Two fundamental issues with Mearsheimer’s views and philosophy: 1. Not everyone invades and violates the weak. The Chinese were in direct contact with southeastern Asian countries, Japan, Korea, and even African countries, way before the Westerners came. People in the countries would tell you: when the Chinese came, all they did was trading. When the Westerners came, they colonized us. And there’s a reason why the Chinese don’t like to colonize. A reason that’s somehow so hard for a Westerner to understand. But if you don’t learn from Chinese history and culture, maybe learn from your own history: why did the British empire collapse? Why did the Great Britain eventually have to let go of its rich colonies? Colonialism happened for resources and market. The paranoia today is that when China becomes strong, it may also colonize. Well, for what? China has its way to get resources and market - it already is doing that! And the crazy thing is that it can be done through this long-term, sustainable, mutually beneficial way, called TRADING! Have some respect for others. Have some god damn wisdom like a great country should have. 2. The great US spent so much efforts exerting its dominance. How has it benefited its people? I lived there for years. It’s the most messy and dangerous place I’ve ever lived, and I have no plan to go back. How much of your power and dominance is about adolescent childish hormone, and how much of it is about serving your own people and their long-term well-being? Do you really think that it makes you safe by dominating over and bullying others? People don’t kill by default. Don’t give them too many reasons to. What people in Washington don’t understand is something that people in China, Japan, Scandinavia take for granted: it pays to create an environment where everyone takes care of everyone. The best way to live a lovely life is not by dominating over others, but by creating a lovely environment where you treat others with respect, and everyone treats you with respect, where neighbors live in peace with each other, help each other, wish each other well. That’s a higher level of wisdom that Washington does not get. ---------- Update: I appreciate the support of these simple points, and the debate it generated. We are talking about long histories, and human nature, some of the most complex things, and there will be no absoluteness but full of nuances. I invite us to look at the BIGGER picture. And I add two fundamental points about the deepest topic - do human beings kill strangers when they see one, or live with them in peace? 1. Game theory. In a lecture a few videos before this one on Cambridge Union, Jefferey Sachs brought up this point, unprompted, likely because he had realized how fundamentally relevant this is for how people treat each other. It was explored in depth in Sapolsky's Behave as well. The problem posed by this discipline, as in Prisoner's Dilemma, is: if two people are to betray or cooperate with each other, where betrayal leads to small gain or both being killed, and cooperation leads to great mutual gain, what should people do? Different scenarios lead to different outcomes. Here I give you the brightest scenario, which is when people are playing infinite games where they have to deal with each other indefinitely, - the scenario closest to the global reality: cooperation is the clear best choice. Because cooperation builds trust, which breeds long-term cooperation. Two important additions: 1) What strategy to start with, when starting the game off where you don't know each other? Turns out, you want to start with cooperation, and assumption of trust. This gives the chance for trust and cooperation, while starting with betrayal sets you off for infinite betrayal. 2) In real world, there will be miscommunication, where betrayal or cooperation could be mistaken as the opposite. How do we cope? Again, the best is to assume misunderstanding the first time you detect betrayal. Only reciprocate after this is repeated strongly enough. 2. Human nature. Do human strangers kill or cooperate with each other. Both can be argued about human beings. One the one hand, we are tribal. We used to assume danger about those from a different tribe. On the other hand, human beings became the most successful species, and are so capable today, because we cooperate. We are social animals. Ask yourself who made the device you are using. Who built the foundational science for this to happen. It was based on thousands of years of cooperation, now at a global level. The distinguishing standard, in the primitive sense, turned out to be whether we recognize a person as belonging to the same or opposite side. "Us vs them" judgment. Are you one of us, or one against me? Both can be argued. Human beings are all different, and differences can and have always been used as the basis for deciding they are not one of us, until we realized otherwise: skin color, thoughts/religions, cultures, clothing styles, ... But we have reasons, stronger than ever, to believe that we are all in this together, as one. 1) We now know that we are ONE SPECIES. Our apparent differences are so superficial. We feel similarly, with the same instincts, and we can reproduce with each other to make wonderful children. 2) We face common enemies beyond whatever is between us - climate change, environmental and ecological deterioration, technology development, ... All of these require us to WORK TOGETHER. No one country or pact can solve it alone without full commitment from the others. As Kishore Mahbubani said, our little boats are now connected into this big ship, and it is sinking. Closing our doors, or worse yet, focus on sinking other's boat now, would be the stupidest thing to do, when we should be taking care of our collective future. I live in Denmark these days. Along the streets are signs I haven't seen elsewhere: drawings of little children playing, with words "PAS PÅ MIG" - TAKE CARE OF ME. Shouldn't we do that?
Correct! The reason why the West is aggressive towards the others around the world, is because the West as a civilization is fundamentally built on the law of the jungle. In their eyes the strong eat the weak and the weak deserves to be eaten by the strong. That's justice in their eyes.
Spot on. I am European (parents from Europe and I am a citizen) but also was born and raised in the U.S. The U.S. will not look out for anyone else but itself. What Mearsheimer said is what the U.S. foreign policy is. That is precisely why it is a fast declining empire, and with that, it’s hegemony will end.
@@ArdiantothehulkNo, it doesn’t. There aren’t 20 and the nations are used by the U.S. to instigate China . You really can’t be that gullible . I am European and American. You have no clue about geopolitics if you think what you said is accurate.
I am an American, of course I don't want America to decline. What I want is for America to be less of a bull in a china shop. To stop fomenting wars everywhere as the number one solution to everything. More carrot, less stick. More internal self-improvement and investment, less sabotaging of others. IMHO, that's what is best for America and its citizens.
This is not a competition, also what people say is "pro-American" is actually top 10% in America. You should be pro-humanity first, pro-American second. I don't like zero-sum games. China reduced their population so they aren't really a threat by themselves, I think giving natural resources/ports of Australia and Canada to ASEAN, Indian, and Chinese people can stimulate innovation and reduce prices thus be good for 90% of Americans not just the top 10%.
@ To me, what is pro-America is helping lift up the entire world. With cooperation as the main tool. Not regime change ops. As a world, we need to phase out these geo-political Machiavellian schemes which seems to be what EVERYBODY is doing constantly.
In a jungle, a man wants to be strong so no one can bully him. A bully wants to be strong so he can bully others. John should state clearly which he thinks US is.
if you watch other lectures of his it is clear that his view is that the US (and any country) should strive to be strong so no one can bully him. However the US foreign policy establishment, which professor mearsheimer frequently disagrees with, believes otherwise. this is a little more complex than this, since prof's view is that the us foreign policy establishment wants to be strong (global hegemon) not necessarily so that it can be a bully for the sake of being a bully, but so that it can spread liberal democracies around the world in with a "liberal hegemony" foreign policy. the rationale is that democracies don't fight each other so if the US turns every nation into a liberal democracy, we can all live happily and get rich. I would say mr mearsheimer has a generous take on the rationale of the us foreign policy establishment. Regardless, Professor argues this is a misguided, delusional, and dangerous foreign policy, chiefly beacuse of nationalism, i.e people don't want Americans or anyone else telling them how to live and how to govern their societies. Other people would argue that the US foreign policy establishment wants power just for the sake of power, i.e. to be a bully and get its way no matter what
To be precise, we live in a jungle called Earth, and we don't want to suffer, so we make ourselves stronger, find strong allies, or move to a place where there are no bullies. America was built by people who ran away from bullies.
i've been a full-time independent political consultant/journalist since 2010. My Voting Bloc of 3,500 is doing everything it can to make sure that we outlaw all PACs, including AIPAC AND reducing significantly the influence of money in politics.
@@jacobsolace177 I wish you luck with getting rid of PACs. I have a deeper question for you ,however . Since running election campaigns involve a lot of money and most certainly one's own money can not do it all, how do you prevent an elected individual from being beholden either to a PAC or any major contributor (s) and therefore , in reality , serve those who paid for their election rather than serve those who elected them ? If this question could be adequately be answered , then the US would be a democracy rather than an oligarchy which ,in reality , it truly is .
@@edvsilas8281 Don't wish me luck. Luck has nothing to do with it. Instead, devote your time, energy, resources, and talents to the political process, esp the campaigns, to make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise/most Intelligent among us become our public servants. In addition, help build a Majority Voting Bloc in your city/town/village.
Western countries brought this on themselves, China has invested enormously in their own people, especially for poor and lifting 800 millions out of poverty, Chinese growth and power is based on solid foundation. US strength is built on trickle down economy.
They have also invested in building infrastructure in Africa. The U.S. and Europe, on behalf of the U.S., have only dominated foreign countries, not invested in them.
Not promoting just stating a fact. Nuke can't necessarily protect you. Your territory can be protected from attacks maybe but what about your trade and business interests and so many different interests!?
@AnuragSinha7 Don't forget to add my possible interests in your wife too... How about the major powers openly recognize the risks each may face, and make joint plans, in the spirit of Zhu Rongji. If I'm the biggest and baddest, then I end up ruining my own family, like a cancer from within... over time, greed instead of mutually respectful negotiating. People in China would gladly adopt Mearsheimer as a citizen. We won't be naive about potential nefariousness, but the habit of seeing human groups as distinctly separate is long past its sell-by date🌍
@@TheArkwelder Those obsessives will always try to capture a society. What JM is saying encourages the rest of us to concede that they're being sensible (even tho we deplore all their exploitation of others and [mini-]gxnxcxdes), because otherwise corresponding badasses in China will eventually humiliate us. But there is a much better way in an interconnected world, which is why I mentioned Zhu Rongji 🌌🌦️🌱
His argument promotes colonialism! Having power isn't inherently wrong, but abusing it to colonize people worldwide, exploit their natural resources, and offer nothing in return is unacceptable. This includes committing genocide and other atrocities. In contrast, China's foreign policy prioritizes fair trade, not colonization or genocide." In that sense, countries of the Global South, after centuries of humiliation, welcome the decline of such abusive power. Western power is like a knife in a child's hands, recklessly harming others! This power is dangerous and must be stopped.
Mearsheimer appears to (perhaps unwittingly) embody several contradictions in his core arguments. On one hand, he acknowledges that we are now in a multipolar geopolitical landscape, yet he also expresses a preference, as an American, for maintaining American dominance. He argues that in the absence of a single universal power, there is no entity to turn to for help in the event of an invasion. At the same time, he condemns the genocide in Gaza, asserting that the United States is complicit due to its support of Israel through arms, funding, and technology. This support is enabled precisely by the US’s dominant position, which allows it to back Israel unchallenged. The contradiction lies in Mearsheimer’s moral stance against genocide, while simultaneously advocating for the continuation of American supremacy. If the US’s dominance enables actions like the support of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, how can he reconcile his opposition to genocide with his desire for the US to retain its status as the world’s most powerful nation? The question thus arises: if Mearsheimer is genuinely opposed to genocide on moral grounds, how can he justify the pursuit of American dominance that, in his view, contributes to enabling such atrocities?
Whilst he seeks dominance, it is a dominance of a different kind. He often refers to the blob, and elite within the US that are driven by the Jewish Lobby, amongst others, and not the average US citizen. It is this dominat lobby thats leads the US to sunconditionall support the genocide in isreal and its "foolish actions". Foolish because he maintains that Isreal does not have suiffient power and needs or wishes to draw the US into the conlfict to serve its selfish and foolish aims/goals.
You need to listen to what he says carefully. As an American he wants the US to maintain his power but he also expects the US to use that power in a responsible manner. He is saying that the US is abusing its dominant power to help with a genocide which is wrong as American power should not be used in such a way.
Suppose an elephant worries about crushing insects when going to the watering hole. The clever elephant avoids the larger insects, but still crushes the smaller ones. It's the same thing. There is no contradiction.
@@michaelotieno6524 Thats is what I alluded to. Remember this is but one forum where he speaks on specific issues but in others he goes into far more detail. And in his view the dominant power, you refer to, is due to the "elites and lobbies"from which he claimssuch irresponsible or fooolish foreihm policy decisions eminate. And recall that is his realist view where military might plays a great role.
As an American, we can not go back to where we were. It cost too much money and there is non left. We ran our coarse. We can still be one of the powerful countries, but need to come to our truth, we need to prepare for the new economies and stop making wars. We can survive a depression, rebuild and we have everything we need here. But we can not come back from a nuclear exchange! Europeans will be fine without us, they are smart, resourceful, innovative, peaceful. They are ready to thrive on their own. Us Americans need to move beyond cold war verbiage, come to our reality, and join the whole world in peace and cooperation!
I agree 100%. But, we seem stuck with a structure that includes corrupt politicians, self-serving think tanks, foundations, lobbies, an entrenched, so-called "deep state" that caters to non-governmental forces such as the military-industrial complex, and a host of other groups--even international ones, such as the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations, etc., etc. How to get out of this structure?
I love Mearshimer, but I disagree with the idea that, for us to be strong, we must contain and/or beat down other countries. People and countries should have relationships that are mutually beneficial and friendly
That's not what he says. He says that that is what countries do. Not what they should do. He argues that they will never stand the mere existence of an existential threat even if said entity is temporarily friendly because that status may change at any time. Jeffrey Sachs's stance is "we'll all be better off if we fight that instinct", but Mearsheimer thinks that because a failure is existential, leaders will never accept even an attempt at cooperation. So, for him, since a war is inevitable, we have to root for "our" side to win. But he's said in the past that "in his heart", he'd like it if Sachs was right.
What he says comes from his heart, he is just hiding his colonial mindset behind ‘reality’. Jeff called him out lately at same venue: (John’, be more realistic’!)
@@user_ar6332 Hmm. maybe they could just scaremonger but not fight and sell you weapons just in case. Then create an improved version and sell you those, a bit like your iPhone .... I know, I know, they need a test ground and ..... the Izzies oblige. Sad. Oh so sad and tragic.
it is impossible dream or to put it in other way it is utopia even though evolution have made us to think that peace is possible but in International Politics it had always been "war of all against all" be it the case of Sapiens vs Neanderthal or Peloponnesian war. only weak would think that peace is possible in international politics.
@ And only the uninformed would think it is not possible. Your idea that only “weak” would think peace is possible is the entire problem. That mentality is an obstruction to peace, and you have control over how you think. So, it’s possible to change. We aren’t Neanderthals nor the less evolved Sapiens from that time. So, you are trying to compare current humanity to that? That isn’t even a relevant comparison. We have evolved. We may not have peace among individuals at all points in life, but it is possible among nations. I suggest you read work by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs who was an actual diplomat and advised leaders around the world, including several U.S. presidents. He is a professor at Columbia and an expert in economics and public policy. He and Dr. Mearsheimer, of course, know each other but have some different perspectives. Once money is taken out of politics and lobby no longer has the control it does, peace is very much possible. The nation instigating most of the wars around the world for the past 80 years in the name of “democracy” and to keep nations destabilized was guess who.
Well the reality is that nothing last forever. Doing a simple analogy, you don't expect a child to never grow up. And if you were raising a kid under terror (as the US does with the world), the moment that kid is a grown up, get ready to suffer the anger that has been consuming him. Once his fear is gone your power is over. I just hope for the good of everyone the US change his foreign policy and accept that they are not an hegemony anymore, otherwise, the results for the world and specially for them are going to be catastrophic. There are not good or bad guys in a geopolitical game, everyone just want to survive, and Im absolutely sure we can all survive, but greed and power have consume the US from its roots, and that is going to end up really bad. A peacefully world is possible, hopefully it will be achieved in less than a 100 years.
The real danger is not China but India and they can't be reason with. If one watches closely its not even a real country but a byproduct of a British Raj. They are the perfect example of one can have a PHD but still be an idiot. Its all in the behaviour. They are not Asians despite the geography but something else. They are the generation that was colonized by the British into slavery unlike China and few lucky nation like Nepal and Bhutan. That alone explains why Nepal and Bhutan folks are polar opposite with no history of a genocide because of race, religion or creed and in terms of behaviour compared to India, Pakistan, Srilanka and Bangladesh.
@@Odetofreedom21 🙏👏 you said exactly what i wanted to say. John is after all an American old fashioned patriot. He cannot fathom that a world of equals can actually live peacefully
@@ahmedkhalifa5190my friend! John isn't stating his opinion, he is just stating basic nature of empires. No one likes to lose its power and a second most big economic power soon to be biggest economy would not want to listen to a so called "superpower". Two tigers can't live in a jungle neither two swords can be at one place. Its just nature of things. While I would also like to want what you want but that's just not possible. Our history says the same just for proof.
@ why must we be tigers at all ? We are humans …. His same thinking actually means democratic societies can never truly exist because everyone won’t feel secure unless they are the strongest … it is not so hard to establish a new world order with a real conflict resolution body … it already exists btw .. undemocratic Veto screwed it up …
It's not greed that makes the US not wanting to hand over its seat, but security. China will some day certainly surpass the US in power if it's not kept in check and this terrifies the US greatly because there's no guarantor (there's no world government) that China will not do something bad to the US once it has become stronger.
Professor John J. Mearsheimer argues in favor of an imperialistic America under the guise of self-defense-a perspective that seems flawed. Mearsheimer also describes China as an imperialistic power, possibly to justify his view of America, yet historically, China has not pursued imperialism. Even at the height of its power, when it could have dominated other nations, China refrained from doing so. China’s current actions are aimed at self-defense against global imperialist threats, with the U.S. being the most dominant. This naturally brings China’s focus to the U.S., limiting American imperial ambitions. While other countries, such as Russia and Iran, may have imperialistic tendencies, they lack the strength to directly counter U.S. power. However, as Mearsheimer suggests, they could benefit from China’s rising influence to better counterbalance American dominance.
It's so stupid and self-disguising that a country like the US do have two oceans for protection and still feel threatened. That's ridiculous! They are still playing "world police" in reality!
China isn’t expansionist or colonialist in the way Offensive Realism presumes all actors to be. It’s culturally antithetical and obviously an unwise long term plan. China has only imitated western stratagems in so far as doing so was absolutely necessary to compete. Anyone can see this. It just doesn’t mesh well with Realism, which was developed by westerners to understand and predict the offensive patterns of other western powers. And it presumes a level of short term thinking vis-à-vis power acquisition that China would find childish.
@@luklauw maybe 🤔 At the same time he is a realist my friend. It's in nature of nation states to dominate others. America won't accept China as it's peer competitor for obvious reasons but at the same time why should China take orders from America or western nations!? That doesn't make sense. Also after this why would China want it's peer competitor's presence in its backyard 🤔 that's crazy. And this start loss of face and loss of dominance for US and accumulation of hegemonic power for China. But then things start get rolling; it will start thinking in bigger terms. Then China would want it's dominance in other areas and again there would be confrontation. So he is fundamentally right.
He’s completely wrong about pivoting. Why doesn’t the US including Europe just concentrate on their own economies and infrastructure which is falling apart
hes saying that based on realist perspective and relation between nation,.. not on what national budget prioritize for,.. please read some realist book,.. and u will understand
Sadly, Prof. John Mearsheimer is promoting his understanding of the world, and treating it as the way it should be, the law of the jungle, the might is right, which is the law of the bully, without morality, like animals. But we human beings can do better than that, to cooperate and collaborate for a better future for humans.
@@w.z.6062 John is absolutely right. Every nation has its own survivability as the highest priority if it gets pressed. Also, he doesnt promote it he merely explain how it works.
Sadly we have defined artificial boundaries what we call as nations. John is explaining the eccentricity of humans in general and their need to defend their own tribes. Besides John considers himself a realist and he makes sense.
Dr. Meersheimer is quite knowledgeable and very congenial. I am happy and grateful at this encounter with erudition and character together with good heart. He's helped me be at ease with those who's politica isn't mine and pay attention to experience from which there is much to learn. I count myself a respectful student.
To your reply, my dad would have said, "Don't insult the animals." 😊 When I think of the documented cases when animals have protected the young of other animal species, as well as the cases of animals that have protected HUMAN children, it becomes difficult for me to rate us humans as a higher species. But, yes, I get your point. My county's "leaders" are operating solely on a plane called materialism.
Mearsheimer isn’t advocating for love of power, hence the title of his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” We all want to get out of it but it’s a tragedy because there is no way out, because the anarchic structure of the international system determines the dynamic.
This is the true face of the USA, the man doesn't mince his words, Unfortunately the old man forgets one thing!! A country that pushes other countries around and exploits them has to pay the price at some point, and the price is the country's downfall. That's exactly what's happening to the USA right now. But one thing still needs to be said, his words are the same words that German politicians used back then before World War II broke out, this one just uses them a little differently, more contemporary I would think. But basically everything he says is irrelevant, the real power has no country or only one person, He knows exactly who has this power, would he tell us ?? No, he wouldn't... death would be the Consequence.
@@bartsolari5035 My friend, I have no respect for stupidity, and certainly not for the ancient tribal ideas of the world and how the world should be. The old man should rather play chess in a retirement home instead of poisoning young minds with his nonsense. Humanity should EVOLVE, but instead everyone is doing the same nonsense that they did a thousand years ago. How long do we want to listen to people like that before we understand that there are other ways to live together ? As a People of Planet Earth
The problem with your vision is its in your head and all the pesky people who disagree are reality. The next step for the many who have the vision is to get power and use force to remove those who disturb the vision. There is nothing new under the sun.
I hit $113k today. Thank you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started last month 2024. Financial education is indeed required for more than 70% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject.
It's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Myself, I'm guided by Evelyn Vera. for years and highly recommend her I focus on him. To be honest, I almost didn't buy the idea of letting someone handle growing my finance, but so glad I did.
@@PfunkGW it takes understanding of history and of power to realize that what he said is true. But it's pointless to try to explain it to spoiled europeans who live in their priviledged bubble
Professor Mearsheimer is respectable for his unwavering intellectual and moral support to the Palestinians during these dark times with Israel on genocidal rampage. But here he's being problematic، if not evil، by defending the US' being "baddest dude". It creates a fissure and dissonance in his argument about genocide in Gaza۔ the baddest dude USA is sponsoring it on material، diplomatic and military levels ۔ you can't possibly end that contradiction without critiquing USA
Bro he is just stating a theory. It's not what he wants it's what he thinks will happen based upon observation and historical experiences. It's a theory 🙏🏻
@@thejibberful I know, and I’ve read the book. What I am saying is that despite exposing AIPAC’s pernicious influence on the US politics, and the US’ malign hegemonic politics that has been creating havoc globally, he still wants the ‘baddest US’ be dominant. In other words, he doesn’t encourage a policy change to stabilize the international system, only a continuation of US being the one calling the shot.
@ I see what you mean. He is pretty explicit in saying the US is complicit in the genocide. Maybe a culdesac he didn’t want to wade into? Hes been skeptical of international systems because they are composed of nation states, which can’t have higher authority over them, and leaders can never know what each-other are thinking. They have to judge on capability, yada yada.
I love Professor Mearshimer , but his preaching doesn't make sense. The US and Great Britain are not the most important countries in the world, every country is important. The world as a whole rejected the USA and British hegemony, and he still is living in colonial past thinking.
How the world rejected it? There are lots of countries who still do what US tells them to do - look at EU for example. If USA tells them to shot themselves in the foot - that's what they are going to do. Great example is Germany, their entire industrial complex benefited from cheap Russian gas but there is no Russian gas anymore. We may not see the concequences immediately but prices will skyrocket in the future for sure. Mearsheimer did not say US and UK are the most important ones, he says they act like they are the most important. US is clearly trying to dominate not only the western hemisphere but the entire world.
THIS GOT TO DO WITH THEIR LEARNING...IN THE WEST..MOST OF THE ELITE STUDIED GAME THEORY...It is about competition and winning...winner takes all.....Lucky the chinese..hv a different direction..And yes Ask John Mersheimer and he will tell you America is the bad guy.!
Didn't you hear his point? No one can represent the world. They can only look out for their own interests. Now, if your saying their should only be one world government that would be another thing...of course I'm not happy about this, my hope is we could find a better way of dealing with each other. One in which everyone benefits. However, the only way in which I see this possible is if everyone agrees to not be as powerful as they wish to be. To accept less economic growth in return for an agreement on security. By the way you should see Jeffrey Sachs speech at Cambridge, I hope his views win out. It's to humanities interest.
Stop pointing your commanding finger and know that obsession with Power never got y'all nothing but deceit.. y'all could never bring back the million human lives taken from your obsession with power !!!
I can’t see any good in American foreign policy since WW2 everything they have interfered in has caused disaster from Vietnam to Afghanistan . USA are amateurs.
Really? And how many wars has Europe endured in the past 75 years vs how many wars has the Middle East or sub-Sahara Africa endured over the last 75 years? The truth is, the EU has had 75 years of relative peace compared to the 2 aforementioned areas, and that is due to detente with the USSR and then USA's dominance. Long decades of relative peace isn't a "more dangerous" place...
This Professor for all his age and intelligence does not have Wisdom and Morality. Speaking of Primacy and Hegemon and advocating it to the younger generation is really bad. Not all other Leaders share his concept of Power. To be strong and powerful and yet spread Peace, Harmony with Mutual Respect and Friendship that should be the Way to live.
He is saying things as they are, doesn't matter if you don't like it, but things still are and always will be as they are. China , USA Russia, everyone wants to be the most powerful country
I agree with you but you are getting some dreadful replies about "it's the way things are" ie from people who probably think it's perfectly okay to kill and maim babies, toddlers and youngsters because "it's the way things are". Some of humanity is plain inhumane. It's the way things are, dontcha know.
Yelling, pointing fingers and trying to intimidate people with “what ifs.” Yeah, let’s escalate hostilities and more wars!!! NOT!!! This is the face of American Foreign Policy - Ughhhh🤮 This guy is THE boogeyman if ever I’ve seen one.
Europe's best interest is to build itself, not to rely on the US to survive. FYI, Europe will still not survive with US support. EU does not have the right mindset & leadership to do what it needs to be done to build back Europe as a major economic power.
Nor does it have anything to gain from a strong Europe. It' also funny that people fail to mention that the US is run by self-interested oligarchs, who never think things through more than they have to. In other words, they take things one step at a time, with no real masterplan - other than what makes them more money.
You miss his point. Without the Americans there is no "Europe". It goes back to being separate countries with different interests who stop cooperating and begin to fear each other again.
Mearsheimer'biggest mistake is that he thinks that all nations and cultures assume the American way is the way to go. No, the Chinese and the Russians think differently. The US is primarily yang whereas the Chinese and Russians are yin.
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt no you are wrong. Just because you call yourself a country doesn't change human nature. Is human nature to take advantage of the weak at some point. You can brag about your culture or different philosophies but ultimately human nature does not change
@@Prayforpeace1109 all of this misses the core point of the conversation. This has nothing to do with nation or culture, and everything to do with capital and imperialism.
Prof Mearsheimer. You did a few big overlooks. And the first big overlook is that American dominance in the world does not mean peace in the world. It means more money to the American Elite who supports the killing of Palestinian children. Now: 1. With China dominant in East Asia, will there be more peace or Security in the region than now? History says. These people lived together for more than 1000s of years before American arrival. They know each other better than you. 2. American Hegemony gave a Carte Blanche for murdering Palestinian children. Thus American hegemony lacks justice. It is solely based on the interests of American elites. 3. Europe does not tolerate a "police" on its ground. That happened with Russia after they defeated Napoleon. Nicolas the first was called Gendarme of Europe and was soon expelled from Europe. 4. Europe is a big nuclear power with 440 mln people. They do not need America to protect them. 5. Culturally, Russia and Europe are more similar than America and Europe. However, America bought Europe via Marshal's plan, which does not mean that mere Europeans like Americans, especially latin-speaking part of it. They call you Anglo-Saxes. Which puts you and England in the same basket of unwelcomed powers.
Well said. You clearly brought out the contradictions in his various arguments for Russia, Gaza and US hegemony. He just can't see it despite his sweet little smile and twinkly eyes.
He never made the argument that American dominance means "peace in the world." In fact, he outright acknowledges that it's all a matter of points of view ("In China's point of view, American hegemony is not a good thing"). He also directly says "I'm not making the argument that America is some noble or virtuous nation," and "my argument is NOT one that says 'we want to keep the United States...really powerful because it is a virtuous nation." His argument is not some sort of morality judgement about how states should act, it merely explains WHY states act the way they do. No offense, but one of the fundamental mistakes people like you tend to make is acting like Realist theory ascribes some sort of morality judgement or message to the world. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs on who the "good guys that bring peace" or the "bad guys that bring chaos" are.
@ViperOfMino. I argue that there is no justification for dominance other than peace. This is not because peace is inherently more moral than rational, but because in both World Wars, the involvement of the United States was primarily to help bring about peace. During World War I and World War II, U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, respectively, established efforts such as the League of Nations, which was later modified into the United Nations, aimed at bringing nations together to create sustainable peace. Within the UN, five nations oversee this process through the Security Council. NATO was originally created as an alliance to counterbalance the Soviet threat. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO transitioned from a balancing structure to an increasingly aggressive one. Consequently, the U.S. has shifted from its former role as a peacekeeper to that of an aggressor. There is no logical or rational justification for aggression. It creates a nonsense.
@@armensanosyan I agree with everything you said, but there's one particular word you're using that also shows me you misunderstand what John's realist theory (well he didn't CREATE it but you get what I mean), which is the perspective he's arguing from and not his own personal beliefs, does. That word is "justification." The other mistake people tend to make is that they think John is trying to "justify" something. Like, people say "John is justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine." He's never "justified" it, he's just explained the reason that the event occurred according to realist theory. In this popular/colloquial sense, "justify" is inherently placing a moral value judgment on him choosing to invade Ukraine. You also say, "there is no logical or rational justification for aggression," and a realist would argue that, strictly speaking in the academic sense, there is a rational justification for it. That rational justification is, it's better for a nation to be aggressive (that is, materially/strategically better; MORALS have nothing to do with it) if it will improve their security situation more than the alternatives. This isn't to say it's always the SMART move to be aggressive (value rationality vs. instrumental rationality), or that nations will ALWAYS choose to be aggressive or uncooperative with others, but if being aggressive is the rational choice (again, strictly in the academic way it's used in IR), then a nation will choose to be aggressive. This all hinges on the idea that Realist theory asserts that the primary goal for any state is security, and the best (or even only) way to guarantee that security is to be materially stronger than your competitors. How you get to that point of being materially stronger may or may not be through aggressive means, but "balance of power" is the name of the game in one way or another.
@@ViperOfMino Thank you for explaining. I got your point, and I got his point. His point is very primitive. The logic he follows, and as far as you do, could explain the behavior of all Empires including Mongols and Nazis. If you are telling me the reality is what happens in real-time, and we cannot argue, just because it is a fact, that is not true. He brings suggestions for the US to stay in Europe. As far as the reality and the aggression goes, Mongols and Nazis were aggressive, too, and they had all the materials they wanted. Yet they disappeared. My point is simple. The US's real role beyond its border must be a "peacekeeper". However, It became an Empire now. Now, John's suggestions are to modify some aspects of the Empire, but keep it as an Empire. My argument is that as an Empire, the US will be destroyed. One proof of that is the BRICS. It is destroying the US dollar. Slowly, gradually, but steadily it does. The reason for that was the US Imperialism. Economically, the materials the US gains do not reach its people. It goes to the pockets of the elite. Doesn't it remind you of Rome at the end of its era? the US had to go back to its role around the UN Security Council table. With the bias and aggression, it will turn the world against him. Simply, the country that organized a Nurenber trial is being complicit in genocide. This is nonsense.
Depends on what you mean by liberalism. For what it's worth, John's school of thought is considered the opposite of liberalism in international relations theory.
John has a lecture called the false promises of liberalism. Its here on youtube,its a 3 part lecture and thats the title of one of the 3 segments of the lecture. Just saying.
You cannot give the example of Ukraine as "one of the mess US created" and then say, we (US) are the biggest and baddest that's why we tried expanding NATO to Ukraine despite Russia's asking of not to do so. In the arrogance of being the global dominator or "the biggest and baddest kid on the block", Prof Mearsheimer/US can't just destroy countries (whether its Ukraine/Russia conflict or Israel/Gaza conflict). Another thing is, he is praising China for understanding the importance of being a dominant power and blaming the last century's treatment of China by the rest of the world for it. Well, major blame for the mistreatement of Russia and China in the last century lies on the US.
USA is a bully and he’s not apologising. According to him, big power does what big powers do. Ukraine was not a mistake so much of a miscalculation. Russia was supposed to fail and broken up with all its resources seized. Instead, Russia thrives and was driven towards China.
you are misunderstanding him fundamentally. Prof mearsheimer has many disagreements with what the US foreign policy establishment actually does, he disagrees with what we did in Ukraine and in Gaza. His view of global politics is amoral. He thinks that in terms of security, nations (should) simply do what is in their national interest which is to 1) be as powerful as possible and 2) if you are a regional hegemon, ensure there are no other regional hegemons on the planet because only regional hegemons are free to roam. He argues that we shouldn't have messed around in Ukraine because Russia was not a regional hegemon and not even a threat to ever be one. and we certainly should not be messing around in gaza beacuse that is of no interest to the US, and we only do because of the israel lobby.
When Israeli sports teams visit your country, they occupy you. When you fight back, your own gov't turns against you; calling you thugs, hooligans, terrorists, and antisemites. Look at what happened in Amsterdam. Western media and Gov'ts went full Goebells on the matter defending Israelis chanting racist epithets accusing Netherland citizens as antisemites. Embarassing.
Hello!! how do you make such monthly? I am a born Christian, and sometimes I feel so down 🤦♂️ of myself because of low finance, but I still believe God.✝️
After I raised up to 825k trading with her, I bought a new house, and a car here in the also paid for my 10-year-old son's states 🇺🇲🇺🇲 brain surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time, but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of RUclips videos about it but I still find it hard to understand.
This is the first time I have witnessed Professor John J. Mearsheimer speak so aggressively, ambitiously and power-hungry. It's a shame that he says it doesn't matter whether we have the power, good or bad. Frankly, he has no value in my eyes anymore.
Being the biggest bully also invites continual fights with others who want to be on top...it is not security, it is a recipe for eventual demise. This guy's arrogance and pride are exactly what I hate about our country. But hey...you people elected the biggest bully around...reap what you sow.
Arguably the problem with this realism is that the realism itself by this specific definition realistically it seems to be a broken path, if all parties went by this realism it seems the future of humanity seems to be realistically doomed.
Daniel saw the stone cut out without hands break all earthly empires to pieces and grow to be a great mountain. Christ will set up an eternal kingdom based on love, joy, and peace. And greedy, power-hungry, hypocritical so-called Christians will not be there.
Realism doesn't mean that every nation is always going to go to war with each other all the time, or that cooperation can't occur. In fact, a realist might say that the Cold War was able to conclude without a hot war between the USA and USSR because the security dilemma, AKA the arms race, reached a point where nuclear war was the only inevitable outcome; Nuclear war was an existential threat for both nations (and remember that every nation's number 1 priority is their own security/sovereignty), so the only outcome was for the conflict to die down without a hot war. I highly suggest you do some more research on the topic, and that you also look up other realist schools of thought such as "defensive realism." It just so happens that Mearsheimer is giving lectures and debating on hot conflicts during a time where crises are indeed happening in every theater of the world, so the topics are going to sound bleak. Because bleak stuff is going on. In fact, one of his main arguments is that if NATO didn't try to expand to Ukraine (and I'm not getting into a debate about this lol). then this war would have never happened. Not to make this a short essay, but I'm almost done with my IR degree in university, so I've become pretty familiar with the theories and their concepts/arguments/perspectives/applications.
@@ViperOfMino like realism/nationalism itself, the premise of your argument is very shaky. If you listen to Meirshiemer explain what he means by “realism”, he is quite clear that in his opinion nation states/humans are inherently selfish and will always be at war either physically or economically, and that any co-operation is simply a means-to-an-end, a way to gain some sort of strategic advantage for themselves over others. That’s a generalisation and actually historically inaccurate (there were no organised wars fought before 2500BC). The second is that it assumes that the ancient and frankly outdated system of capitalism/imperialism is the best and only way that human civilisation can be organised. Which is evidenced by the lack of solutions or alternatives put about by those who subscribe to that school. Personally I don’t care about things “sounding bleak” or the way they sound at all really, all I care about is the truth. And if you’re going to call your perspective “Realism” then it had better be realistic.
Thus guys yelling and pointing fingers is a sign of a bully. How would you expect someone to respond? Either with more aggression or terrified into committing awful acts of violence.
The underlying issue here is the lingering notion of Western superiority, with some in the West viewing themselves as inherently more advanced than Asian cultures, perhaps rooted in the early industrial revolution. However, times are changing, and it's becoming increasingly clear that the era of Western dominance-and the values tied to it-is gradually coming to an end.
You view Western culture as opposed to Asian, as if Western means Caucasian, and you could not be more wrong. Western values are ones of freedom, and its enemy is the authoritarianism typical of non-Western countries (prominently China, Russia, Iran, Egypt and to a lesser extent Brazil, South Africa and India). Is freedom superior? Depends what you mean by superior. Would I rather leave in a free but "inferior" country? Absolutely.
Ironically, Chinese belief in their superiority is much more prevalent than the inverse. This arrogance leads to a belief in their own moral superiority, amongst other things. All the while it is clear that they are not even mature enough to handle criticism and open discussion. This makes them much more dangerous for humanity than they understand. I've lived abroad in countries where you have immigrants from all over the world operating businesses. The employees will tell you the Chinese are the worst people to work for. Be careful.
Dr. Mearsheimer, I have a deep admiration and respect for you especially for the position you have taken in calling the Palestine conflict a genocidal and terrible war. Regarding your view of US being a military power, with the capacity to crush the bullies of the world, in that I disagree. It might have been acceptable in the NY of your childhood to be the bully of the block but I don't think it is the appropriate stance in the 21 century. I think that to keep fomenting the idea of a super power, the one that "protects" Europe against these bad guys is to continue fomenting a bully mentality that is not conducive to peace. It is conducive to domination and a war like mentality. With all due respect, and you might think that my stance is idealistic, even foolish. I think that since we all live in one planet, a fragile one at that, that instead of harboring a bully mentality of superiority and we begin by actively creating a mentality of cooperation and peace. My country and Latin America in General has suffered greatly under the weight of American colonialism and neo imperialism. Colonialism, the idea that some nations were the super powers and had a God given right to dominate the "inferior" ones, has brought suffering and misery that is still with us today. The history of humankind has been for the most part a history of conflict, dominance and wars. And where has that gotten us? It is time to change course. With the arsenal of weapons at our disposal, we cannot afford to continue is this path of dominance, bullying and super power mentality. The fate of our tiny planet and its inhabitants hangs in the balance.
*It seems like the best SOLUTION for the whole World is to have INTERNATIONAL LAW EQUALLY APPLIED TO EVERYBODY,* *instead of everybody trying to be the BIGGEST BULLY IN THE WORLD.*
How are you going to enforce this international law? Realistically speaking, the only countries that could enforce this law are the superpowers, hence the UN Security Council only has 5 permanent members (countries which are/were superpowers). Also, in the age of nuclear weapons, it would be impossible to arrest war criminals from countries with nuclear weapons unless they freely agree to it. This is people like George W. Bush, Obama and Putin will never be arrested.
Curious This House takes an antithetical stance but invites Mearsheimer. Prof. Mearsheimer is the unofficial spokesperson of the US MIC-militray industrial complex; deploying some eight hundred military bases around the world to maintain its dominant position. When China dominated Asia, it had no military base outside its territory.
China has one official military base in Djibouti, and is currently building an "unofficial" naval base in Cambodia. China is also investing in a canal and land bridge in Cambodia and Thailand so that it can circumvent a hypothetical Malacca strait blockade by the US and allies if a conflict in the region finally erupts.
@@hitthedeck4115That versus 900. That is irrelevant. Also, it is done to protect its own interest, not the colonialize and dominate the lands of others.
@@lisbondiaries9212 China is not even a regional hegemon yet, while the US is a global superpower, so of course the number of bases are different. Once China becomes a global hegemon replacing the US, it will probably do the same to protect its own interest like you said (its interest is now the whole world).
@ You obviously are poorly educated about China and its history. No, China won’t have bases like the U.S. I am sure you want to believe that so that you can justify U.S. geopolitics. Oh and has far as China not being a superpower…you are incorrect. It already is. I suggest you read some work by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs who has years of experience as a diplomat and an advisor to world leaders.
I’m sure the rest of the world, those that have been colonized and/or bullied would rather see the bully stay in his own country, respect international laws and keep their hands to themselves.
The US empire and home nation has crossed the Rubicon. American collapse is unavoidable and they only have themselves to blame. ~ *“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”* ― Arnold Toynbee
he said that 70 years ago and you'd have to ask what 'collapse' looks like. because if he means 'like britain' i'd have to disagree. a nation's power and reach is always in flux. but covering 3/5ths of the planet in colonies then collapsing down to an island isn't in the cards for america. at least not in the next 300 years. but yes, america does expect it's power to wane in the next 70 years greatly. if that's a "collapse" can be debated.
What the American Geopolitics experts fear is that Europe and Asia merge to one block: Eurasia. One way to prevent this from happening is making sure Europe and Russia are in a constant conflict and maybe even war. This only benefits US Hegemony. One remarkable act of war by the US was the attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. What US sees as their best interests is not Europe's best interests. Europe needs cheap gas from Russia for economic stability and success. So no i don't think that every European politician should believe that it's an imperative to keep the US in Europe. That's obviously propaganda.
That's the only point in wich Mearsheimer could be wrong. But he has interesting arguments about that issue on his lectures about nationalism against liberalism.
JJM outlines his realist theories with clarity and passion. However, his depiction of great power politics is a destructive and harsh way of thinking. It is time for the US to recognize the rise of the multipolar world and to accede with grace to a seat at the table of justice among equals , not the conquered. " The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. And we live in a time of monsters" Antonio Gramsci
When one is afraid, they are more likely to do stupid things. And America is definitely afraid right now. No dispute to that. What makes it even worse is the quality of the leaders of America. She had great leaders who were great thinkers. Current scenario, its not about who is a great American leader but who is lesser evil or lesser stupid. Its a tragedy.
You're wrong. America has never or will ever be afraid. Now the quality of Leaders, you're right . But thank God for the way this country was formed as a Constitution Republic. It is the only way it's people are able to get rid of Horrible Leaders. Like the last administration.
@@Athenaikos Afraid of being taken over by China. Napolean said not to wake up China for a reason. In terms of India he wanted to enslave them removing the Brits. No innovation of talents flow can stop that. She is awake.
@@savaii4menow Well, current geopolitical scenario says America is definitely afraid. Looking for every nook and cranny to undermine the Chinese growth. Be glad Xi says," This world is big enough for all of us". I see a philosopher king under veil of communism.
John doesn't promote colonialism. He has said that he wishes things didn't operate like this. He is just describing how things really operate and the crisis we are living with today is best explained by his theory, which is why realism in IR has recently been in the spotlight and why he is speaking in Cambridge.
@@sed9406 You really need to take a course on international relations. John is not concerned about feeling superior to other countries. He even warns about the downfalls of nationalism. He is concerned about maintaining security and power through population size, a strong military, and economic wealth, due to a game that all great powers play. His theory has proven true because Europe thought it would remain stable solely based on agreements and liberal hegemony. The US broke an unspoken rule of great power politics, don't even attempt to set up camp in the backyard of another great power. There was no higher power to tell the US to stop expanding NATO towards Russia. If Russia set up camp in Mexico I would want the US to respond immediately and it would have the power to do so because ALL GREAT POWERS are concerned with security and power.
@olllloollllo Not all great powers have to behave like this. Stop projecting His own mafia state On to international relations. In other cultures Besides Colonialism, the value morals way more than So called “west”. Just like in their high schools, bullies are Just outcasted Rather than become a king of high school.
Historically I have been impressed by Prof Mearsheimer. In this lecture it seems he shows his true colors, which aren't so much "realist" but rather pessimistic, and acts as an instigator to ongoing violence and division. Jeffrey Sachs strikes me as more of a realist, and he doesn't have to remind us of it in hopes we believe it. End every genocide.
@ZIMCoin He is a structuralist. He hinted at it here also when he said we are in an iron cage and there is no way out of it. Its the structure that forces power competition and you like it or not you have to participate. The Prof as he pointed out again is still an American tho and he isnt into liking being the one oppressed.
To claim Sach is realist is problematic. When Sach is realist, he's belong to what IR school more specifically? Defensive realism? Neoclassical realism? We should know that when Mearsheimer describe himself as realist, he's basically describing himself as an "offensive realist", not because he has pessimistic/optimistic or more realistic view of the world than others
In my opinion the USA has been on the top for a very long time, it’s time to take the L and sit in the back seat. I think we as Europeans are very diplomatic and a reliable partner for anyone in the world. It’s good that we are humble and don’t strive to be first. With that being said we should develop our own technologies and be a independent continent.
I think seeing Mearsheimer as a successor to Henry Kissinger is probably the right way to look at this talk. For those of us who aren't wedded to cold war realism, there are elements of this that seem psychopathic. Why do human interactions have to be seen through the lens of the playground bully? There are far more interactions on the playground when people play together without trying to kill each other. Why can't we build a multilateral treaty framework built on mutual respect, non aggression and a shared commitment to human rights that leads to mutual prosperity, and cooperation rather than competition? Oh right, we did. The US flushed it all down the toilet in Gaza, along with 100k lives or more.
Spot on. When zero-sum thinking dominates, a question to ask is, what is zero-sum? Resources, well-being, the things that actually matter, turn out to be non-zero-sum. We can all be better off by working together. What IS zero-sum is the position of absolute dominance, the title of No. 1. As the Prof puts it, the ability to do whatever you want without worrying about the repercussions. Any sensible person can see how stupid and destructive that way of thinking is. I’m not saying that most people are sensible.
Y ou may not be interested in war but war is interested in you. It's quite normal all countries have always done it. children do it in the schoolyard, chimpanzee do it in the jungle, Australian Aborigines and Hawaiians are notorious for it
Being the biggest and baddest dude on the block in no way assures your security. That's a child's way of thinking. You want to be the biggest and baddest at creating alliances. That's the adult way of doing things.
@@eliasphiniotis i know the uk has given to ukraine as well, but zelensky always mentions special thanks for the us. Idk im just agreeing with you, defend yourselves
Even though I like and admire Mearsheimer, but just like Jeff Sachs, I have had a big problem with his outlook on China. He insists on his assumptions that if China becomes powerful, then China will be going after Europe and USA, in their backyard. The assumption that a powerful china will be imperialistic, exploitive and militaristic is not supported by following facts, 1) it’s not in Chinese character to be outward looking and domineering. The Chinese have never exhibited power projection, even with respect to their soft power in the cultural arena. 2) Historically when china was at the zenith of its power it did not behave like westerners. Just read about Treasure fleet and Admiral Zheng He, to better understand China psyche dna. Or consider the Great Wall, which is clearest evidence of an inward looking nation Having said all that china is inherently mercantile, so international trade will always be the top priority. But that is not the same as military force projection.
I agree it's hard to imagine China coming after Europe right now but can you say with certainy that, that will always be the case? JM's example of Russia and NATO expansionism is right on the mark. If we allow that NATO expanded as it did not out of any evil intent but because it was in it's interest and that it could, because Russia was weak. It's not hard to imagine an overly powerful China doing the same thing in 50+ years, especially if Europe and the US become weak. We need some sort of balance of power and most importantly mechanisms to call bad actors to account. We have the U.N and ICJ but the big powers do as they will because they will never be brought to account by the system we have. I cannot even imagine a big 5 leader being brough before the world court.
Your "facts" are ancient history. The Chinese behavior is now dictated by what the Communist party wishes it to be. Sadly now it is a rather nationalistic bent, which should be worrisome if you know the facts (e.g. their naval bullying of Philippines, their attitude towards Japan, their continual occupation of Tibet, their build up of naval bases on man-made islands, etc). It isn't enough to panic over, but things in SE Asia are dangerous right now.
@@DwynAgGaire The problem is JM didn't give background details to the Ukraine conflict which would better enllighten the audience as to why Russia retaliated. None of these issues happened in a vaccum. US had been provoking Russia into war since the formation of NATO just to prove its power over Russia. Go to UN Security Council archives for the facts. JM knows. His bias interferes with his academic prowess.
The decline of the United States was caused by two factors: one was Nixon's abandonment of the containment of China, and the other was de-industrialization. Meanwhile, China achieved industrialization, while the United States lost its industry. How could it be the strongest and most powerful player on the block without industry?
You do realize the containment of China was abandoned because China a.k.a. the PRC turned against the Soviet Union, who was the other Geo political rival of the United States. The United States shifted as attention to which was inevitable as China thanks to Denis reforms, began to become the worlds second preeminent superpower, following the Soviet collapse of 1991 and the fall of communism, even the Marxist Lennon ism a.k.a. communist model itself is nothing more than a fallacy in China. The CBC keeps the communist branding to keep their citizens in line which is not surprising considering China model has been pretty authoritarian for the most part. It’s history over although it’s market socialist economy, and more prone to privatization if you think she is gonna get rid of that, I got news for you that will never happen, terms of industrialization manufacturing basis slowly coming back to the
So the professor's primary principle, highest aspiration, is being the biggest, baddest dog in a dog-eat-dog world. Here is where realism, absent the counterweight of idealism, leads--to a worldview in which virtue is sidelined as a game for chumps, most particularly the virtue of wisdom, which interjects the ethical into the intellectual. Am I alone in suspecting that the professor lives out his own life on far better, more beautiful principles than dog-eat-dog?
Human beings are not the same thing as states. Human beings can afford to and often times required to adhere laws and moralty because if they don't there will be tangible and reliable consquences that will arrive from it, either inprisonment, death penatlty or fines. The reason for this is because the State has a monopoly of violence can actually enforce these laws in reliable manner with great certainty. This is not the case internationally. There is no body, state or armed forces which holds a monopoly of violence over the 195 countries in the world and because of that International Law, the UN and all of these other world order organizations are essentially just a form of political charade. The US will talk all the time about the so-called "Rules Based Order" and then will violate it when it's convienant. All of these global institutions and laws are only effective to the extent to which the global superpowers themselves adhere to it and respect it. They will only do so when it's in their interest. Morality and laws are only useful if you have somebody there to enforce it and you can only really do this by violating countries sovereignty in certian moments and this is impossible for countries with nuclear weapons. There is a reason why Slobodan Milosevic was brought to the Hague for war crimes and not people like George Bush, Clinton, Obama or Putin. Yugoslavia never had any nuclear weapons.
I agree with his description of China and the US, but I cannot understand his statement about Europe. If Europe loses the US, will it lose peace? Wasn't NATO's eastward expansion led by the US? The bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline in Germany has led to rising energy prices and soaring CPI. Is it in Europe's interest for German companies to move to the US?
just look at what Europe was like before. Wars this, wars that, 30 years war, WW1, WW2. And let me remind you WW1 and WW2 both originated from Europe. Europe need the pacifier to avoid fighting each other.
@gentoffire The main pacifier force is nuclear weapons. If there were no nuclear weapons, the US and USSR would have fought the hot war in Europe, not the cold war. No nuclear power has been invaded. Therefore, Europe have the ability to maintain peace by itself.
Powerful and troubling. Only works for one who may prevail. Leads to conflicts in execution. An adjunct is to realize these flaws and work toward bodies and treaties that limits conflicts and arbitrate disputes.
It's debate - each speaker has only side to argue. Like in a court the prosecution would never raise something that would help the defence, and vice versa. So we do not have a reasoned argument from anyone, it is just a 'guilty or not guilty' decision that is required. For someone who has preached Negotiation above Conflict for all the years I have followed him this diatribeis a bitter disappointment :(
This thinking is the reason why the world has been in turmoil since the raise of US hegemony. It can never be a zero sum game. Am that's why America's decline is inevitable.
When the British empire was a superpower there were two world wars when America is superpower there have been zero world wars this is the safest the world has ever been
I've always admired Mearsheimer. He gives a much more practical interpretation of US power projection and behavior. As a longtime student of US behavior, I agree with everything he says about Ukraine. The Russian invasion was inevitable, and you could see it coming from years away because the US kept insisting on NATO expansion. They warned us, and we did it anyway. Despite the morality of the actual invasion (it is horrific), the US is partly to blame - we put Russia in an impossible situation.
At the end, Mearsheimer said that the economic conditions in Europe will deteriorate without the pacifier that is America. I don't know if anybody notices, but right now, the economic conditions in Europe are disastrous. It's hard to see how they can be worse. Britain is de-industrializing. The EU is de-industrializing. Their people are living terrible hardships. Their economies are essentially stagnant with GDP growth hovering around one percent.
It's important to note that an empire can be "the pacifier", but still not be the best thing on the table for the countries seeking stability and safety.
China started to arm itself, seeing the US's aggression. Military power is ultimately based on economic and technological power. China will inevitably surpass the US. Mearsheimer's talk is hollow.
The problem with Mearsheimer is that he "naturalises" imperialism and underestimates the logic of global capital. The decline of the USA may be the decline as well of the conditions under which Mearsheimer's predictions work. Btw., I don't have to opt for the USA just because I'm American.
>The problem with Mearsheimer is that he "naturalises" imperialism Imperalism is natural >underestimates the logic of global capital neorealism can help us defeat global capital >Btw., I don't have to opt for the USA just because I'm American. He is speaking more from the perspective of a US foreign policy advisor, rather than as an "American". Basically, the US wants to continue as a liberal capitalist nation, and so will always take actions to protect that interest.
@@solarizedtrippin explain yourself. What is "natural" about imp.? Come again? What is "neo" here? And what do you have in mind when talking about "global capital", so that it can be defeated by some school in IR? No. Mearsheimer explains why he personally sides with the USA.
@@cristinaximera9663 Mearsheimer is a liberal, the USA is a liberal nation, so of course he supports the USA. You have to disconnect his personal beliefs from what hes advocating for here to see the broader implications of his message. It's in the liberal democratic USAs interests to remain a great power, that's his argument, he is a liberal democrat so he supports this. If you oppose the existence of the USA in its current form, its against your interests for the USA to remain a great power. >What is "natural" about imp.? States will always work to protect their interests, it is inevitable powerful states will meddle in the affairs of weaker ones.
@@solarizedtrippin 1. Mearsheimer explicitly states that he is NOT siding with the USA because it is liberal. He explicitly states that the USA are no better than anyone else. 2. Your definition of imperialism (= protecting self interest) is questionable. Switzerland is protecting its interest and isn't imperialist. The USA are imperialist, yet to their own detriment (long term).
@@cristinaximera9663 I agree with you the USA is imperialist to its detriment, but I think Switzerland is imperialist (or at least, benefits from imperialism of the west). We probably fundamentally disagree on the definition of imperialism.
US is not and have never been a pacifier in Europe. Mearsheimers simplistic view of being the badass on the block is exactly that, a very simplistic view of the world.
@@svenhanson398 He was using the analogy of the baddest dude on the block to explain a concept, not because he has an overly simplistic view on things. I have seen quite a few of his talks and he does not have a superficial or simplistic view on any of the topics he has spoken on
Before US leadership, Europe started two worldwars and kild more than 100 million people Under US leadership, Europe stopped its worldwars and became peaceful and civlzed
His argument is the classic way Europeans have done politics for centuries. The German Kaiser called it "Machtpolitik" (power politics), and Germany, France, the UK, Spain, etc all tried to be what the USA is today (hegemon). But because of WW2 and butchering each other, Europeans lost the title. The only question is whether America will keep it. They are basically Rome but in 2024. But Rome always fought perpetual wars, took in mass immigration, then collapsed through decadence.
Rome is Eternal. On a serious note,this is way more ancient than Kaiser. Look at the city states of Greece or look at the Religious wars in the Holy Roman Empire,it think its called the 30 year war or something. What we witness in the 30 year war is that everyone changed sides and they werent changing sides cause of religious reasons,but for power politics reasons. Whenever someone were taking the lead in the war and gaining too much,everyone else,including his previous allies,would be ganging up on him to shorten his gains and it went on and on and on till they got bored. As for your example,UK was the prime player of power politics. Whenever a continetal power would threaten to dominate the continent and thus become to big of a threat,they would ally with their enemies to cut them down. Most famous examples of that would be Napoleon,Hitler and Stalin even. As a matter of fact UN laws about sovergnity come out of the the treaty that ended the 30 year war. The Westphalia treaty and thats where we get the Westphalian system that we live in today. Well we did live it in,before USA ruined it all through the Cold War and more so after it.
And nothing to do with mass migration this is foolish and idiotic in terms of the power politics that you were looking for that comes from the politics of autovon Bismarck, the true founder of the German Empire. The reason that the Roman Empire collapsed wasn’t because of mass migration it’s because they overextended themselves And the rich elite the aristocracy away with stealing all the resources that should’ve kept the empire intact that’s the real reason and most of the mass immigration that took place came from Germanic barbarians who are the ancestors of two white Europeans Americas United States on the other hand was built as a nation of immigrants. It doesn’t have any particular origin even though nativist love to whine about how, their cultures, European and nature the American system the American culture is blending cultures from all over the world if immigration improves the American state to even better degree
@@giannislainas5187 The UK the British Empire collapsed because of one major thing it was no longer. The world’s global trading has been surpassed by the United States and it had nearly lost both world wars got wrecked in World War II. That’s why.
@ you know more people live outside the US Empire and its vassal states than inside it (1.5 bn vs 6.5 bn). Right? And then there are the people who live within empire who also want it to decline. Or were you born yesterday? Or maybe you are an ignorant American?
@@pranavjagdish You are hypostatizing the world, treating this abstract entity like a concrete thing which can express a position, when it just can't.
The youth in the audience asking the questions are not even playing the same game. This was an excellent analysis. This is one of the reasons the US election was watched by the entire globe.
One thing that is never talked about is, Mother Nature more powerful and not controlled. The mother can sweep cities and countries and leave behind its own terror.
Arguing from an American point of view that a unipolar world in which the US is the hegemon and therefore would benefit the US, is totally understandable. But for everyone else its been not so beneficial and in some cases even catastrophic. Here we just have to look at Serbia, Ukraine, or Germany for example. To enlarge the picture you can simply ask any victim who suffered under the violence inflicted on them by the US if they think it benefited them to have a unipolar world in which the US is the ruthless hegemon.
This guy thinks like a hammer and speaks like he's debating common sense. There is no need for the US to maintain an enormous military-industrial complex at back breaking cost. A la France.... just have a strong (nuclear) deterrence. The majority of the US military is for projecting power/violence, and not for defense. The US military is many times the size required for defense of the homeland. Currently with 800 foreign military bases? That seems hegemonic. Why can't Mearsheimer see his hypocrisy?
The US magazine "The National Interest" revealed that the wars in Gaza and Lebanon consume tens of billions of US tax dollars, and that the cost of US-backed weapons to "Israel" and related military operations in the region has reached at least $22.76 billion since the beginning of the war on the Gaza Strip, according to a new report by the Costs of War Project at the Brown Foundation. Nov 7 2024. America world debt, is 35 trillions! How can you pay such a debt? Wars and war machine complexe. Tax payers in the USA, in deeb s*** with old infrastrucure, roads, schools etc... Good Luck, the simple American citizens.
In the year 2500 CE scholars will look back at colonization and think of it as just another part of history among others were one perspective dominated. I feel that’s how every king in his golden time would have had courage ( or maglomania) to call himself a representative of God and people believed.This belief that colonization worked because other cultures allowed it so it should make sense even in the future is just so futile and naive view. Don’t be so full of ego to even consider other perspectives. You will die and so will others. Just like you find your ancestors believing in foolish things and sometimes nonsensical so will your descendants.
How gutwrentching it is that we are, almost, casually talking about the US being complicit in Genocide in Gaza!? It become so casual like agreeing with the friend to go for coffee to Starbucks. Disgusting, horribly inhumane and dismaying. How far the Evel of our leaders had brought us all? Humanity is dying in front of our eyes and we are unable to recognize it. It's perplexingly horrific.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Two fundamental issues with Mearsheimer’s views and philosophy:
1. Not everyone invades and violates the weak. The Chinese were in direct contact with southeastern Asian countries, Japan, Korea, and even African countries, way before the Westerners came. People in the countries would tell you: when the Chinese came, all they did was trading. When the Westerners came, they colonized us.
And there’s a reason why the Chinese don’t like to colonize. A reason that’s somehow so hard for a Westerner to understand. But if you don’t learn from Chinese history and culture, maybe learn from your own history: why did the British empire collapse? Why did the Great Britain eventually have to let go of its rich colonies?
Colonialism happened for resources and market. The paranoia today is that when China becomes strong, it may also colonize. Well, for what? China has its way to get resources and market - it already is doing that! And the crazy thing is that it can be done through this long-term, sustainable, mutually beneficial way, called TRADING! Have some respect for others. Have some god damn wisdom like a great country should have.
2. The great US spent so much efforts exerting its dominance. How has it benefited its people? I lived there for years. It’s the most messy and dangerous place I’ve ever lived, and I have no plan to go back. How much of your power and dominance is about adolescent childish hormone, and how much of it is about serving your own people and their long-term well-being? Do you really think that it makes you safe by dominating over and bullying others? People don’t kill by default. Don’t give them too many reasons to.
What people in Washington don’t understand is something that people in China, Japan, Scandinavia take for granted: it pays to create an environment where everyone takes care of everyone. The best way to live a lovely life is not by dominating over others, but by creating a lovely environment where you treat others with respect, and everyone treats you with respect, where neighbors live in peace with each other, help each other, wish each other well. That’s a higher level of wisdom that Washington does not get.
----------
Update: I appreciate the support of these simple points, and the debate it generated. We are talking about long histories, and human nature, some of the most complex things, and there will be no absoluteness but full of nuances. I invite us to look at the BIGGER picture.
And I add two fundamental points about the deepest topic - do human beings kill strangers when they see one, or live with them in peace?
1. Game theory. In a lecture a few videos before this one on Cambridge Union, Jefferey Sachs brought up this point, unprompted, likely because he had realized how fundamentally relevant this is for how people treat each other. It was explored in depth in Sapolsky's Behave as well. The problem posed by this discipline, as in Prisoner's Dilemma, is: if two people are to betray or cooperate with each other, where betrayal leads to small gain or both being killed, and cooperation leads to great mutual gain, what should people do? Different scenarios lead to different outcomes. Here I give you the brightest scenario, which is when people are playing infinite games where they have to deal with each other indefinitely, - the scenario closest to the global reality: cooperation is the clear best choice. Because cooperation builds trust, which breeds long-term cooperation.
Two important additions: 1) What strategy to start with, when starting the game off where you don't know each other? Turns out, you want to start with cooperation, and assumption of trust. This gives the chance for trust and cooperation, while starting with betrayal sets you off for infinite betrayal. 2) In real world, there will be miscommunication, where betrayal or cooperation could be mistaken as the opposite. How do we cope? Again, the best is to assume misunderstanding the first time you detect betrayal. Only reciprocate after this is repeated strongly enough.
2. Human nature. Do human strangers kill or cooperate with each other. Both can be argued about human beings. One the one hand, we are tribal. We used to assume danger about those from a different tribe. On the other hand, human beings became the most successful species, and are so capable today, because we cooperate. We are social animals. Ask yourself who made the device you are using. Who built the foundational science for this to happen. It was based on thousands of years of cooperation, now at a global level.
The distinguishing standard, in the primitive sense, turned out to be whether we recognize a person as belonging to the same or opposite side. "Us vs them" judgment. Are you one of us, or one against me? Both can be argued. Human beings are all different, and differences can and have always been used as the basis for deciding they are not one of us, until we realized otherwise: skin color, thoughts/religions, cultures, clothing styles, ...
But we have reasons, stronger than ever, to believe that we are all in this together, as one. 1) We now know that we are ONE SPECIES. Our apparent differences are so superficial. We feel similarly, with the same instincts, and we can reproduce with each other to make wonderful children. 2) We face common enemies beyond whatever is between us - climate change, environmental and ecological deterioration, technology development, ... All of these require us to WORK TOGETHER. No one country or pact can solve it alone without full commitment from the others. As Kishore Mahbubani said, our little boats are now connected into this big ship, and it is sinking. Closing our doors, or worse yet, focus on sinking other's boat now, would be the stupidest thing to do, when we should be taking care of our collective future.
I live in Denmark these days. Along the streets are signs I haven't seen elsewhere: drawings of little children playing, with words "PAS PÅ MIG" - TAKE CARE OF ME. Shouldn't we do that?
Correct! The reason why the West is aggressive towards the others around the world, is because the West as a civilization is fundamentally built on the law of the jungle. In their eyes the strong eat the weak and the weak deserves to be eaten by the strong. That's justice in their eyes.
Do you really live at this moment? because China has trouble with more than 20 nations around them.
Spot on. I am European (parents from Europe and I am a citizen) but also was born and raised in the U.S. The U.S. will not look out for anyone else but itself. What Mearsheimer said is what the U.S. foreign policy is. That is precisely why it is a fast declining empire, and with that, it’s hegemony will end.
@@ArdiantothehulkNo, it doesn’t. There aren’t 20 and the nations are used by the U.S. to instigate China . You really can’t be that gullible . I am European and American. You have no clue about geopolitics if you think what you said is accurate.
@@Ardiantothehulk look deeper than the propaganda you’re fed daily.
I am an American, of course I don't want America to decline. What I want is for America to be less of a bull in a china shop. To stop fomenting wars everywhere as the number one solution to everything. More carrot, less stick. More internal self-improvement and investment, less sabotaging of others. IMHO, that's what is best for America and its citizens.
This is not a competition, also what people say is "pro-American" is actually top 10% in America. You should be pro-humanity first, pro-American second. I don't like zero-sum games. China reduced their population so they aren't really a threat by themselves, I think giving natural resources/ports of Australia and Canada to ASEAN, Indian, and Chinese people can stimulate innovation and reduce prices thus be good for 90% of Americans not just the top 10%.
@ To me, what is pro-America is helping lift up the entire world. With cooperation as the main tool. Not regime change ops. As a world, we need to phase out these geo-political Machiavellian schemes which seems to be what EVERYBODY is doing constantly.
In a jungle, a man wants to be strong so no one can bully him. A bully wants to be strong so he can bully others. John should state clearly which he thinks US is.
if you watch other lectures of his it is clear that his view is that the US (and any country) should strive to be strong so no one can bully him. However the US foreign policy establishment, which professor mearsheimer frequently disagrees with, believes otherwise.
this is a little more complex than this, since prof's view is that the us foreign policy establishment wants to be strong (global hegemon) not necessarily so that it can be a bully for the sake of being a bully, but so that it can spread liberal democracies around the world in with a "liberal hegemony" foreign policy. the rationale is that democracies don't fight each other so if the US turns every nation into a liberal democracy, we can all live happily and get rich. I would say mr mearsheimer has a generous take on the rationale of the us foreign policy establishment.
Regardless, Professor argues this is a misguided, delusional, and dangerous foreign policy, chiefly beacuse of nationalism, i.e people don't want Americans or anyone else telling them how to live and how to govern their societies.
Other people would argue that the US foreign policy establishment wants power just for the sake of power, i.e. to be a bully and get its way no matter what
Mearsheimer believes in being a wise and restrained bully.
He thinks they should be strong, restrained, and realistic. Unfortunately, the US imperialist elites want empire so they often are a bully
For him being US the bully is the only option!
To be precise, we live in a jungle called Earth, and we don't want to suffer, so we make ourselves stronger, find strong allies, or move to a place where there are no bullies. America was built by people who ran away from bullies.
i've been a full-time independent political consultant/journalist since 2010. My Voting Bloc of 3,500 is doing everything it can to make sure that we outlaw all PACs, including AIPAC AND reducing significantly the influence of money in politics.
Music to my ears!!!! Thank you VERY much for your efforts!!!
The billionares, Opus Dei and Talibangelicals disagree with you.
@@bobbafett1849 They constitute a minority view in the USA.
@@jacobsolace177 I wish you luck with getting rid of PACs. I have a deeper question for you ,however . Since running election campaigns involve a lot of money and most certainly one's own money can not do it all, how do you prevent an elected individual from being beholden either to a PAC or any major contributor (s) and therefore , in reality , serve those who paid for their election rather than serve those who elected them ? If this question could be adequately be answered , then the US would be a democracy rather than an oligarchy which ,in reality , it truly is .
@@edvsilas8281 Don't wish me luck. Luck has nothing to do with it. Instead, devote your time, energy, resources, and talents to the political process, esp the campaigns, to make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise/most Intelligent among us become our public servants. In addition, help build a Majority Voting Bloc in your city/town/village.
Western countries brought this on themselves, China has invested enormously in their own people, especially for poor and lifting 800 millions out of poverty, Chinese growth and power is based on solid foundation. US strength is built on trickle down economy.
and theft by means of military force
China is aa human rights abyss. Literally hundreds of thousands of slaves.
They have also invested in building infrastructure in Africa. The U.S. and Europe, on behalf of the U.S., have only dominated foreign countries, not invested in them.
@@shaunehuolohan5736 remember who there customers are.
Greedy corporations/governments handed China out industry, our manufacturing for less cost - fools again.
What about Nordstream, does this US action make sense from Europe´s point of view?
No, it was an act of sabotage on the European economy, the US is not our ally, we are it's pawns.
Have you asked europeans?
@@saabajoe It's injured all of Europe via the decline of German industries.
No, but does make sense for the US empire to destroyed the Europe to preventing the European union from challenging the US global hegemony.
@@saabajoe he doesn't need ur opinion
"I'm loaded with nuclear weapons, but I still endlessly need more security..." promoting a futile arms race forever.
Not promoting just stating a fact. Nuke can't necessarily protect you. Your territory can be protected from attacks maybe but what about your trade and business interests and so many different interests!?
@AnuragSinha7 Don't forget to add my possible interests in your wife too... How about the major powers openly recognize the risks each may face, and make joint plans, in the spirit of Zhu Rongji.
If I'm the biggest and baddest, then I end up ruining my own family, like a cancer from within... over time, greed instead of mutually respectful negotiating.
People in China would gladly adopt Mearsheimer as a citizen. We won't be naive about potential nefariousness, but the habit of seeing human groups as distinctly separate is long past its sell-by date🌍
@@zetristan4525 Para probar que tu afirmación es falsa basta observar la cuestión de la OTAN en Europa.
This is the other side of the argument. There's a point at which the obsession with more security becomes its own kind of destruction.
@@TheArkwelder Those obsessives will always try to capture a society. What JM is saying encourages the rest of us to concede that they're being sensible (even tho we deplore all their exploitation of others and [mini-]gxnxcxdes), because otherwise corresponding badasses in China will eventually humiliate us.
But there is a much better way in an interconnected world, which is why I mentioned Zhu Rongji
🌌🌦️🌱
His argument promotes colonialism! Having power isn't inherently wrong, but abusing it to colonize people worldwide, exploit their natural resources, and offer nothing in return is unacceptable. This includes committing genocide and other atrocities. In contrast, China's foreign policy prioritizes fair trade, not colonization or genocide." In that sense, countries of the Global South, after centuries of humiliation, welcome the decline of such abusive power. Western power is like a knife in a child's hands, recklessly harming others! This power is dangerous and must be stopped.
You sound like a chinese bot
"In contrast, China's foreign policy prioritizes fair trade, not colonization or genocide"
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@sarareloaded101 Very well said, thank you!
@@sarareloaded101 And the Chinese get poisoned by plastic rice.
@@sarareloaded101 did you break your neck serving that SPIN…
I fully understand John.
See you on the battlefield, John.
I'm Chinese.
Mearsheimer appears to (perhaps unwittingly) embody several contradictions in his core arguments. On one hand, he acknowledges that we are now in a multipolar geopolitical landscape, yet he also expresses a preference, as an American, for maintaining American dominance. He argues that in the absence of a single universal power, there is no entity to turn to for help in the event of an invasion. At the same time, he condemns the genocide in Gaza, asserting that the United States is complicit due to its support of Israel through arms, funding, and technology. This support is enabled precisely by the US’s dominant position, which allows it to back Israel unchallenged.
The contradiction lies in Mearsheimer’s moral stance against genocide, while simultaneously advocating for the continuation of American supremacy. If the US’s dominance enables actions like the support of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, how can he reconcile his opposition to genocide with his desire for the US to retain its status as the world’s most powerful nation? The question thus arises: if Mearsheimer is genuinely opposed to genocide on moral grounds, how can he justify the pursuit of American dominance that, in his view, contributes to enabling such atrocities?
Because other Great powers are simiLar to the USA when it comes to Groups they don't Like
Whilst he seeks dominance, it is a dominance of a different kind. He often refers to the blob, and elite within the US that are driven by the Jewish Lobby, amongst others, and not the average US citizen. It is this dominat lobby thats leads the US to sunconditionall support the genocide in isreal and its "foolish actions". Foolish because he maintains that Isreal does not have suiffient power and needs or wishes to draw the US into the conlfict to serve its selfish and foolish aims/goals.
You need to listen to what he says carefully. As an American he wants the US to maintain his power but he also expects the US to use that power in a responsible manner. He is saying that the US is abusing its dominant power to help with a genocide which is wrong as American power should not be used in such a way.
Suppose an elephant worries about crushing insects when going to the watering hole. The clever elephant avoids the larger insects, but still crushes the smaller ones.
It's the same thing. There is no contradiction.
@@michaelotieno6524 Thats is what I alluded to. Remember this is but one forum where he speaks on specific issues but in others he goes into far more detail. And in his view the dominant power, you refer to, is due to the "elites and lobbies"from which he claimssuch irresponsible or fooolish foreihm policy decisions eminate. And recall that is his realist view where military might plays a great role.
As an American, we can not go back to where we were. It cost too much money and there is non left. We ran our coarse. We can still be one of the powerful countries, but need to come to our truth, we need to prepare for the new economies and stop making wars. We can survive a depression, rebuild and we have everything we need here. But we can not come back from a nuclear exchange! Europeans will be fine without us, they are smart, resourceful, innovative, peaceful. They are ready to thrive on their own. Us Americans need to move beyond cold war verbiage, come to our reality, and join the whole world in peace and cooperation!
I agree 100%. But, we seem stuck with a structure that includes corrupt politicians, self-serving think tanks, foundations, lobbies, an entrenched, so-called "deep state" that caters to non-governmental forces such as the military-industrial complex, and a host of other groups--even international ones, such as the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations, etc., etc. How to get out of this structure?
And you think other nations want peace and cooperation? Russia is expanding in middle east, africa and south america
@@nicke0b -delusional one
Europeans arent peaceful,what you talking about.
Europeans were in wars in all their history
I love Mearshimer, but I disagree with the idea that, for us to be strong, we must contain and/or beat down other countries. People and countries should have relationships that are mutually beneficial and friendly
That's not what he says. He says that that is what countries do. Not what they should do. He argues that they will never stand the mere existence of an existential threat even if said entity is temporarily friendly because that status may change at any time. Jeffrey Sachs's stance is "we'll all be better off if we fight that instinct", but Mearsheimer thinks that because a failure is existential, leaders will never accept even an attempt at cooperation.
So, for him, since a war is inevitable, we have to root for "our" side to win. But he's said in the past that "in his heart", he'd like it if Sachs was right.
I am with you
Quite so. I'll add that it is to be hoped there'll come a day when every earthling gets a two week-holiday and a modest family car..
@@DrVictorVasconcelos 披着民主的外衣干着强盗的事情
What he says comes from his heart, he is just hiding his colonial mindset behind ‘reality’. Jeff called him out lately at same venue: (John’, be more realistic’!)
How about mutual cooperation as a way for the world’s economy and HUMANITY to survive .
too idealistic. who would buy all the weapons, then?
Yes, but it isn’t and will never be their foreign policy.
@@user_ar6332 Hmm. maybe they could just scaremonger but not fight and sell you weapons just in case. Then create an improved version and sell you those, a bit like your iPhone .... I know, I know, they need a test ground and ..... the Izzies oblige. Sad. Oh so sad and tragic.
it is impossible dream or to put it in other way it is utopia even though evolution have made us to think that peace is possible but in International Politics it had always been "war of all against all" be it the case of Sapiens vs Neanderthal or Peloponnesian war. only weak would think that peace is possible in international politics.
@ And only the uninformed would think it is not possible. Your idea that only “weak” would think peace is possible is the entire problem. That mentality is an obstruction to peace, and you have control over how you think. So, it’s possible to change. We aren’t Neanderthals nor the less evolved Sapiens from that time. So, you are trying to compare current humanity to that? That isn’t even a relevant comparison. We have evolved. We may not have peace among individuals at all points in life, but it is possible among nations. I suggest you read work by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs who was an actual diplomat and advised leaders around the world, including several U.S. presidents. He is a professor at Columbia and an expert in economics and public policy. He and Dr. Mearsheimer, of course, know each other but have some different perspectives. Once money is taken out of politics and lobby no longer has the control it does, peace is very much possible. The nation instigating most of the wars around the world for the past 80 years in the name of “democracy” and to keep nations destabilized was guess who.
Well the reality is that nothing last forever. Doing a simple analogy, you don't expect a child to never grow up. And if you were raising a kid under terror (as the US does with the world), the moment that kid is a grown up, get ready to suffer the anger that has been consuming him. Once his fear is gone your power is over.
I just hope for the good of everyone the US change his foreign policy and accept that they are not an hegemony anymore, otherwise, the results for the world and specially for them are going to be catastrophic. There are not good or bad guys in a geopolitical game, everyone just want to survive, and Im absolutely sure we can all survive, but greed and power have consume the US from its roots, and that is going to end up really bad.
A peacefully world is possible, hopefully it will be achieved in less than a 100 years.
The real danger is not China but India and they can't be reason with. If one watches closely its not even a real country but a byproduct of a British Raj. They are the perfect example of one can have a PHD but still be an idiot. Its all in the behaviour. They are not Asians despite the geography but something else. They are the generation that was colonized by the British into slavery unlike China and few lucky nation like Nepal and Bhutan. That alone explains why Nepal and Bhutan folks are polar opposite with no history of a genocide because of race, religion or creed and in terms of behaviour compared to India, Pakistan, Srilanka and Bangladesh.
@@Odetofreedom21 🙏👏 you said exactly what i wanted to say. John is after all an American old fashioned patriot. He cannot fathom that a world of equals can actually live peacefully
@@ahmedkhalifa5190my friend! John isn't stating his opinion, he is just stating basic nature of empires. No one likes to lose its power and a second most big economic power soon to be biggest economy would not want to listen to a so called "superpower". Two tigers can't live in a jungle neither two swords can be at one place. Its just nature of things.
While I would also like to want what you want but that's just not possible. Our history says the same just for proof.
@ why must we be tigers at all ? We are humans …. His same thinking actually means democratic societies can never truly exist because everyone won’t feel secure unless they are the strongest … it is not so hard to establish a new world order with a real conflict resolution body … it already exists btw .. undemocratic Veto screwed it up …
It's not greed that makes the US not wanting to hand over its seat, but security. China will some day certainly surpass the US in power if it's not kept in check and this terrifies the US greatly because there's no guarantor (there's no world government) that China will not do something bad to the US once it has become stronger.
Professor John J. Mearsheimer argues in favor of an imperialistic America under the guise of self-defense-a perspective that seems flawed. Mearsheimer also describes China as an imperialistic power, possibly to justify his view of America, yet historically, China has not pursued imperialism. Even at the height of its power, when it could have dominated other nations, China refrained from doing so. China’s current actions are aimed at self-defense against global imperialist threats, with the U.S. being the most dominant. This naturally brings China’s focus to the U.S., limiting American imperial ambitions.
While other countries, such as Russia and Iran, may have imperialistic tendencies, they lack the strength to directly counter U.S. power. However, as Mearsheimer suggests, they could benefit from China’s rising influence to better counterbalance American dominance.
It's so stupid and self-disguising that a country like the US do have two oceans for protection and still feel threatened. That's ridiculous! They are still playing "world police" in reality!
The only thing prof Mearsheimer lack was the understanding of Chinese way of thinking.
@@luklauw he was just in China and is extraordinarily popular there.
@@luklauw and what's chinese thinking
China isn’t expansionist or colonialist in the way Offensive Realism presumes all actors to be. It’s culturally antithetical and obviously an unwise long term plan. China has only imitated western stratagems in so far as doing so was absolutely necessary to compete. Anyone can see this. It just doesn’t mesh well with Realism, which was developed by westerners to understand and predict the offensive patterns of other western powers. And it presumes a level of short term thinking vis-à-vis power acquisition that China would find childish.
@@luklauw maybe 🤔
At the same time he is a realist my friend. It's in nature of nation states to dominate others. America won't accept China as it's peer competitor for obvious reasons but at the same time why should China take orders from America or western nations!? That doesn't make sense. Also after this why would China want it's peer competitor's presence in its backyard 🤔 that's crazy. And this start loss of face and loss of dominance for US and accumulation of hegemonic power for China.
But then things start get rolling; it will start thinking in bigger terms. Then China would want it's dominance in other areas and again there would be confrontation.
So he is fundamentally right.
@@jeremygardner1225 Human nature is the same..
He’s completely wrong about pivoting. Why doesn’t the US including Europe just concentrate on their own economies and infrastructure which is falling apart
.
Colonial mentality
It already has been for the last four years. But leaving Ukraine to let Putin expand his realm is NOT ON.
hes saying that based on realist perspective and relation between nation,.. not on what national budget prioritize for,.. please read some realist book,.. and u will understand
@@ESuccessMasters Agree 100%
Sadly, Prof. John Mearsheimer is promoting his understanding of the world, and treating it as the way it should be, the law of the jungle, the might is right, which is the law of the bully, without morality, like animals. But we human beings can do better than that, to cooperate and collaborate for a better future for humans.
@@w.z.6062 John is absolutely right. Every nation has its own survivability as the highest priority if it gets pressed. Also, he doesnt promote it he merely explain how it works.
Sadly we have defined artificial boundaries what we call as nations. John is explaining the eccentricity of humans in general and their need to defend their own tribes. Besides John considers himself a realist and he makes sense.
Dr. Meersheimer is quite knowledgeable and very congenial. I am happy and grateful at this encounter with erudition and character together with good heart. He's helped me be at ease with those who's politica isn't mine and pay attention to experience from which there is much to learn. I count myself a respectful student.
To your reply, my dad would have said, "Don't insult the animals." 😊 When I think of the documented cases when animals have protected the young of other animal species, as well as the cases of animals that have protected HUMAN children, it becomes difficult for me to rate us humans as a higher species.
But, yes, I get your point. My county's "leaders" are operating solely on a plane called materialism.
Until you can convince Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, and Xi, your cause will never come to fruition. Good luck.
Even well educated Americans don't realise how bad their country has become.
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace” Jimi Hendrix
My kind of American.
Very well said. I agree totally and dream for that day, even if I die before it happens.
I second that emotion.
@@maggieadams8600 less than 1% of US population
Mearsheimer isn’t advocating for love of power, hence the title of his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” We all want to get out of it but it’s a tragedy because there is no way out, because the anarchic structure of the international system determines the dynamic.
Utopian nonsense
This is the true face of the USA, the man doesn't mince his words, Unfortunately the old man forgets one thing!! A country that pushes other countries around and exploits them has to pay the price at some point, and the price is the country's downfall. That's exactly what's happening to the USA right now. But one thing still needs to be said, his words are the same words that German politicians used back then before World War II broke out, this one just uses them a little differently, more contemporary I would think. But basically everything he says is irrelevant, the real power has no country or only one person, He knows exactly who has this power, would he tell us ?? No, he wouldn't... death would be the Consequence.
You mean the Illuminati who are controlling the World ?
For Christ sake, show some respect "the old man"! Your immaturity is well displayed.
@@bartsolari5035 My friend, I have no respect for stupidity, and certainly not for the ancient tribal ideas of the world and how the world should be. The old man should rather play chess in a retirement home instead of poisoning young minds with his nonsense. Humanity should EVOLVE, but instead everyone is doing the same nonsense that they did a thousand years ago. How long do we want to listen to people like that before we understand that there are other ways to live together ? As a People of Planet Earth
@@MrPleiadian 100%. He's out of date and time, little understanding of the dynamics of today's world and countries.
The problem with your vision is its in your head and all the pesky people who disagree are reality. The next step for the many who have the vision is to get power and use force to remove those who disturb the vision. There is nothing new under the sun.
I hit $113k today. Thank you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started last month 2024. Financial education is indeed required for more than 70% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject.
It's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Myself, I'm guided by Evelyn Vera. for years and highly recommend her I focus on him. To be honest, I almost didn't buy the idea of letting someone handle growing my finance, but so glad I did.
It is very encouraging to see Evelyn Vera here, I started with 3k now with good returns.highly recommended..
Hey 👋please can you aid me on how to connect with her services???
@@JohnUecker-k6pYes of course
That's her Whats Apps info…
Well, we are ready for the US to leave Europe. As you said, there is no threat here. You need to focus on your own country now.
You missed his point. If America leaves European countries will start to fear each other again. European solidarity will crumble.
@@PfunkGW it takes understanding of history and of power to realize that what he said is true. But it's pointless to try to explain it to spoiled europeans who live in their priviledged bubble
europe is not ready in the slightest
EU ‘s eastern nations will be lost to RF.
@ makes me wonder many things about you as to why you would say such a incompetent
statement.
Professor Mearsheimer is respectable for his unwavering intellectual and moral support to the Palestinians during these dark times with Israel on genocidal rampage. But here he's being problematic، if not evil، by defending the US' being "baddest dude". It creates a fissure and dissonance in his argument about genocide in Gaza۔ the baddest dude USA is sponsoring it on material، diplomatic and military levels ۔ you can't possibly end that contradiction without critiquing USA
@Sh-iz2mw he does support the Palestinians but he is above all else a REALIST.
He literally wrote a book about the Israel lobby and its affect American foreign policy
Bro he is just stating a theory. It's not what he wants it's what he thinks will happen based upon observation and historical experiences. It's a theory 🙏🏻
@@thejibberful I know, and I’ve read the book. What I am saying is that despite exposing AIPAC’s pernicious influence on the US politics, and the US’ malign hegemonic politics that has been creating havoc globally, he still wants the ‘baddest US’ be dominant. In other words, he doesn’t encourage a policy change to stabilize the international system, only a continuation of US being the one calling the shot.
@ I see what you mean. He is pretty explicit in saying the US is complicit in the genocide. Maybe a culdesac he didn’t want to wade into? Hes been skeptical of international systems because they are composed of nation states, which can’t have higher authority over them, and leaders can never know what each-other are thinking. They have to judge on capability, yada yada.
I love Professor Mearshimer , but his preaching doesn't make sense. The US and Great Britain are not the most important countries in the world, every country is important. The world as a whole rejected the USA and British hegemony, and he still is living in colonial past thinking.
How the world rejected it? There are lots of countries who still do what US tells them to do - look at EU for example. If USA tells them to shot themselves in the foot - that's what they are going to do. Great example is Germany, their entire industrial complex benefited from cheap Russian gas but there is no Russian gas anymore. We may not see the concequences immediately but prices will skyrocket in the future for sure. Mearsheimer did not say US and UK are the most important ones, he says they act like they are the most important. US is clearly trying to dominate not only the western hemisphere but the entire world.
@walentystankiewicz8486 I'm sorry but you don't represent 'the world as a whole.'
THIS GOT TO DO WITH THEIR LEARNING...IN THE WEST..MOST OF THE ELITE STUDIED GAME THEORY...It is about competition and winning...winner takes all.....Lucky the chinese..hv a different direction..And yes Ask John Mersheimer and he will tell you America is the bad guy.!
@ As the USA and Great Britain can not represents the entire world.
Didn't you hear his point? No one can represent the world. They can only look out for their own interests. Now, if your saying their should only be one world government that would be another thing...of course I'm not happy about this, my hope is we could find a better way of dealing with each other. One in which everyone benefits. However, the only way in which I see this possible is if everyone agrees to not be as powerful as they wish to be. To accept less economic growth in return for an agreement on security. By the way you should see Jeffrey Sachs speech at Cambridge, I hope his views win out. It's to humanities interest.
Stop pointing your commanding finger and know that obsession with Power never got y'all nothing but deceit.. y'all could never bring back the million human lives taken from your obsession with power !!!
If europe is to prosper it must break away from Americas shackles and build better relationships with Russia & China.
Russian bots are in literally every video's comment section, wow.
Go away bot
🤣
@@QuantPhilosopher89 You mean, anti-Russian bots?
The first part is true, the second part is definitely not.
Sadly, he was never questioned on how the US foreign policy has made the world MORE dangerous for the E.U, UK and the rest of the world
@@rogymasri2181 I still think his views regarding China are wrong.
I can’t see any good in American foreign policy since WW2 everything they have interfered in has caused disaster from Vietnam to Afghanistan . USA are amateurs.
He's talked about that elsewhere. This is a short debate.
..happens when academics forget critical thinking theory
Really? And how many wars has Europe endured in the past 75 years vs how many wars has the Middle East or sub-Sahara Africa endured over the last 75 years?
The truth is, the EU has had 75 years of relative peace compared to the 2 aforementioned areas, and that is due to detente with the USSR and then USA's dominance.
Long decades of relative peace isn't a "more dangerous" place...
This Professor for all his age and intelligence does not have Wisdom and Morality. Speaking of Primacy and Hegemon and advocating it to the younger generation is really bad. Not all other Leaders share his concept of Power. To be strong and powerful and yet spread Peace, Harmony with Mutual Respect and Friendship that should be the Way to live.
NAIVE. He is explaining the way things ARE
He is saying things as they are, doesn't matter if you don't like it, but things still are and always will be as they are. China , USA Russia, everyone wants to be the most powerful country
You're increadibly naive. Superpowers dont act like that.
I agree with you but you are getting some dreadful replies about "it's the way things are" ie from people who probably think it's perfectly okay to kill and maim babies, toddlers and youngsters because "it's the way things are". Some of humanity is plain inhumane. It's the way things are, dontcha know.
He is explaining his view on what is an ideological reality, not his ideological hopes.
Yelling, pointing fingers and trying to intimidate people with “what ifs.”
Yeah, let’s escalate hostilities and more wars!!! NOT!!!
This is the face of American Foreign Policy - Ughhhh🤮
This guy is THE boogeyman if ever I’ve seen one.
Europe's best interest is to build itself, not to rely on the US to survive. FYI, Europe will still not survive with US support. EU does not have the right mindset & leadership to do what it needs to be done to build back Europe as a major economic power.
you can not wake a person who is pretending to be asleep
But they are asleep.
Nor does it have anything to gain from a strong Europe. It' also funny that people fail to mention that the US is run by self-interested oligarchs, who never think things through more than they have to. In other words, they take things one step at a time, with no real masterplan - other than what makes them more money.
Absolutely correct! The U.S. will not change its foreign policy. What the U.S. does is only best for itself.
You miss his point. Without the Americans there is no "Europe". It goes back to being separate countries with different interests who stop cooperating and begin to fear each other again.
Mearsheimer'biggest mistake is that he thinks that all nations and cultures assume the American way is the way to go. No, the Chinese and the Russians think differently. The US is primarily yang whereas the Chinese and Russians are yin.
@@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt no you are wrong. Just because you call yourself a country doesn't change human nature. Is human nature to take advantage of the weak at some point. You can brag about your culture or different philosophies but ultimately human nature does not change
This is a debate.
@@Prayforpeace1109 all of this misses the core point of the conversation. This has nothing to do with nation or culture, and everything to do with capital and imperialism.
John Mearshimer addresses this on his interview on CGTN
exactly, his views are old and brought doom to europe and the US. he better listen to sachs.
Love seeing John this spirited lmao. The only thing missing was his typical use of the word "bad hombre" 😂😂
Prof Mearsheimer. You did a few big overlooks. And the first big overlook is that American dominance in the world does not mean peace in the world. It means more money to the American Elite who supports the killing of Palestinian children. Now:
1. With China dominant in East Asia, will there be more peace or Security in the region than now? History says. These people lived together for more than 1000s of years before American arrival. They know each other better than you.
2. American Hegemony gave a Carte Blanche for murdering Palestinian children. Thus American hegemony lacks justice. It is solely based on the interests of American elites.
3. Europe does not tolerate a "police" on its ground. That happened with Russia after they defeated Napoleon. Nicolas the first was called Gendarme of Europe and was soon expelled from Europe.
4. Europe is a big nuclear power with 440 mln people. They do not need America to protect them.
5. Culturally, Russia and Europe are more similar than America and Europe. However, America bought Europe via Marshal's plan, which does not mean that mere Europeans like Americans, especially latin-speaking part of it. They call you Anglo-Saxes. Which puts you and England in the same basket of unwelcomed powers.
Well said. You clearly brought out the contradictions in his various arguments for Russia, Gaza and US hegemony. He just can't see it despite his sweet little smile and twinkly eyes.
He never made the argument that American dominance means "peace in the world." In fact, he outright acknowledges that it's all a matter of points of view ("In China's point of view, American hegemony is not a good thing"). He also directly says "I'm not making the argument that America is some noble or virtuous nation," and "my argument is NOT one that says 'we want to keep the United States...really powerful because it is a virtuous nation."
His argument is not some sort of morality judgement about how states should act, it merely explains WHY states act the way they do.
No offense, but one of the fundamental mistakes people like you tend to make is acting like Realist theory ascribes some sort of morality judgement or message to the world. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs on who the "good guys that bring peace" or the "bad guys that bring chaos" are.
@ViperOfMino. I argue that there is no justification for dominance other than peace. This is not because peace is inherently more moral than rational, but because in both World Wars, the involvement of the United States was primarily to help bring about peace. During World War I and World War II, U.S. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, respectively, established efforts such as the League of Nations, which was later modified into the United Nations, aimed at bringing nations together to create sustainable peace. Within the UN, five nations oversee this process through the Security Council.
NATO was originally created as an alliance to counterbalance the Soviet threat. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO transitioned from a balancing structure to an increasingly aggressive one. Consequently, the U.S. has shifted from its former role as a peacekeeper to that of an aggressor. There is no logical or rational justification for aggression. It creates a nonsense.
@@armensanosyan I agree with everything you said, but there's one particular word you're using that also shows me you misunderstand what John's realist theory (well he didn't CREATE it but you get what I mean), which is the perspective he's arguing from and not his own personal beliefs, does. That word is "justification." The other mistake people tend to make is that they think John is trying to "justify" something. Like, people say "John is justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine." He's never "justified" it, he's just explained the reason that the event occurred according to realist theory. In this popular/colloquial sense, "justify" is inherently placing a moral value judgment on him choosing to invade Ukraine.
You also say, "there is no logical or rational justification for aggression," and a realist would argue that, strictly speaking in the academic sense, there is a rational justification for it. That rational justification is, it's better for a nation to be aggressive (that is, materially/strategically better; MORALS have nothing to do with it) if it will improve their security situation more than the alternatives. This isn't to say it's always the SMART move to be aggressive (value rationality vs. instrumental rationality), or that nations will ALWAYS choose to be aggressive or uncooperative with others, but if being aggressive is the rational choice (again, strictly in the academic way it's used in IR), then a nation will choose to be aggressive. This all hinges on the idea that Realist theory asserts that the primary goal for any state is security, and the best (or even only) way to guarantee that security is to be materially stronger than your competitors. How you get to that point of being materially stronger may or may not be through aggressive means, but "balance of power" is the name of the game in one way or another.
@@ViperOfMino Thank you for explaining. I got your point, and I got his point. His point is very primitive. The logic he follows, and as far as you do, could explain the behavior of all Empires including Mongols and Nazis. If you are telling me the reality is what happens in real-time, and we cannot argue, just because it is a fact, that is not true. He brings suggestions for the US to stay in Europe. As far as the reality and the aggression goes, Mongols and Nazis were aggressive, too, and they had all the materials they wanted. Yet they disappeared. My point is simple. The US's real role beyond its border must be a "peacekeeper". However, It became an Empire now. Now, John's suggestions are to modify some aspects of the Empire, but keep it as an Empire. My argument is that as an Empire, the US will be destroyed. One proof of that is the BRICS. It is destroying the US dollar. Slowly, gradually, but steadily it does. The reason for that was the US Imperialism. Economically, the materials the US gains do not reach its people. It goes to the pockets of the elite. Doesn't it remind you of Rome at the end of its era? the US had to go back to its role around the UN Security Council table. With the bias and aggression, it will turn the world against him. Simply, the country that organized a Nurenber trial is being complicit in genocide. This is nonsense.
The mindless zero-sum barbarism of liberalism is on full display in John's message.
Depends on what you mean by liberalism. For what it's worth, John's school of thought is considered the opposite of liberalism in international relations theory.
neorealism is a theory marxists should adopt and is independent of liberalism
@@dreb-e4y liberal internationalism =/= liberalism. mearsheimer is arguably a neorealist liberal
John has a lecture called the false promises of liberalism. Its here on youtube,its a 3 part lecture and thats the title of one of the 3 segments of the lecture. Just saying.
@@giannislainas5187 He is talking about liberal internationalism not liberalism in a political sense
You cannot give the example of Ukraine as "one of the mess US created" and then say, we (US) are the biggest and baddest that's why we tried expanding NATO to Ukraine despite Russia's asking of not to do so. In the arrogance of being the global dominator or "the biggest and baddest kid on the block", Prof Mearsheimer/US can't just destroy countries (whether its Ukraine/Russia conflict or Israel/Gaza conflict). Another thing is, he is praising China for understanding the importance of being a dominant power and blaming the last century's treatment of China by the rest of the world for it. Well, major blame for the mistreatement of Russia and China in the last century lies on the US.
USA is a bully and he’s not apologising. According to him, big power does what big powers do. Ukraine was not a mistake so much of a miscalculation. Russia was supposed to fail and broken up with all its resources seized. Instead, Russia thrives and was driven towards China.
you are misunderstanding him fundamentally. Prof mearsheimer has many disagreements with what the US foreign policy establishment actually does, he disagrees with what we did in Ukraine and in Gaza. His view of global politics is amoral.
He thinks that in terms of security, nations (should) simply do what is in their national interest which is to 1) be as powerful as possible and 2) if you are a regional hegemon, ensure there are no other regional hegemons on the planet because only regional hegemons are free to roam. He argues that we shouldn't have messed around in Ukraine because Russia was not a regional hegemon and not even a threat to ever be one. and we certainly should not be messing around in gaza beacuse that is of no interest to the US, and we only do because of the israel lobby.
I remember another speech of prof. Mierschimer where he said that US should send troops to East Asia to counteract China. @@quail6129
When Israeli sports teams visit your country, they occupy you. When you fight back, your own gov't turns against you; calling you thugs, hooligans, terrorists, and antisemites. Look at what happened in Amsterdam. Western media and Gov'ts went full Goebells on the matter defending Israelis chanting racist epithets accusing Netherland citizens as antisemites. Embarassing.
$80k every 4 weeks! I now have a good house and can now afford anything and also support my family 😊
Hello!! how do you make such monthly? I am a born Christian, and sometimes I feel so down 🤦♂️ of myself because of low finance, but I still believe God.✝️
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex), who
suggested SANDRA MARIA FERRAGUTI.
She's a licensed broker here in the States🇺🇲 and finance advisor.
After I raised up to 825k trading with her, I bought a new house, and a car here in the also paid for my 10-year-old son's
states 🇺🇲🇺🇲 brain surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time, but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of RUclips videos about it but I still find it hard to understand.
This is the first time I have witnessed Professor John J. Mearsheimer speak so aggressively, ambitiously and power-hungry. It's a shame that he says it doesn't matter whether we have the power, good or bad. Frankly, he has no value in my eyes anymore.
This is his true color, while in other time he intends to speak facts and truth as his cover.
Being the biggest bully also invites continual fights with others who want to be on top...it is not security, it is a recipe for eventual demise. This guy's arrogance and pride are exactly what I hate about our country. But hey...you people elected the biggest bully around...reap what you sow.
Arguably the problem with this realism is that the realism itself by this specific definition realistically it seems to be a broken path, if all parties went by this realism it seems the future of humanity seems to be realistically doomed.
Realism = nationalism
that is why his book is called the tragedy of great power politics. it is a tragedy and we are doomed.
Daniel saw the stone cut out without hands break all earthly empires to pieces and grow to be a great mountain. Christ will set up an eternal kingdom based on love, joy, and peace. And greedy, power-hungry, hypocritical so-called Christians will not be there.
Realism doesn't mean that every nation is always going to go to war with each other all the time, or that cooperation can't occur. In fact, a realist might say that the Cold War was able to conclude without a hot war between the USA and USSR because the security dilemma, AKA the arms race, reached a point where nuclear war was the only inevitable outcome; Nuclear war was an existential threat for both nations (and remember that every nation's number 1 priority is their own security/sovereignty), so the only outcome was for the conflict to die down without a hot war.
I highly suggest you do some more research on the topic, and that you also look up other realist schools of thought such as "defensive realism." It just so happens that Mearsheimer is giving lectures and debating on hot conflicts during a time where crises are indeed happening in every theater of the world, so the topics are going to sound bleak. Because bleak stuff is going on. In fact, one of his main arguments is that if NATO didn't try to expand to Ukraine (and I'm not getting into a debate about this lol). then this war would have never happened.
Not to make this a short essay, but I'm almost done with my IR degree in university, so I've become pretty familiar with the theories and their concepts/arguments/perspectives/applications.
@@ViperOfMino like realism/nationalism itself, the premise of your argument is very shaky. If you listen to Meirshiemer explain what he means by “realism”, he is quite clear that in his opinion nation states/humans are inherently selfish and will always be at war either physically or economically, and that any co-operation is simply a means-to-an-end, a way to gain some sort of strategic advantage for themselves over others. That’s a generalisation and actually historically inaccurate (there were no organised wars fought before 2500BC).
The second is that it assumes that the ancient and frankly outdated system of capitalism/imperialism is the best and only way that human civilisation can be organised. Which is evidenced by the lack of solutions or alternatives put about by those who subscribe to that school.
Personally I don’t care about things “sounding bleak” or the way they sound at all really, all I care about is the truth. And if you’re going to call your perspective “Realism” then it had better be realistic.
Thus guys yelling and pointing fingers is a sign of a bully.
How would you expect someone to respond?
Either with more aggression or terrified into committing awful acts of violence.
The underlying issue here is the lingering notion of Western superiority, with some in the West viewing themselves as inherently more advanced than Asian cultures, perhaps rooted in the early industrial revolution. However, times are changing, and it's becoming increasingly clear that the era of Western dominance-and the values tied to it-is gradually coming to an end.
@@knstrck Chinese civilization destroyed by East India company by opium war
You view Western culture as opposed to Asian, as if Western means Caucasian, and you could not be more wrong. Western values are ones of freedom, and its enemy is the authoritarianism typical of non-Western countries (prominently China, Russia, Iran, Egypt and to a lesser extent Brazil, South Africa and India).
Is freedom superior? Depends what you mean by superior. Would I rather leave in a free but "inferior" country? Absolutely.
Ironically, Chinese belief in their superiority is much more prevalent than the inverse. This arrogance leads to a belief in their own moral superiority, amongst other things. All the while it is clear that they are not even mature enough to handle criticism and open discussion. This makes them much more dangerous for humanity than they understand.
I've lived abroad in countries where you have immigrants from all over the world operating businesses. The employees will tell you the Chinese are the worst people to work for. Be careful.
Completely forgets Diplomacy
Diplomacy only works when you carry a big stick.
Dr. Mearsheimer, I have a deep admiration and respect for you especially for the position you have taken in calling the Palestine conflict a genocidal and terrible war.
Regarding your view of US being a military power, with the capacity to crush the bullies of the world, in that I disagree. It might have been acceptable in the NY of your childhood to be the bully of the block but I don't think it is the appropriate stance in the 21 century. I think that to keep fomenting the idea of a super power, the one that "protects" Europe against these bad guys is to continue fomenting a bully mentality that is not conducive to peace. It is conducive to domination and a war like mentality.
With all due respect, and you might think that my stance is idealistic, even foolish. I think that since we all live in one planet, a fragile one at that, that instead of harboring a bully mentality of superiority and we begin by actively creating a mentality of cooperation and peace.
My country and Latin America in General has suffered greatly under the weight of American colonialism and neo imperialism. Colonialism, the idea that some nations were the super powers and had a God given right to dominate the "inferior" ones, has brought suffering and misery that is still with us today.
The history of humankind has been for the most part a history of conflict, dominance and wars. And where has that gotten us?
It is time to change course. With the arsenal of weapons at our disposal, we cannot afford to continue is this path of dominance, bullying and super power mentality. The fate of our tiny planet and its inhabitants hangs in the balance.
*It seems like the best SOLUTION for the whole World is to have INTERNATIONAL LAW EQUALLY APPLIED TO EVERYBODY,*
*instead of everybody trying to be the BIGGEST BULLY IN THE WORLD.*
UN was created for that purpose. But the biggest kids on the block don’t follow the international laws.
@@MYTAccount lol no
Whos gonna arrest the ones that dont obey the law tho?
How are you going to enforce this international law?
Realistically speaking, the only countries that could enforce this law are the superpowers, hence the UN Security Council only has 5 permanent members (countries which are/were superpowers).
Also, in the age of nuclear weapons, it would be impossible to arrest war criminals from countries with nuclear weapons unless they freely agree to it. This is people like George W. Bush, Obama and Putin will never be arrested.
mersheimer doesn't disagree with that. why do you even think that needs to be said?
Curious This House takes an antithetical stance but invites Mearsheimer. Prof. Mearsheimer is the unofficial spokesperson of the US MIC-militray industrial complex; deploying some eight hundred military bases around the world to maintain its dominant position. When China dominated Asia, it had no military base outside its territory.
China has one official military base in Djibouti, and is currently building an "unofficial" naval base in Cambodia. China is also investing in a canal and land bridge in Cambodia and Thailand so that it can circumvent a hypothetical Malacca strait blockade by the US and allies if a conflict in the region finally erupts.
Treat yourself to a wee bit of knowledge about whom you speak!Do you want an echo chamber ?
@@hitthedeck4115That versus 900. That is irrelevant. Also, it is done to protect its own interest, not the colonialize and dominate the lands of others.
@@lisbondiaries9212 China is not even a regional hegemon yet, while the US is a global superpower, so of course the number of bases are different. Once China becomes a global hegemon replacing the US, it will probably do the same to protect its own interest like you said (its interest is now the whole world).
@ You obviously are poorly educated about China and its history. No, China won’t have bases like the U.S. I am sure you want to believe that so that you can justify U.S. geopolitics. Oh and has far as China not being a superpower…you are incorrect. It already is. I suggest you read some work by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs who has years of experience as a diplomat and an advisor to world leaders.
This man has been talking about the same for years, but every time with different energy and enthusiasm 👍
He's a broken record, a one trick pony with a theory so unreal that he is no realist but a simple supremacist.
I’m sure the rest of the world, those that have been colonized and/or bullied would rather see the bully stay in his own country, respect international laws and keep their hands to themselves.
The US empire and home nation has crossed the Rubicon. American collapse is unavoidable and they only have themselves to blame.
~
*“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”* ― Arnold Toynbee
he said that 70 years ago and you'd have to ask what 'collapse' looks like. because if he means 'like britain' i'd have to disagree.
a nation's power and reach is always in flux. but covering 3/5ths of the planet in colonies then collapsing down to an island isn't in the cards for america. at least not in the next 300 years. but yes, america does expect it's power to wane in the next 70 years greatly.
if that's a "collapse" can be debated.
He frankly told us what does hegemony mean, the real pirate logic. Chinese just like his openness.
What the American Geopolitics experts fear is that Europe and Asia merge to one block: Eurasia. One way to prevent this from happening is making sure Europe and Russia are in a constant conflict and maybe even war. This only benefits US Hegemony. One remarkable act of war by the US was the attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
What US sees as their best interests is not Europe's best interests. Europe needs cheap gas from Russia for economic stability and success. So no i don't think that every European politician should believe that it's an imperative to keep the US in Europe. That's obviously propaganda.
That's the only point in wich Mearsheimer could be wrong. But he has interesting arguments about that issue on his lectures about nationalism against liberalism.
As always, brilliantly simple truth, forcefully delivered and very entertaining.
JJM outlines his realist theories with clarity and passion. However, his depiction of great power politics is a destructive and harsh way of thinking. It is time for the US to recognize the rise of the multipolar world and to accede with grace to a seat at the table of justice among equals , not the conquered. " The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. And we live in a time of monsters" Antonio Gramsci
When one is afraid, they are more likely to do stupid things. And America is definitely afraid right now. No dispute to that. What makes it even worse is the quality of the leaders of America. She had great leaders who were great thinkers. Current scenario, its not about who is a great American leader but who is lesser evil or lesser stupid. Its a tragedy.
You're wrong. America has never or will ever be afraid. Now the quality of Leaders, you're right . But thank God for the way this country was formed as a Constitution Republic. It is the only way it's people are able to get rid of Horrible Leaders. Like the last administration.
Afraid of what?
Afraid of what?
@@Athenaikos Afraid of being taken over by China. Napolean said not to wake up China for a reason. In terms of India he wanted to enslave them removing the Brits. No innovation of talents flow can stop that. She is awake.
@@savaii4menow Well, current geopolitical scenario says America is definitely afraid. Looking for every nook and cranny to undermine the Chinese growth. Be glad Xi says," This world is big enough for all of us". I see a philosopher king under veil of communism.
John doesn't promote colonialism. He has said that he wishes things didn't operate like this. He is just describing how things really operate and the crisis we are living with today is best explained by his theory, which is why realism in IR has recently been in the spotlight and why he is speaking in Cambridge.
The false realist is just a disguise. His aim is American exceptionalism.
@@sed9406 You really need to take a course on international relations. John is not concerned about feeling superior to other countries. He even warns about the downfalls of nationalism. He is concerned about maintaining security and power through population size, a strong military, and economic wealth, due to a game that all great powers play. His theory has proven true because Europe thought it would remain stable solely based on agreements and liberal hegemony. The US broke an unspoken rule of great power politics, don't even attempt to set up camp in the backyard of another great power. There was no higher power to tell the US to stop expanding NATO towards Russia. If Russia set up camp in Mexico I would want the US to respond immediately and it would have the power to do so because ALL GREAT POWERS are concerned with security and power.
@olllloollllo Not all great powers have to behave like this. Stop projecting His own mafia state On to international relations. In other cultures Besides Colonialism, the value morals way more than So called “west”. Just like in their high schools, bullies are Just outcasted Rather than become a king of high school.
Historically I have been impressed by Prof Mearsheimer. In this lecture it seems he shows his true colors, which aren't so much "realist" but rather pessimistic, and acts as an instigator to ongoing violence and division. Jeffrey Sachs strikes me as more of a realist, and he doesn't have to remind us of it in hopes we believe it. End every genocide.
His divisive rhetoric is concerning for an academic.
*I believe the same.*
@ZIMCoin He is a structuralist. He hinted at it here also when he said we are in an iron cage and there is no way out of it. Its the structure that forces power competition and you like it or not you have to participate.
The Prof as he pointed out again is still an American tho and he isnt into liking being the one oppressed.
Yes. Agreed. Sachs has a far more reasonable outlook and vision.
To claim Sach is realist is problematic. When Sach is realist, he's belong to what IR school more specifically? Defensive realism? Neoclassical realism? We should know that when Mearsheimer describe himself as realist, he's basically describing himself as an "offensive realist", not because he has pessimistic/optimistic or more realistic view of the world than others
In my opinion the USA has been on the top for a very long time, it’s time to take the L and sit in the back seat. I think we as Europeans are very diplomatic and a reliable partner for anyone in the world. It’s good that we are humble and don’t strive to be first. With that being said we should develop our own technologies and be a independent continent.
Professor Mearsheimer's argument is only convinving if one acts out of self-interest. For the rest of us, it is questiomable
Charles De Gaule and Maynard Keynes were right about America.
I think seeing Mearsheimer as a successor to Henry Kissinger is probably the right way to look at this talk. For those of us who aren't wedded to cold war realism, there are elements of this that seem psychopathic. Why do human interactions have to be seen through the lens of the playground bully? There are far more interactions on the playground when people play together without trying to kill each other. Why can't we build a multilateral treaty framework built on mutual respect, non aggression and a shared commitment to human rights that leads to mutual prosperity, and cooperation rather than competition? Oh right, we did. The US flushed it all down the toilet in Gaza, along with 100k lives or more.
Spot on.
When zero-sum thinking dominates, a question to ask is, what is zero-sum?
Resources, well-being, the things that actually matter, turn out to be non-zero-sum. We can all be better off by working together.
What IS zero-sum is the position of absolute dominance, the title of No. 1. As the Prof puts it, the ability to do whatever you want without worrying about the repercussions.
Any sensible person can see how stupid and destructive that way of thinking is. I’m not saying that most people are sensible.
Why can't big powers live in peace and coexist in prosperity?
Too dumb and greedy?
greed gets in the way.
Go read the book he wrote about it. Its called the Tragedy of Great Power Politics. The tragedy part is especially fitting.
@Jeffrey2323
Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely 💯
Y ou may not be interested in war but war is interested in you. It's quite normal all countries have always done it. children do it in the schoolyard, chimpanzee do it in the jungle, Australian Aborigines and Hawaiians are notorious for it
Audio is so suck you cannot hear one question. Nice work young geniuses.
3:30 thanks,John, for not mincing words about American complicity in the Gazan genocide
Being the biggest and baddest dude on the block in no way assures your security. That's a child's way of thinking. You want to be the biggest and baddest at creating alliances. That's the adult way of doing things.
Do you regard the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 as an "adult way of doing things?" The Poles may have a different view.
it's about the principle, stupid
The false realist is just a disguise. His aim is American exceptionalism.
Professor, who looked after Europe for millennia before America showed up in the twentieth century ???
The Concert of Europe is an anamoly in European history.
@@eliasphiniotis you can henceforth defend ukraine yourself, it seems
@ Are you from this Earth or just arrived from another universe ?
@@eliasphiniotis i know the uk has given to ukraine as well, but zelensky always mentions special thanks for the us.
Idk im just agreeing with you, defend yourselves
War and inter-State rivalry.
Even though I like and admire Mearsheimer, but just like Jeff Sachs, I have had a big problem with his outlook on China.
He insists on his assumptions that if China becomes powerful, then China will be going after Europe and USA, in their backyard.
The assumption that a powerful china will be imperialistic, exploitive and militaristic is not supported by following facts,
1) it’s not in Chinese character to be outward looking and domineering. The Chinese have never exhibited power projection, even with respect to their soft power in the cultural arena.
2) Historically when china was at the zenith of its power it did not behave like westerners.
Just read about Treasure fleet and Admiral Zheng He, to better understand China psyche dna.
Or consider the Great Wall, which is clearest evidence of an inward looking nation
Having said all that china is inherently mercantile, so international trade will always be the top priority. But that is not the same as military force projection.
That's exactly his blind spot, projecting the american way on the Chinese.
I agree it's hard to imagine China coming after Europe right now but can you say with certainy that, that will always be the case? JM's example of Russia and NATO expansionism is right on the mark. If we allow that NATO expanded as it did not out of any evil intent but because it was in it's interest and that it could, because Russia was weak. It's not hard to imagine an overly powerful China doing the same thing in 50+ years, especially if Europe and the US become weak. We need some sort of balance of power and most importantly mechanisms to call bad actors to account. We have the U.N and ICJ but the big powers do as they will because they will never be brought to account by the system we have. I cannot even imagine a big 5 leader being brough before the world court.
Your "facts" are ancient history.
The Chinese behavior is now dictated by what the Communist party wishes it to be. Sadly now it is a rather nationalistic bent, which should be worrisome if you know the facts (e.g. their naval bullying of Philippines, their attitude towards Japan, their continual occupation of Tibet, their build up of naval bases on man-made islands, etc).
It isn't enough to panic over, but things in SE Asia are dangerous right now.
I have great respect for the way China has conducted itself throughout these troubled times despite juvenile provocations from the US govt.
@@DwynAgGaire The problem is JM didn't give background details to the Ukraine conflict which would better enllighten the audience as to why Russia retaliated. None of these issues happened in a vaccum. US had been provoking Russia into war since the formation of NATO just to prove its power over Russia. Go to UN Security Council archives for the facts. JM knows. His bias interferes with his academic prowess.
"This House Welcomes The Decline of The West." - what the title should have been.
The decline of the United States was caused by two factors: one was Nixon's abandonment of the containment of China, and the other was de-industrialization. Meanwhile, China achieved industrialization, while the United States lost its industry. How could it be the strongest and most powerful player on the block without industry?
You do realize the containment of China was abandoned because China a.k.a. the PRC turned against the Soviet Union, who was the other Geo political rival of the United States. The United States shifted as attention to which was inevitable as China thanks to Denis reforms, began to become the worlds second preeminent superpower, following the Soviet collapse of 1991 and the fall of communism, even the Marxist Lennon ism a.k.a. communist model itself is nothing more than a fallacy in China. The CBC keeps the communist branding to keep their citizens in line which is not surprising considering China model has been pretty authoritarian for the most part. It’s history over although it’s market socialist economy, and more prone to privatization if you think she is gonna get rid of that, I got news for you that will never happen, terms of industrialization manufacturing basis slowly coming back to the
@@徐国琦徐国琦 They couldn't keep China contained forever though, could they? Surely it was better to do it on peaceful terms?
So the professor's primary principle, highest aspiration, is being the biggest, baddest dog in a dog-eat-dog world. Here is where realism, absent the counterweight of idealism, leads--to a worldview in which virtue is sidelined as a game for chumps, most particularly the virtue of wisdom, which interjects the ethical into the intellectual. Am I alone in suspecting that the professor lives out his own life on far better, more beautiful principles than dog-eat-dog?
Human beings are not the same thing as states.
Human beings can afford to and often times required to adhere laws and moralty because if they don't there will be tangible and reliable consquences that will arrive from it, either inprisonment, death penatlty or fines. The reason for this is because the State has a monopoly of violence can actually enforce these laws in reliable manner with great certainty.
This is not the case internationally. There is no body, state or armed forces which holds a monopoly of violence over the 195 countries in the world and because of that International Law, the UN and all of these other world order organizations are essentially just a form of political charade. The US will talk all the time about the so-called "Rules Based Order" and then will violate it when it's convienant. All of these global institutions and laws are only effective to the extent to which the global superpowers themselves adhere to it and respect it. They will only do so when it's in their interest.
Morality and laws are only useful if you have somebody there to enforce it and you can only really do this by violating countries sovereignty in certian moments and this is impossible for countries with nuclear weapons.
There is a reason why Slobodan Milosevic was brought to the Hague for war crimes and not people like George Bush, Clinton, Obama or Putin. Yugoslavia never had any nuclear weapons.
I agree with his description of China and the US, but I cannot understand his statement about Europe.
If Europe loses the US, will it lose peace? Wasn't NATO's eastward expansion led by the US?
The bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline in Germany has led to rising energy prices and soaring CPI. Is it in Europe's interest for German companies to move to the US?
just look at what Europe was like before. Wars this, wars that, 30 years war, WW1, WW2. And let me remind you WW1 and WW2 both originated from Europe. Europe need the pacifier to avoid fighting each other.
@gentoffire The main pacifier force is nuclear weapons. If there were no nuclear weapons, the US and USSR would have fought the hot war in Europe, not the cold war.
No nuclear power has been invaded. Therefore, Europe have the ability to maintain peace by itself.
the babies of Gaza has NO HIGHER AUTHORITY to turn to now.....
What about that.
Powerful and troubling.
Only works for one who may prevail. Leads to conflicts in execution.
An adjunct is to realize these flaws and work toward bodies and treaties that limits conflicts and arbitrate disputes.
Great explanation of the motives for the western imperialism.
It's debate - each speaker has only side to argue. Like in a court the prosecution would never raise something that would help the defence, and vice versa. So we do not have a reasoned argument from anyone, it is just a 'guilty or not guilty' decision that is required. For someone who has preached Negotiation above Conflict for all the years I have followed him this diatribeis a bitter disappointment :(
I can't hear what one of the audience said to Mearsheimer from 10:30 . What he's argument? The sound is not clear 😞
Suspiciously distorted
You can cick on "Show transcript" in the grey rectangle above and thus read what they say.
I have always been in agreement with you Professor. Notwithstanding, this conference has opened my eyes: You are not what I thought.
This thinking is the reason why the world has been in turmoil since the raise of US hegemony. It can never be a zero sum game. Am that's why America's decline is inevitable.
When the British empire was a superpower there were two world wars when America is superpower there have been zero world wars this is the safest the world has ever been
Why it took too long for Cambridge union to invite Mearschimer?
The night watchman is sleepy these days 😂😅
Unilateralism always carries the seeds of its own downfall within it.
I've always admired Mearsheimer. He gives a much more practical interpretation of US power projection and behavior. As a longtime student of US behavior, I agree with everything he says about Ukraine. The Russian invasion was inevitable, and you could see it coming from years away because the US kept insisting on NATO expansion. They warned us, and we did it anyway. Despite the morality of the actual invasion (it is horrific), the US is partly to blame - we put Russia in an impossible situation.
At the end, Mearsheimer said that the economic conditions in Europe will deteriorate without the pacifier that is America.
I don't know if anybody notices, but right now, the economic conditions in Europe are disastrous. It's hard to see how they can be worse.
Britain is de-industrializing. The EU is de-industrializing. Their people are living terrible hardships.
Their economies are essentially stagnant with GDP growth hovering around one percent.
Professor John J. Mearsheimer has nothing against China. According to him, all states behave the same in an international system.
Mearsheimer sounds like a madman!!
We live in a mad world
... Why, because he is honest about America being just another level of grey in a world that has NEVER been as black & white as you want it to be ?
you sound like a snowflake
@@Mman. world is not mad otherwise we would live better we live in subservient clown world where 99% is slaving away and serving 1%
i wouldn't go so far as to call him that. more like a misguided patriot.
That is right Professor
It's important to note that an empire can be "the pacifier", but still not be the best thing on the table for the countries seeking stability and safety.
China started to arm itself, seeing the US's aggression. Military power is ultimately based on economic and technological power. China will inevitably surpass the US. Mearsheimer's talk is hollow.
Turns out he is American.
The problem with Mearsheimer is that he "naturalises" imperialism and underestimates the logic of global capital. The decline of the USA may be the decline as well of the conditions under which Mearsheimer's predictions work. Btw., I don't have to opt for the USA just because I'm American.
>The problem with Mearsheimer is that he "naturalises" imperialism
Imperalism is natural
>underestimates the logic of global capital
neorealism can help us defeat global capital
>Btw., I don't have to opt for the USA just because I'm American.
He is speaking more from the perspective of a US foreign policy advisor, rather than as an "American". Basically, the US wants to continue as a liberal capitalist nation, and so will always take actions to protect that interest.
@@solarizedtrippin explain yourself. What is "natural" about imp.? Come again? What is "neo" here? And what do you have in mind when talking about "global capital", so that it can be defeated by some school in IR? No. Mearsheimer explains why he personally sides with the USA.
@@cristinaximera9663 Mearsheimer is a liberal, the USA is a liberal nation, so of course he supports the USA.
You have to disconnect his personal beliefs from what hes advocating for here to see the broader implications of his message.
It's in the liberal democratic USAs interests to remain a great power, that's his argument, he is a liberal democrat so he supports this.
If you oppose the existence of the USA in its current form, its against your interests for the USA to remain a great power.
>What is "natural" about imp.?
States will always work to protect their interests, it is inevitable powerful states will meddle in the affairs of weaker ones.
@@solarizedtrippin 1. Mearsheimer explicitly states that he is NOT siding with the USA because it is liberal. He explicitly states that the USA are no better than anyone else. 2. Your definition of imperialism (= protecting self interest) is questionable. Switzerland is protecting its interest and isn't imperialist. The USA are imperialist, yet to their own detriment (long term).
@@cristinaximera9663 I agree with you the USA is imperialist to its detriment, but I think Switzerland is imperialist (or at least, benefits from imperialism of the west).
We probably fundamentally disagree on the definition of imperialism.
US is not and have never been a pacifier in Europe. Mearsheimers simplistic view of being the badass on the block is exactly that, a very simplistic view of the world.
@@svenhanson398 He was using the analogy of the baddest dude on the block to explain a concept, not because he has an overly simplistic view on things. I have seen quite a few of his talks and he does not have a superficial or simplistic view on any of the topics he has spoken on
Before US leadership, Europe started two worldwars and kild more than 100 million people
Under US leadership, Europe stopped its worldwars and became peaceful and civlzed
His argument is the classic way Europeans have done politics for centuries.
The German Kaiser called it "Machtpolitik" (power politics), and Germany, France, the UK, Spain, etc all tried to be what the USA is today (hegemon).
But because of WW2 and butchering each other, Europeans lost the title.
The only question is whether America will keep it. They are basically Rome but in 2024. But Rome always fought perpetual wars, took in mass immigration, then collapsed through decadence.
Rome is Eternal.
On a serious note,this is way more ancient than Kaiser. Look at the city states of Greece or look at the Religious wars in the Holy Roman Empire,it think its called the 30 year war or something.
What we witness in the 30 year war is that everyone changed sides and they werent changing sides cause of religious reasons,but for power politics reasons. Whenever someone were taking the lead in the war and gaining too much,everyone else,including his previous allies,would be ganging up on him to shorten his gains and it went on and on and on till they got bored.
As for your example,UK was the prime player of power politics. Whenever a continetal power would threaten to dominate the continent and thus become to big of a threat,they would ally with their enemies to cut them down. Most famous examples of that would be Napoleon,Hitler and Stalin even.
As a matter of fact UN laws about sovergnity come out of the the treaty that ended the 30 year war. The Westphalia treaty and thats where we get the Westphalian system that we live in today.
Well we did live it in,before USA ruined it all through the Cold War and more so after it.
And nothing to do with mass migration this is foolish and idiotic in terms of the power politics that you were looking for that comes from the politics of autovon Bismarck, the true founder of the German Empire. The reason that the Roman Empire collapsed wasn’t because of mass migration it’s because they overextended themselves And the rich elite the aristocracy away with stealing all the resources that should’ve kept the empire intact that’s the real reason and most of the mass immigration that took place came from Germanic barbarians who are the ancestors of two white Europeans Americas United States on the other hand was built as a nation of immigrants. It doesn’t have any particular origin even though nativist love to whine about how, their cultures, European and nature the American system the American culture is blending cultures from all over the world if immigration improves the American state to even better degree
@@giannislainas5187 The UK the British Empire collapsed because of one major thing it was no longer. The world’s global trading has been surpassed by the United States and it had nearly lost both world wars got wrecked in World War II. That’s why.
i dont know if you guys expected him to advance something new - the 'realist' view of international policy is not a new idea.
In Professors dictionary the word " STAY " means LOOT.
THE WORLD WELCOMES THE DECLINE OF AMERICA!
god speed
I WELCOME THE RISE OF AMERICAN PEOPLES WITH A NEW MIND, NEW WAY OF SEEING AND BEING IN THE WORLD.
"the world" - pure abstraction
@ you know more people live outside the US Empire and its vassal states than inside it (1.5 bn vs 6.5 bn). Right? And then there are the people who live within empire who also want it to decline. Or were you born yesterday? Or maybe you are an ignorant American?
@@pranavjagdish You are hypostatizing the world, treating this abstract entity like a concrete thing which can express a position, when it just can't.
The youth in the audience asking the questions are not even playing the same game. This was an excellent analysis. This is one of the reasons the US election was watched by the entire globe.
One thing that is never talked about is, Mother Nature more powerful and not controlled. The mother can sweep cities and countries and leave behind its own terror.
Arguing from an American point of view that a unipolar world in which the US is the hegemon and therefore would benefit the US, is totally understandable.
But for everyone else its been not so beneficial and in some cases even catastrophic. Here we just have to look at Serbia, Ukraine, or Germany for example.
To enlarge the picture you can simply ask any victim who suffered under the violence inflicted on them by the US if they think it benefited them to have a unipolar world in which the US is the ruthless hegemon.
This guy thinks like a hammer and speaks like he's debating common sense. There is no need for the US to maintain an enormous military-industrial complex at back breaking cost. A la France.... just have a strong (nuclear) deterrence. The majority of the US military is for projecting power/violence, and not for defense. The US military is many times the size required for defense of the homeland. Currently with 800 foreign military bases? That seems hegemonic. Why can't Mearsheimer see his hypocrisy?
The US magazine "The National Interest" revealed that the wars in Gaza and Lebanon consume tens of billions of US tax dollars, and that the cost of US-backed weapons to "Israel" and related military operations in the region has reached at least $22.76 billion since the beginning of the war on the Gaza Strip, according to a new report by the Costs of War Project at the Brown Foundation. Nov 7 2024.
America world debt, is 35 trillions! How can you pay such a debt? Wars and war machine complexe. Tax payers in the USA, in deeb s*** with old infrastrucure, roads, schools etc... Good Luck, the simple American citizens.
They print money regardless of taxes. Debt and deficit only a cudgel against the citizens through austerity.
In the year 2500 CE scholars will look back at colonization and think of it as just another part of history among others were one perspective dominated. I feel that’s how every king in his golden time would have had courage ( or maglomania) to call himself a representative of God and people believed.This belief that colonization worked because other cultures allowed it so it should make sense even in the future is just so futile and naive view. Don’t be so full of ego to even consider other perspectives. You will die and so will others. Just like you find your ancestors believing in foolish things and sometimes nonsensical so will your descendants.
How gutwrentching it is that we are, almost, casually talking about the US being complicit in Genocide in Gaza!? It become so casual like agreeing with the friend to go for coffee to Starbucks. Disgusting, horribly inhumane and dismaying. How far the Evel of our leaders had brought us all? Humanity is dying in front of our eyes and we are unable to recognize it. It's perplexingly horrific.