dared to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The CIA installing the vicious, illegitimate dictator Pahlavi and his SAVAK thugs.
100 years is more than long enough putting up with Zio-US/European nonsense.
Thomas Massie, who opposes this war, needs your help…
https://www.massiemoneybomb.com/?fbclid=IwdGRjcARoeWZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeRvGA1IFqZHKT9NEXNe1doocNa9fTm8Unn-T-Zq7FX_w3jrKRkqSnyMo9xQ8_aem_g6_cppsJ24KjSLYGpT4KFg
As opposed to the Fox and the ABC networks, what I get here are "...just the facts ma'am!"
Ooh, use of capitalisation! As the state that sponsors the houthis, hamas and hezbollah, it's fair to say this is just the latest iteration in a conflict going since the late 70s. Given this malignant and very consistent animosity, your rather silly points become irrelevant in decisions made due to perceived existential imperatives. There is no black and white in this - the sides have severe conflicts of interests, and that's that.
Another(?) one who can't find the "Reply" button to tie your post to the thread... don't want your post to appear below others? You're already well off the initial page of comments. DUH. The Jacob Rothman Zio-troll pulled the same lame tactic, to no avail.
Claiming to be seeking the 'middle ground'... the Zionists are 'my way or the highway', and Trumpty and Nutty repeat that approach nearly daily. The US/Israel combine has continually demonstrated it is Negotiation and Agreement Incapable.
The US has been serially involved in inciting wars (direct and proxy), regime change and genocides for all but a couple decades of its warmongering existence. But that is ignored and politically rationalized (glorified?)as the Exceptionalist US 'defending, spreading' Democracy™.
In that same time, Persia/Iran STARTED how many wars, overthrew how many gov't/s worldwide? Other than a couple late-1700s, early-1800s defensive confrontations with (Now Ally) Russia, Iran attacked NO other countries. Just like the Iraq/Iran war was 100% defensive, with the US backing Iraq to use chemical WMDs. In short, NONE.
As noted, it supported other Shia groups/countries who were being attacked by... the US/Europeans and their Zio-satraps.
The Zio-propaganda machine is in full-throat mode, trying to cover for Trumpty Dumbdy and NuttyYahoo being unable to force the Iranians to bow to their blood-thirsty insanity.
Now the TACO US attack is next week... maybe losing another MQ drone and an air-tanker, Iran shooting back in general has set the CIA/Mossad military 'planners' back on their heels... Iran is DESTROYED, right? FAFO
EDIT: Apparently Saudi Arabia and Kuwait cut off US access to launch attacks from their bases and over-fly rights. There are also rumours the Saudis were the ones that bombed the Fujairah oil terminal.
In other news, the dogs of war bark and the international caravan moves on. The US Empire is a dead empire walking. It's over. Take the softer (not soft, but better than total collapse) landing offered by China/Russia or suffer the consequences.
From the Rothschild/WEF 'you will own nothing' video:
"The US will be one power among many in the coming Multipolar world."
Except it is not going to be on the Rothschild Great Reset terms.
Whether the Rothschild Class or China/Russia prevail, the US will no longer be the Sole Superpower, and not the strongest among the surviving powers.
My TACO cartoon: https://substack.com/@nemopix/note/c-251393038?utm=
“A one-man wrecking ball.” That’s what he’s here for. He did it first term and is finishing it up this term. Just an observation. Let me know what I’m missing? Remember the wrecking ball, is attached to a chain, which is attached to a vehicle with is operated by a system.