@@acidbot666 you didn't listen to Peter Zeihan. John's view is more theoretical less practical (he is a professor in Political Science so). Peter is using real data and past events as he is a practitioner. Should you believe in a narrow view of political science, game theory and logics or geography, demography and data? Take your pick. Either way John's view is narrower as you listen to both of them. Gluck!
@@acidbot666 also I followed John ever since his lecture at Chicago 10 yrs ago. I watched all his videos and read Graham Allison's book on thucydides trap, which shared a lot of points with John's on China rising power. Well, Peter's works changed my view
Pretty sure this is from an older debate that occurred in May of this year. Mearsheimer recently (December, I think?) gave a speech in Hungary about this topic and it's available on RUclips. He lays his argument out in such simple terms that it almost sounds child-like, but I believe that's a sign of his wisdom and insight on this topic.
That's a sign that he just repeats russian propaganda slogans, which are stupid simple. He also doesn't understand that the war and genocide of Ukrainians was unprovoked
Russian trolls love him. I wonder why...If he was the one to decide about my country's fate, we would be soviet backyard again. Greetings from Poland. We know Russia better tha you can imagine.
@@Blanka1100 radek had the chance to prove that with evidence, facts, and data but instead resorted to sophistry and demagoguery to manipulate the audience in an unprofessional fashion.
@@jutsu1 oh crap thanks for letting me know. I just saw this posted and hour ago and it made it sound like this was tonight! signing up to watch it no!
I really hope tonight's debates don't devolve into a bunch of emotional straw man attacks on Mearsheimer, like most folks do when they argue with him. I hope this ends up being a rigorous and good faith engagement of the opposing sides' ideas.
@@hectorgarcia9790 He's really not taking a side. Just laying out the facts for you to decide what would be the best course to take. By childish, I assume you mean that he doesn't give appropriate homage to the American war machine.
@@tomw9599 No. Professor Mearsheimer is an old Putin prostitute, just like J Sacks, since at least 2014. I have been following him. He first just pushed the narrative "Putin said" knowing perfectly Putin's lying constantly, now Professor lies for himself. Read his interview to the New Yorker.
The prof has it called correctly, unfortunately. I hope those back channels are very much open and the RF tells the US when the threshold has been reached, as I really don’t fancy being nuked for a silly game of geopolitics over a country that previously was of no strategic value to the US. I suppose they are practicing being nobs in Ukraine before they enact the nobs in Taiwan plan.
Mearsheimer is one of those knobs on Taiwan, unfortunately. Maybe it has to do with his think-tank being funded by Soros, but his "realist" school of thought is dropping the proxy war in Ukraine so we can better focus on provoking China.
@@bjpargeter466 I rather like the Adam Curtis take on politics. The world is so complex that the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are not really in control of events. So flood the public with huge volumes of seemingly contradictory information so that we never know truth from fiction, but importantly for the politicians survival the public are so confused that they don’t notice their incompetence and inadequacy and they retain power over us. Feels the right answer to me.
@@opinion4755 unfortunately its nuclear warheads that determine who is a great power, not anonymous douchebags on RUclips comments sections. And while the US slowly pushes the world into China's arms, and US power disintegrates, we'll be looking at this war as the catalyst that really drove the downfall of the US empire.
@@bjpargeter466 why so emotional? Are you upset about how Russian boys measure up to Ukrainian heroes? Then if to use your scale Russia is a superpower little above North Korea and definitely below Israel. Somewhere around the superpowerness of Pakistan? Is that about right?
This host thinks the West has high moral principles and their policies reflect that fact. He sounds like an adult who still believes in the myths he was taught as a child. I was taught those myths growing up in the USA. Then I grew up. My country and the West aren't guided by morals or principles, they are like everybody else, their policies are guided by ruthless self interests. What does he think we were doing invading Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and totally controlling Central and South America and the Caribbean forever. What does he think of the fact that the Us spends as much on the Military as the next ten countries combined and six of those countries are our allies. We have eight hundred bases around the world. We do this to dominate the world, not spread good will. The host is buried in his jingoism.
This man lives in a world where only the great powers matter and small powers aren't really sovereign states at all - and that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous and frankly fundamentally against the current rules-based liberal international order. If you start giving into Russian "backyard rationale" because great powers need to be respected, who's next, the entire Central Asia and Eastern Europe, the Arctic can technically be deemed Russia's backyard for fuck's sake.
Yeah, maybe if it was still 1963. He thought back in February that there was no way the Ukraine could our for much longer and Putin would be in Kiev by the end of March.
@@ElGrandoCaymano Ukraine is a failed state. Occupied with huge swathes of territory annexed. Bakmut will soon fall. The entire economy is destroyed and Ukraine is has no realible electricity or heat.. The inevitable defeat is a mtter of due course and time. Why else does Ukraine WANT a peace summit in Febuary?!
8:12 What about the absolute sovereignty of Serbia? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Libya? Pakistan (drone strikes)? No, that's not whataboutism because you can't say you stand for certain values but then don't care for those values if it is beneficial to you.
No Mearshimer is NOT correct. Ukraine joining NATO is just an excuse for Putin to attempt to steal Ukrainian resources. Russia is already surrounded by other NATO countries and 1 more would make zero difference to Russian security.
@@coreyham3753 exactly. Also Mearsheimer pretends like there were only two options: Nato forgets about Ukraine or Russia starts killing Ukrainians in bloody war. How come we have only those two options? Explain that, dear immoral professor
Why are we not hearing more from Henry Kissinger after his comments of months ago about how Ukraine should cede land. When the US wants something it pushes it. The US doesn't live up to its word - look at the Minsk agreement. The admission is now that the west was never going to respect that.
@@dmitryspivak4586 Putin disappointed by Merkel's words about Minsk agreements Ukrainska Pravda Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has been disappointed by the statement of German ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, where she claimed that the Minsk agreements of 2014 enabled Ukraine to prepare for the war with Russia. Source: Putin’s response to a journalist’s question Quote: "For me, it was completely unexpected. It is disappointing. I did not expect to hear something like that from the ex-Chancellor. I always hoped that the German leadership was genuine. Yes, she was on Ukraine’s side, supporting it. But nevertheless, I genuinely hoped that German leadership expected a settlement based on the principles achieved, among other things, during the Minsk negotiations." Details: Putin stated that Merkel’s words meant that he had done "everything right" by starting the war in Ukraine. - - Quote: "It appears to me that nobody planned to live up to these Minsk agreements… They [the participants - ed.] lied to us, and the only reason for these processes was to pump Ukraine up with weapons and get it ready for military action. Well, we can see that. Maybe we were too late to realise what was happening. Maybe this [the war - ed.] should have been started earlier."
@@jacqdanieles NATO officially declared in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. (The Bucharest Summit Declaration said: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.") Wouldn't Germany and France have had the power to veto (or otherwise kill) that declaration if they had wanted to veto Ukrainian membership in NATO? What evidence is there of Germany and France doing anything to veto Ukrainian membership in NATO?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The evidence is clear that Germany and France opposed Ukraine membership in NATO at the Bucharest Summit 2008. The door was left open for sometime in the distant future. That amounted to an effective veto. Since NATO has always been a defensive alliance and has never attacked anyone why would Russia object to NATO expansion ? Can you explain ?
The world cannot be as sinocentric as the Chinese public wants to see it, as democratic or enlightened as many Americans would like. Islamic as many Muslims would like, as sensitive to the problems of development as some Latin American and Africans want, or as shaken by French greatness or amazed by British moral leadership as the inhabitants of these countries want. Henry Kissinger
@@ricardo53100 Tell that to Serbia, Libya, Syria... where the US has bombed them or sent troops into those countries in support of separatist movements. Ha! But no, I don't support national sovereignty when it's forced on people against their will. I believe, as the US Declaration of Independence says, that just government must derive its powers from the consent of the governed, that no one inherits a right to rule over anyone else, as Kiev claims over the Donbas on the basis of "sovereignty." I certainly don't approve of a "defense" of that sort of "sovereignty," which is no defense at all but subjugation and/or conquest. Nor do I support the sovereignty of countries on the other side of the world to join alliances with the US that are opposed to their neighbors, alliances that have waged wars on behalf of separatist movements within countries outside their alliance. That's nothing but provocative US meddling. If the West and the particularly the US hadn't sought to meddle in Ukraine, hadn't sought special influence in Ukraine, there's no good reason to believe the war ever would have started, and the Ukrainian people could have been spared everything they've had to suffer as a result of the war.
The question ought to be whether a sovereign country like Ukraine has a right to join a military alliance of its choice. What right does Russia have to dictate to its neighbor with whom it is allowed to associate ? Mearsheimer seems to concede to Putin that the act of Ukraine to provide for its defense is a hostile act against Russia. Mearsheimer must be blind to the fact that Russia has an overwhelming ability to repel any sort of conventional attack on its territory by its use of conventional and nuclear weapons. The question remains whether Mearsheimer is obtuse or a fan of Putin and Russian imperialism.
Mr Mearsheimer likes to talk about history and logic, but modern Europeans or Americans tend to forget history and very stubborn about their own thoughts while neglecting how the other side think.
Mearsheimer makes plausible arguments, including that Russia feels about Ukraine joining NATO as the US would about Russia putting nukes in Cuba. So, Putin had no choice but to invade Ukraine's Crimea and then Ukraine proper? That would put Russia and NATO on each other's border, so where's the logic?
Putin wants to annex Ukraine and does not consider Ukraine to be a real state. Nato is bs excuse for Putin to justify his greed and huge ego. He wants Ukraine. Putin had no reason to invade. Putin always needs excuses to annex. Russia loves annexing just because it can. Putin blames his victims for their will to be secured by Nato. He knows he can not invade Nato member neighbour. Russia occupies 20% of Georgia which is non Nato country. Putin thought it would be easy to annex Ukraine. Russia borders Nato for decades if you have not noticed yet. Poland borders Russia, the same for Lithuania. Finland has the boggest land border with Russia. f Russia was a good neighbour, there would be no need to join Nato to be secured. USA did not annex Coba. Putin is annexing because he wants to. It is about his sick legacy.
NATO will also let Russia be part of NATO if Russia is weak enough and obedient enough. Since Russia is stronger and inobedient, then get all the other countries to join NATO except Russia.
We (the US) can continue sending weapons, but we’re going to run out of Ukrainians to operate them. We’ve created a multi-billion dollar human meat-grinder without an exit strategy.
07:50 - 09:13. This part here is a real eye opener of how we perceive ourselves. 1 minute and 20 seconds of trying to form a question that does more to set the narrative of our politics, rather than be an actual question.
All I got from this part is: "We good. They bad. We kill for peace. They kill for selfish reasons. We have the moral high ground. We must stay on top. If necessary with force. We must dominate others so they don't dominate us. Our domination good. Theirs bad." Just like every major power in history ever...
Professor cannot admit that the American economy can collapse. And this is what Putin counts on. As an inveterated judo-wrestler, Putin knows also the tricks of delaying and retreating from the tatami - which is penaltied in the sport-version.
@12:40 his statement is false based on historical evidence. there have been many many struggles between russia and US going back to korea, some were clear cut wins/losses, some were stalemates and status quo, and eventual wins over a longer horizon.
Where are the rest of the intellectuals concerned that this war? I like Mearsheimer and believe he is a good thinker on international relations but I am concerned that all other experts concerned with the war were silenced so easily.
The only mistake NATO did is that it said it openly. It should not have declared it/ Just should have trained ukrainians and help them arm up and reform the country. And make it too powerful for russkie to attack.
China is fundamentally different from Russia in terms of potential power. It has the population and economic wealth that can rival USA. When you just resort to ad hominem attacks, it doesnt really help your argument. Instead, if you really wanted to argue against John's offensive realism, you generally have to make the argument that nukes will keep the peace between great powers, and/or economic interdependence will keep the peace should China become too powerful. A defensive realist might make the argument that conventional and nuclear deterrence would favor both sides not attacking each other. Of course there are flaws with the argument because you can have nuclear escalation, and because war can happen in the open seas away from where direct nuclear escalation can occur. The other main argument you can use against John is to assess China's economic fragility and demographics as in decline or plateauing. However, this is a very complex topic with no consensus on the long-term between experts. Where Russia is concerned, the main reason for the falling out is because of the tribalistic foreign policy establishment that has chosen to pursue NATO expansion indirectly. The West runs politics in unilateral fashion, and not necessarily for the country's best interests, but for the tribalistic community that runs it. It is vulnerable to the influence of lobby groups, corruption, liberal radicals, and job security for policymakers who safeguard the tribe's interests.
Not a hypocrite just wrong as all people are about some things. John spent his life studying Russia and the Soviet Union he's naturally going to be more on point in relation to them.
@@williamplayfair364 🤣 Divide & Rule was a good tactic, once upon a time, no more. Not Chinese, but nothing wrong to be one. We are all cousins at one point or the other.
EU and US said any country can decide their policy by their own, this is their own right and has nothing to do with others, in particular with Russia, in their opinion, they just wanted to neglect how Russia or Putin feels. They rather turned a blind eye on Putin. or turn a deaf ear on Russia or Putin.
When some specific regions on the Globe are getting geopolitically as ‘sensitive’ as Ukraine (and Ukraine has been one of the kind for many centuries), they definitely should need to get a special international status managed by the UN, that establishes once and for all their military neutrality as well as the safety of their borders between two major zones of influence. As a matter of fact, such ‘buffer states’ have always existed in one form or in another - a bit like ‘tax havens’, mutatis mutandis! - because they’re just vital in order to ensure some necessary harmony in this doomed world of ours.
@@fabiengerard8142 I agree with you. It is very rational and fair. But now the situation is either Ukrain became koreas recognizing the small republics independence or fighting to the last Ukrainian or the worst is to cause a world war. Proxy war is also very bad war.
@@fabiengerard8142 If your country borders Russia staying neutral is pure utopia. You will become Russia's victim sooner than later. Russia does not own Eastern Euroe. Ukrainians are free people, sick and tired of Russia's crimes on their soil, they are ot Russia's buffer. Who is Russia? Cheap gas station which can not stand its time of glory is over. Joining Nato it's a choice while being Russia's neighbor is not. Joining Nato is not made by force. Being Warsaw pact country during Cold war era was not a choice. Greetings from Poland. We know something about Russia.
"The more successful we are... the more likely Russia will use a nuclear weapon." "I don't see the off-ramp for either side... I see the possibility of Ukraine being completely destroyed"... I AGREE, UNFORTUNATELY.
JM peels back the posturing about ideals like "immutable sovereignty" to identify the "ruthlessness" that is really driving the conflict in Ukraine. The welfare of ordinary Ukranians is the last thing that American policy makers give even the slightest damn about.
I enjoy listening to Mr Mearsheimer and think that he is brave and honest in his opinions, but when he talks about the US wanting to force a "liberal" hegemony on the world after the collapse of the USSR I can't see much evidence of this. The US wanted compliant states who would always follow US diktat ahead of their national interest. Whether these states were so-called "liberal" or authoritarian regimes doesn't matter to the US just so long as they show absolutely no independence from the US.
When Mearsheimer says “liberal hegemony” he is referring to economic liberalism, i.e. rules based free-trade, though more and more social liberalism and “human rights” are factoring into the equation.
@@MD-md4th Ok but even with this understanding it doesn't descibe what the US desires from other countries. If this "rules-based" free trade existed then why, for example, did the US do everything in it's power to stop european countries from buying Russian gas? Why does the US sanction so many countries across the world? The US is interested in one thing and that is compliance. That's it. The rest is just window dressing so that the liberal humanitarian bombers can pretend to have a clear conscience.
"Whether these states were so-called "liberal" or authoritarian regimes doesn't matter to the US just so long as they show absolutely no independence from the US." I don't think that's true. The US, for example, has pushed the homosexual agenda hard on other countries, flying rainbow flags at our embassies in foreign countries, conditioning our foreign policies on other countries' domestic policies on homosexual issues... If by "show[ing] absolutely no independence from the US" you mean submitting to everything the US wants those countries to do, including strictly domestic policies, then what's the difference between showing no independence from the US and forcing a liberal hegemony on the world?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 US Power doesn't care about rainbow flags or human rights . This is just a smokescreen. A fob to liberals so as they can pretend to care. One day the US is scolding Russia on gay rights, the next day they are selling 20 billion worth of arms to their best friend Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It is pure hypocrisy...but this nonsense obvoiously works with a certain segement of their population.
@@wbafc1231 However inconsistent and unprincipled US foreign policy is, I think the point remains that there isn't any clear line between liberal hegemony and other countries not showing independence. I think that's different with China, for example. It seems China pursues its economic and geopolitical interests in Africa, for example, without trying to impose any of its values on African domestic policies.
The question I would like to ask Mearsheimer is why does he classify Russia as a great power? besides nukes and oil/gas they don't rank in top 10 of any list! is having nukes enough to qualify as a great power? where does that put countries like North Korea, Pakistan and Israel for example?
you obviously don't recognize importance of having the biggest and (arguably?) the most modern arsenal of nukes.... well, US didn't hesitate to use them, I hope you at least know that. So US is allowed but Russia, IF CORNERED, is not? Seriously? Not allowed by whom? So, Prof. is absolutely right - if, God forbid, Russia will become cornered, GOD HELP US ALL.
I'd like to see Stephen Kotkin debate him. Kotkin would demolish him. There's an argument Kotkin uses that demonstrates clearly why Russia is NOT a great power & should NOT be considered a peer to NATO. [I have several Kotkin interviews saved on my playlist]
this whole nato discussion was mostly words spoken, the proof has to be in the pudding as they say. ukraine has a negotiation strategy of keeping open the possibility of nato admission, or at least they felt it was a good negotiation strategy with russia (maybe that backfired?). But its why nato has an "open door policy," it creates ambiguity and options, which in turn keeps an adversary off balance. even now, in hindsight, its hard to say which is better, having buffer states between nato and russia, or admitting neighboring states into nato. im sure the baltic country's are pretty happy to have the support of the alliance behind them for deterrence purposes and see it as a net positive. the West was not training and arming ukraine for an aggressive posture, it was all done in response to russia's invasion of ukraine in 2014! i've yet to see any convincing argument to the contrary on this, and even if we were in small part "championing" ukraine against russia, that should not provoke an invasion as there was no proof it was hurting russia in any way whatsoever. even if mershimer provides a great power "explanation" for russia's behavior in detroying ukraine, it doesnt make it right, and we all know that great powers dont always get their way all the time!
"the West was not training and arming ukraine for an aggressive posture, it was all done in response to russia's invasion of ukraine in 2014!" As if Russia's 2014 "invasion" of Ukraine was totally out of the blue and the West had played no part in the events that led to Russia's "invasion"! Ha! "even if mershimer provides a great power "explanation" for russia's behavior in detroying ukraine, it doesnt make it right" What difference does it make if it's right or wrong? Whatever ways Russia is right or wrong, the options our rulers (in the US) have for responding to Russia and the situation in Ukraine and the likely outcomes that will come from those responses are the same.
You are on the right track. Russia has more than adequate means to repel a land invasion. It is called their nuclear deterrence. Russia is mortally afraid of a free and democratic Ukraine on its border. Putin fears the bleed over effect. Were that to happen at some point ordinary Russians would demand the same. It is as simple as that. Mearsheimer is a hopeless ideologue who will try to fit the facts to his demented ideology. When this war is over and Russia loses guys like Mearsheimer will be in the Rogue's Gallery of Putin's collaborators.
If Russia was a good neighbor, all those former Warsaw pact countries would have no need to turn their back on Russia and join Nato to be secured. Ukrainians are free people. They are not Russia's backyard or a buffer zone.
Nato is an excuse for Putin He wants to annex Ukraine. Poland joined in 1999, Lithuania in 2004, both Russia's neighbors. Did Putin wake up yesterday? He hates Nato because he can not invade Nato members.
@@Blanka1100 BS! What evidence is there of Putin wanting to annex Ukraine prior to the Western-backed toppling of Ukraine's president in 2013-14, let alone prior to NATO's 2008 declaration that Ukraine would join NATO?
He talks a good story. I wonder what he would have said in 1939? Something like this: "The German"s saw an existential threat to Poland joining forces with Britain, and took decisive action like they said they would"
If I had to guess, he would say that England and France encouraged Hitler to re-militarize Germany, that had succumbed to revenge driven national feelings. They allowed him to break all the restrictions and rules; betrayed their allied states and let Hitler conquer them without any consequences; then turned him East and yelled: "Get'em boy!" At least, that's the short version of what happened.
Don't know about 1939 but in 1914 he probably would've said that French and Russian general mobilization, despite German pleas to calm down, left Germany little choice as to declare war in advance and try to win a quick victory before being hoplessly surrounded. And if he said that he would be totally right.
@@manmanman2000 Im not so sure. The Germans did give the Austrians a "blank check" to present unacceptable ultimatum to Serbs, allied to Russians. That was pretty much already a war declaration. Russians mobilized first, because their country was way larger with less developed railroad network. It simply would take them way longer to get troops assembled.
If you actually research the initial outbreak of wars, most of them start with both sides fully aware it's about to go down. WW2 German invasion of Poland was not a huge surprise after Danzig ultimatum. Hitler invading USSR was a famous exception.
@@azzazel225 The Austrian heir to the throne was asassinated by a Serb acting for a Serbian terror organization. Declaring war on Serbia was stupid but it was in some way an understandable reaction. A modern analogy could be 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe the war could've been contained and kept local but general mobilization of FR und RU was a very serious, major escalation. In my view that was crossing the point of no return.
As for the destruction of Ukraine Russia to some degree is doing so it is NATO that did the damage while using that land as their test because they themselves are not sure if they can directly now poland is an extension of the platform of the fight and that will be another deserter which is next after poland all of Europe
As a realist Mearsheimer should also recognize, that Russia is not a great power anymore. Russia has the economic power of Italy, it stands no chance against the west. The core of the problem is that Russia thinks it is still a great power. And none of the russian interventions in Georgia, Syria, Belarus have been punished. So Russia overestimated itself and thought that the attack on democratic Ukraine would have no consequences. It would be naïve to believe that Russia would have stopped with Ukraine. Moldova, Finland and also the Baltic states are next on the menu of the Russian bear. Appeasement policy is not working. That is also a lesson of history.
Since Mearsheimer's most basic, underlying premise (the Ukraine invasion is all, or even mostly, about Ukraine's membership in NATO) is almost certainly entirely false, it's hard to grapple with the rest of his assertions.
@@dmitryspivak4586 If the war were about Putin's ego, then that would mean Mearsheimer is wrong about pretty much the entire Russian ruling elite having the same attitudes about Ukraine. Where's the evidence that Mearsheimer is wrong on that point, that Russia would have acted very differently apart from Putin? And as for the naked land grab hypothesis, I think that's most clearly debunked by the peace terms Russia offered and Ukraine refused at the start of the war. Even if Russia was disingenuous in its offer, Ukraine clearly rejected a peace that would have protected Ukrainian independence at the cost of remaining independent of NATO and granting self-determination to the Donbas.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 a) Yes, Mearsheimer is 100% wrong about the elites supporting Putin's invasion. Almost every bit of data available confirms this. In fact, most of the elites had no idea the invasion was actually happening. b) Russian offered NO "peace terms" to Ukraine in the beginning of the war. Even now, when they're obviously and thoroughly losing the war, their "peace terms" include a giant land grab. c) Ukraine was never entering NATO, and there was no offer of Ukrainian independence. d) The invasion was not precipitated by any Ukrainian movement towards NATO. The invasion occurred in a total vacuum as it relates to any NATO ambitions. e) Why didn't Russia invade the Baltic states when they ACTUALLY entered (or were about to enter) NATO? Why is it not invading Finland now that they've applied for NATO membership? Oh, right, because it's a total BS excuse for Putler apologists.
How prescient is it to predict that Vladimir Putin would eventually move on Ukraine? Give me a freaking break. He was going to do it regardless of any and all geopolitical developments. What drivel.
As much as I respect John, he is stuck with a single package of arguments and haven't really addressed a lot of points that were raised by the host. I've seen him resort to singing the same tune over and over while his opponents are changing and adapting. I suspect John is going to have trouble convincing anyone in upcoming debate.
@@roberdeoberde9589 I don't think he has to change it, but expand on it. There are things he doesn't address and it might be seen as a weakness. Although I agree with your arguments about only one version of the truth.
I disagree with this theory. Cuban missile crisis was in 1962...the year is 2022. This kind of views are more imperialistic and basically telling us that smaller nations don"t have a right to exist. I consider Mershaeimer a hypocrite. On one hand Mersheimer criticizes the support for Ukraine and on the other supports the US policies backing up Taiwan (money-money). It"s 2022, almost 2023...people should grow up.
1. You're calling his views "imperialistic" because you don't like them. If you knew anything about neorealism you'd know that Mearsheimer (among most realists and neorealists) are not "imperialist". Messianic neoliberals and hawkish neoconservatives? Sure. Neorealists? Typically not, and especially not in the case of Mearsheimer. 2. From the military and economic viewpoint, which is the framework that (neo)realists operate within, Taiwan is both more vital to the U.S. and more vulnerable to foreign aggression. I agree that people should grow up and face reality. Mearsheimer's theory is one of the most utilitarian theories of international politics, and is not applicable solely to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but the broader stage of geopolitics in general. That's the point of theory: not merely describing, but explaining reality.
That's not what I heard. I think he says that smaller nations have a right to exists as long as they do what the dominant power in their part of the world wants. And that seems to be pretty correct.
You are absolutely not a realist. The Western liberal order is a fantasy and a fraud and Ukraine isn't deciding anything for itself. It is self-evidently an American stooge.
The paradox and in fact the hypocrisy of Mearsheimer is that he spent his entire life career promoting the theory of offensive realism. The theory that treats great powers as "black boxes", irrelevant of personal or moral factors, which aim to increase their relative power at the cost of other powers. He even said on multiple ocassions in the past that if the US want to weaken Russia, they should let Russia invade Ukraine. And yet, now that this has happened (conveniently for Maersheimer he is ignoring the fact that it was the Ukrainian people who wanted more integration with EU and NATO institutions, thus sticking to his "black box" theory where the voice of lesser powers doesn't matter) he is trying to put the blame on the US and other Western powers. Well, if Mearsheimer wants to stick to his lifelong theory, he should praise the US for weakening Russia. For some reason, he now seems to be turning his theory other way around to appease Russia just because Russian government says so and feel like Russia being more influential than it really is. If he were truly sticking to his own theory, then objectively the US are doing excellent job at reducing Russia's relative power. However, if he wants to abandon his very own theory then he should take into account the voice of Ukrainian people. Likewise, it was the central and eastern European countries that wanted to join EU and NATO at the turn of late 90s and early 2000s. There was no NATO expansion eastewards, but central and eastern Europe's "expansions" towards EU and NATO at the free will of its citizens. While I have followed Mearsheimer's realism theory for many years, and found it quite objectively realistic (no pun intended), I'm astonished by his hypocrisy exposed amid the current conflict. The only actor to be blamed is Russia who pulled the trigger. Russia acts like a school bully, angry at others who do better and using force and threats to coerce others to follow its autocratic and failed fate. The bottom line is: Mearsheimer became a victim of his own theory, and for some reason he started twisting it to make it more suitable for Russia.
The only reason prof. Mearsheimer doesn't is because of his racism toward China. He wants (like the Trumpists, think about Steve Bannon) the white nations to join against China. The US and their proxy-war against Russia spoils this goal, so he takes on the US in the Ukrainian conflict. This inconsistency exists only if we take China into consideration. Without China he would have a different more consistent approach with what he used to have.
@finiteautomata3888 sure, but that doesn't really negate what I said earlier, nor the fact that Ukraine opted for integration with the EU, the rejection of which by Yanukobych sparked the Euromaidan. And indeed, the later mishandling of the whole situation by Russia only enoucraged Ukrainian people to also opt for NATO integration. So the fact that there was little support for that earlier doesn't really matter. One could always go back in history to find some plausible arguments, but that's just rationalising.
But before joining NATO, polls were conducted in Slovakia where the overwhelming majority expressed their opposition to Slovakia's joining NATO, yet our sold-out politicians decided against the will of the people, so much for your "free will of citizens to decide".
I don't think prof. Maersheimer contradicts himself. He says that this is the reaction the US and the west could expect if they pushed for NATO membership of Ukraine. And I believe that in his realistic view that was a stupid choice. First because you take irresponsible risks by challeging a great power with so many nuclear arms. And second because Russia is not the peer competitor to fear for the US. That's China. And all this distracts from the real battle. I agree that the intern politics in the US is a major reason for it's obsession with Russia. For they have blamed almost everything on Russia. But that doesn't make his realism invalid. It just proves that what the Ukrainian people want doesn't matter that much.
Mearsheimer misinterprets all facts to fit with his own NATO hypothesis. Countries ask to join NATO - as Sweden and Finland have done. NATO is a collective defense organisation - it doesn't go 'marching up to the borders of Russia'. Putin's popularity in Russia was at it's height after he invaded Ukraine, a country who's borders he'd guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994. In return, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to Russia. Putin thought he could repeat the exercise only taking over the whole of Ukraine. He badly miscalculated and using nukes are not going to reverse his fortunes. He has a way out - withdraw.
NATO and the United States have fought many wars against other countries. Which of these countries has ever attacked a NATO country? How many of these wars were defensive? NATO, the defensive alliance, is the funniest joke of the last half century.
@@davidbrunsdon3245 The most famous of all are Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya. Given that NATO forces are mostly U.S., any NATO territory becomes a conduit for U.S. interests, the country that has conducted the most invasions in recent decades. At the same time, the U.S. constantly interferes in the affairs of other countries, wherever they are. Who wants such neighbors if you are on bad terms with them?
Nato is an extremely efficient shopping center to sell weapons to rich countries that will never need them. Nato creates the need to buy weapons, but could not win a war because it is not structured for fighting. The purpose of Nato is just for selling american weapons and to engineer regime changes to creat urgency to buy stuff from USA.
@@NameRiioz But there are many possible explanations as to why Putin chose to invade Ukraine - Mearsheimer only argues his NATO theory. The other explanations are equally plausible, for example: >> Putin's intent to re-create Novorussiya: >> Domination of gas supply to Europe and prevent Ukraine entering the market: >> The political threat of an emerging democratic Ukraine.
@@jacqdanieles Those "historians," that happen to be part of the council on foreign relations, are the best at spreading slanderous propaganda and promoting ethnic hatred. If your goal is to start thinking like a Nazi, those two are great.
John Mearsheimer, likely some of the last sane Americans on planet earth!
Sadly
He is not sane. His points have flaws. If you are a good listener, you should listen to more viewpoints and deduce your own view.
@@htr1610 "you should listen to more viewpoints"
I do it all the time and, thus, my stated conclusion!
@@acidbot666 you didn't listen to Peter Zeihan. John's view is more theoretical less practical (he is a professor in Political Science so). Peter is using real data and past events as he is a practitioner.
Should you believe in a narrow view of political science, game theory and logics or geography, demography and data? Take your pick. Either way John's view is narrower as you listen to both of them.
Gluck!
@@acidbot666 also I followed John ever since his lecture at Chicago 10 yrs ago. I watched all his videos and read Graham Allison's book on thucydides trap, which shared a lot of points with John's on China rising power. Well, Peter's works changed my view
Pretty sure this is from an older debate that occurred in May of this year. Mearsheimer recently (December, I think?) gave a speech in Hungary about this topic and it's available on RUclips. He lays his argument out in such simple terms that it almost sounds child-like, but I believe that's a sign of his wisdom and insight on this topic.
That's a sign that he just repeats russian propaganda slogans, which are stupid simple. He also doesn't understand that the war and genocide of Ukrainians was unprovoked
Russian trolls love him. I wonder why...If he was the one to decide about my country's fate, we would be soviet backyard again. Greetings from Poland. We know Russia better tha you can imagine.
@@Blanka1100 You know Banderistas well too eh
@@Blanka1100 radek had the chance to prove that with evidence, facts, and data but instead resorted to sophistry and demagoguery to manipulate the audience in an unprofessional fashion.
@@Blanka1100 only troll here is you
Man I can't wait for this!!! These Munk Debates are so damned good. I hope they keep churning these out
Thought this debate happened months ago, a lot of ad hominem attacks.
@@jutsu1 oh crap thanks for letting me know. I just saw this posted and hour ago and it made it sound like this was tonight! signing up to watch it no!
Beware of a guy with an ascending eyebrows ↖️↗️ upwards and outwardly .....evil, instigator, provocateur and untrustworthy traits.
@@mattborba1340 they said there will be another in the fall
@@sunmanyi3265 Good one :) He should just also have a cat in his lap to stroke. Then we could be absolutely sure.
Prof. Mearsheimer is so right...and so intelligent!!!
He is blind, naive and does not give a damn what people of Ukraine want. Greetings from oland. We know Russia very well.
you Chinese really have to come up with some new lines
I really hope tonight's debates don't devolve into a bunch of emotional straw man attacks on Mearsheimer, like most folks do when they argue with him. I hope this ends up being a rigorous and good faith engagement of the opposing sides' ideas.
old debate. that's what happened.
The problem is that Meirsheimer's arguments at time sound childish and one sided.
@@hectorgarcia9790 He's really not taking a side. Just laying out the facts for you to decide what would be the best course to take. By childish, I assume you mean that he doesn't give appropriate homage to the American war machine.
@@hectorgarcia9790 The problem with your argument is that you're fully convinced that your opinions are facts.
@@tomw9599 No. Professor Mearsheimer is an old Putin prostitute, just like J Sacks, since at least 2014. I have been following him. He first just pushed the narrative "Putin said" knowing perfectly Putin's lying constantly, now Professor lies for himself. Read his interview to the New Yorker.
fools die for ideals
The prof has it called correctly, unfortunately. I hope those back channels are very much open and the RF tells the US when the threshold has been reached, as I really don’t fancy being nuked for a silly game of geopolitics over a country that previously was of no strategic value to the US. I suppose they are practicing being nobs in Ukraine before they enact the nobs in Taiwan plan.
Mearsheimer is one of those knobs on Taiwan, unfortunately.
Maybe it has to do with his think-tank being funded by Soros, but his "realist" school of thought is dropping the proxy war in Ukraine so we can better focus on provoking China.
@@bjpargeter466 I rather like the Adam Curtis take on politics. The world is so complex that the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are not really in control of events. So flood the public with huge volumes of seemingly contradictory information so that we never know truth from fiction, but importantly for the politicians survival the public are so confused that they don’t notice their incompetence and inadequacy and they retain power over us. Feels the right answer to me.
Russia is not a great power and this war will destroy Russia. Great deal for USA - easily worth 500 billion or a trillion.
@@opinion4755 unfortunately its nuclear warheads that determine who is a great power, not anonymous douchebags on RUclips comments sections.
And while the US slowly pushes the world into China's arms, and US power disintegrates, we'll be looking at this war as the catalyst that really drove the downfall of the US empire.
@@bjpargeter466 why so emotional? Are you upset about how Russian boys measure up to Ukrainian heroes? Then if to use your scale Russia is a superpower little above North Korea and definitely below Israel. Somewhere around the superpowerness of Pakistan? Is that about right?
His prediction is correct every step of the way.
This host thinks the West has high moral principles and their policies reflect that fact. He sounds like an adult who still believes in the myths he was taught as a child. I was taught those myths growing up in the USA. Then I grew up. My country and the West aren't guided by morals or principles, they are like everybody else, their policies are guided by ruthless self interests. What does he think we were doing invading Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and totally controlling Central and South America and the Caribbean forever. What does he think of the fact that the Us spends as much on the Military as the next ten countries combined and six of those countries are our allies. We have eight hundred bases around the world. We do this to dominate the world, not spread good will. The host is buried in his jingoism.
If there were more people like Mearsheimer...
The world would be a very dangerous place.
@@ricardo53100 The world would _realize_ it's a dangerous place.
If there was more people like him, my country would be still in soviet block. Never again!
This man lives in a world where only the great powers matter and small powers aren't really sovereign states at all - and that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous and frankly fundamentally against the current rules-based liberal international order. If you start giving into Russian "backyard rationale" because great powers need to be respected, who's next, the entire Central Asia and Eastern Europe, the Arctic can technically be deemed Russia's backyard for fuck's sake.
@@Blanka1100 , and now it might be simply destroyed. How much better, right?
A most sought after expert, whom no decision maker listens to, sadly....
“Then He said, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.” - Jesus, the Nazarene Luke 4:24
Dr J. J. Mearsheimer is a great American and his contributions to International Relations has helped make sense of the world.
Yeah, maybe if it was still 1963. He thought back in February that there was no way the Ukraine could our for much longer and Putin would be in Kiev by the end of March.
@@ElGrandoCaymano Ukraine is a failed state. Occupied with huge swathes of territory annexed. Bakmut will soon fall. The entire economy is destroyed and Ukraine is has no realible electricity or heat..
The inevitable defeat is a mtter of due course and time. Why else does Ukraine WANT a peace summit in Febuary?!
West Point class of 1970.
Russians love JM. I wonder why? Maybe because he does not give a damn about Ukraine's right not to be soviet backyard again?
8:12 What about the absolute sovereignty of Serbia? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Libya? Pakistan (drone strikes)?
No, that's not whataboutism because you can't say you stand for certain values but then don't care for those values if it is beneficial to you.
Slight correction: it’s a NATO - Russia war. NATO can afford to lose, not so Russia, this defines the outcome.
You forgot option 3, where everyone loses.
Mearshimer is correct.
In what? War was unprovoked, that's a fact. Russia started genocide, another fact. That's just the start where Mearshitter is wrong
He lost.
@@crack7751 lost the debate? Is there a new one?
No Mearshimer is NOT correct. Ukraine joining NATO is just an excuse for Putin to attempt to steal Ukrainian resources. Russia is already surrounded by other NATO countries and 1 more would make zero difference to Russian security.
@@coreyham3753 exactly. Also Mearsheimer pretends like there were only two options: Nato forgets about Ukraine or Russia starts killing Ukrainians in bloody war. How come we have only those two options? Explain that, dear immoral professor
Why are we not hearing more from Henry Kissinger after his comments of months ago about how Ukraine should cede land.
When the US wants something it pushes it. The US doesn't live up to its word - look at the Minsk agreement. The admission is now that the west was never going to respect that.
There is no such admission.
@@dmitryspivak4586
Angela Merkel and others have admitted that.
@@justgivemethetruth thanks for the Kremlin propaganda. She admitted nothing of the sort
@@dmitryspivak4586
Putin disappointed by Merkel's words about Minsk agreements
Ukrainska Pravda
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has been disappointed by the statement of German ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, where she claimed that the Minsk agreements of 2014 enabled Ukraine to prepare for the war with Russia.
Source: Putin’s response to a journalist’s question
Quote: "For me, it was completely unexpected. It is disappointing. I did not expect to hear something like that from the ex-Chancellor. I always hoped that the German leadership was genuine.
Yes, she was on Ukraine’s side, supporting it. But nevertheless, I genuinely hoped that German leadership expected a settlement based on the principles achieved, among other things, during the Minsk negotiations."
Details: Putin stated that Merkel’s words meant that he had done "everything right" by starting the war in Ukraine.
- -
Quote: "It appears to me that nobody planned to live up to these Minsk agreements… They [the participants - ed.] lied to us, and the only reason for these processes was to pump Ukraine up with weapons and get it ready for military action. Well, we can see that. Maybe we were too late to realise what was happening. Maybe this [the war - ed.] should have been started earlier."
@@justgivemethetruth thank you for confirming what I said.
is the full debate online?
Was there a recent Munk Debate or is this video from a Munk debate of long ago?
Yes, he is correct.
For some reason he reminds me soviet functioneer of politburo - just by looks.
mearshimer basicly says 'the us publicly declared war on russia in 2008'
And he is, of course, wrong.
I've yet to hear him explain, or anyone ask him, about Ukraine being DENIED membership in 2008 when Germany & France vetoed it.
@@jacqdanieles NATO officially declared in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. (The Bucharest Summit Declaration said: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.") Wouldn't Germany and France have had the power to veto (or otherwise kill) that declaration if they had wanted to veto Ukrainian membership in NATO? What evidence is there of Germany and France doing anything to veto Ukrainian membership in NATO?
@@jacqdanieles France and Germany have a lot to answer for. So does Obama in 2014 when he did not lift a finger to stop Russia from snatching Crimea.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The evidence is clear that Germany and France opposed Ukraine membership in NATO at the Bucharest Summit 2008. The door was left open for sometime in the distant future. That amounted to an effective veto. Since NATO has always been a defensive alliance and has never attacked anyone why would Russia object to NATO expansion ? Can you explain ?
Great sense from mearscheimer instead of lies deceit and fairy tales!
The world cannot be as sinocentric as the Chinese public wants to see it, as democratic or enlightened as many Americans would like. Islamic as many Muslims would like, as sensitive to the problems of development as some Latin American and Africans want, or as shaken by French greatness or amazed by British moral leadership as the inhabitants of these countries want.
Henry Kissinger
Why are we in conflict with Russia?
Because we're holier-than-thou Yankees that can't mind our own business and respect others' rights.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The USA stands with countries that choose to defend their sovereignty. Apparently you do not approve.
@@ricardo53100 Tell that to Serbia, Libya, Syria... where the US has bombed them or sent troops into those countries in support of separatist movements. Ha!
But no, I don't support national sovereignty when it's forced on people against their will. I believe, as the US Declaration of Independence says, that just government must derive its powers from the consent of the governed, that no one inherits a right to rule over anyone else, as Kiev claims over the Donbas on the basis of "sovereignty." I certainly don't approve of a "defense" of that sort of "sovereignty," which is no defense at all but subjugation and/or conquest.
Nor do I support the sovereignty of countries on the other side of the world to join alliances with the US that are opposed to their neighbors, alliances that have waged wars on behalf of separatist movements within countries outside their alliance. That's nothing but provocative US meddling. If the West and the particularly the US hadn't sought to meddle in Ukraine, hadn't sought special influence in Ukraine, there's no good reason to believe the war ever would have started, and the Ukrainian people could have been spared everything they've had to suffer as a result of the war.
Holy shit!
This youtube is confusing about when the debate was/is. They should indicate the date of the debate.
America looks very hypocritical the way it’s handling the Ukraine crisis.
The question ought to be whether a sovereign country like Ukraine has a right to join a military alliance of its choice. What right does Russia have to dictate to its neighbor with whom it is allowed to associate ? Mearsheimer seems to concede to Putin that the act of Ukraine to provide for its defense is a hostile act against Russia. Mearsheimer must be blind to the fact that Russia has an overwhelming ability to repel any sort of conventional attack on its territory by its use of conventional and nuclear weapons. The question remains whether Mearsheimer is obtuse or a fan of Putin and Russian imperialism.
If Russia was a good neighbor, there would be no need to join Nato. Greetings from Poland. I know why russian trolls love JM so much...
Mr Mearsheimer likes to talk about history and logic, but modern Europeans or Americans tend to forget history and very stubborn about their own thoughts while neglecting how the other side think.
Mearsheimer makes plausible arguments, including that Russia feels about Ukraine joining NATO as the US would about Russia putting nukes in Cuba. So, Putin had no choice but to invade Ukraine's Crimea and then Ukraine proper? That would put Russia and NATO on each other's border, so where's the logic?
Putin wants to annex Ukraine and does not consider Ukraine to be a real state. Nato is bs excuse for Putin to justify his greed and huge ego. He wants Ukraine. Putin had no reason to invade. Putin always needs excuses to annex. Russia loves annexing just because it can. Putin blames his victims for their will to be secured by Nato. He knows he can not invade Nato member neighbour. Russia occupies 20% of Georgia which is non Nato country. Putin thought it would be easy to annex Ukraine. Russia borders Nato for decades if you have not noticed yet. Poland borders Russia, the same for Lithuania. Finland has the boggest land border with Russia. f Russia was a good neighbour, there would be no need to join Nato to be secured. USA did not annex Coba. Putin is annexing because he wants to. It is about his sick legacy.
Liberal values perhaps are not the best values for our societie and our planet !
NATO will also let Russia be part of NATO if Russia is weak enough and obedient enough. Since Russia is stronger and inobedient, then get all the other countries to join NATO except Russia.
Russia is a dictatorship and always at war with someone so Russia can not join Nato
Where I can find full version
We (the US) can continue sending weapons, but we’re going to run out of Ukrainians to operate them. We’ve created a multi-billion dollar human meat-grinder without an exit strategy.
Full of wisdom.... hope Russia prevails.
Go to Russia. I have lived in Moscow. There are not keen on Asians.
@@ricardo53100 Separate issue. West just wants the breakup of Russia.
Insane situation….
07:50 - 09:13. This part here is a real eye opener of how we perceive ourselves.
1 minute and 20 seconds of trying to form a question that does more to set the narrative of our politics, rather than be an actual question.
All I got from this part is: "We good. They bad. We kill for peace. They kill for selfish reasons. We have the moral high ground. We must stay on top. If necessary with force. We must dominate others so they don't dominate us. Our domination good. Theirs bad."
Just like every major power in history ever...
Professor cannot admit that the American economy can collapse. And this is what Putin counts on. As an inveterated judo-wrestler, Putin knows also the tricks of delaying and retreating from the tatami - which is penaltied in the sport-version.
@12:40 his statement is false based on historical evidence. there have been many many struggles between russia and US going back to korea, some were clear cut wins/losses, some were stalemates and status quo, and eventual wins over a longer horizon.
Where are the rest of the intellectuals concerned that this war? I like Mearsheimer and believe he is a good thinker on international relations but I am concerned that all other experts concerned with the war were silenced so easily.
But how will you shut this down and bring peace sir? How? What is the way out of war
The only mistake NATO did is that it said it openly. It should not have declared it/ Just should have trained ukrainians and help them arm up and reform the country. And make it too powerful for russkie to attack.
There can never be two belligerence at war winning. There only could one winner and one loser. Or more likely two losers
😃Jm is right about Ukraine conflict.✌️ 🖐But he is wrong on Taiwan issue and saying China is threat.😒 🙏 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
🤣🤣🤣 What a hypocrite‼️😝😝😝
China is fundamentally different from Russia in terms of potential power. It has the population and economic wealth that can rival USA. When you just resort to ad hominem attacks, it doesnt really help your argument. Instead, if you really wanted to argue against John's offensive realism, you generally have to make the argument that nukes will keep the peace between great powers, and/or economic interdependence will keep the peace should China become too powerful. A defensive realist might make the argument that conventional and nuclear deterrence would favor both sides not attacking each other.
Of course there are flaws with the argument because you can have nuclear escalation, and because war can happen in the open seas away from where direct nuclear escalation can occur.
The other main argument you can use against John is to assess China's economic fragility and demographics as in decline or plateauing. However, this is a very complex topic with no consensus on the long-term between experts.
Where Russia is concerned, the main reason for the falling out is because of the tribalistic foreign policy establishment that has chosen to pursue NATO expansion indirectly. The West runs politics in unilateral fashion, and not necessarily for the country's best interests, but for the tribalistic community that runs it. It is vulnerable to the influence of lobby groups, corruption, liberal radicals, and job security for policymakers who safeguard the tribe's interests.
Not a hypocrite just wrong as all people are about some things. John spent his life studying Russia and the Soviet Union he's naturally going to be more on point in relation to them.
He's wrong about Ukraine as well. Just repeats russian propaganda.
Scott Ritter is a better communicator than Mearsheimer.
+1
I prefer communicators who aren't convicted s3x offenders
Scott Ritter "communicates" well with minors.
I think Col. MacGregor was the one who said, "US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics." Truth!
The professor's approach in really interesting, and academic!
you Chinese are so embarrassing. The west can see through you.
@@williamplayfair364 🤣
Divide & Rule was a good tactic, once upon a time, no more.
Not Chinese, but nothing wrong to be one.
We are all cousins at one point or the other.
@@amania9254 tell that to the han Chinese.
@@williamplayfair364 I'm telling that to everyone including you & them.
@@amania9254 you are Chinese.
Very precice answer.
Mearsheimer is 100 % correct on the Russian/Ukraine situation ,but with regards to China/America he must be wrong.
How is Mearsheimer riight ?
I enjoy the Munk Debates.
EU and US said any country can decide their policy by their own, this is their own right and has nothing to do with others, in particular with Russia, in their opinion, they just wanted to neglect how Russia or Putin feels. They rather turned a blind eye on Putin. or turn a deaf ear on Russia or Putin.
When some specific regions on the Globe are getting geopolitically as ‘sensitive’ as Ukraine (and Ukraine has been one of the kind for many centuries), they definitely should need to get a special international status managed by the UN, that establishes once and for all their military neutrality as well as the safety of their borders between two major zones of influence. As a matter of fact, such ‘buffer states’ have always existed in one form or in another - a bit like ‘tax havens’, mutatis mutandis! - because they’re just vital in order to ensure some necessary harmony in this doomed world of ours.
@@fabiengerard8142 I agree with you. It is very rational and fair. But now the situation is either Ukrain became koreas recognizing the small republics independence or fighting to the last Ukrainian or the worst is to cause a world war. Proxy war is also very bad war.
@@fabiengerard8142 If your country borders Russia staying neutral is pure utopia. You will become Russia's victim sooner than later. Russia does not own Eastern Euroe. Ukrainians are free people, sick and tired of Russia's crimes on their soil, they are ot Russia's buffer. Who is Russia? Cheap gas station which can not stand its time of glory is over. Joining Nato it's a choice while being Russia's neighbor is not. Joining Nato is not made by force. Being Warsaw pact country during Cold war era was not a choice. Greetings from Poland. We know something about Russia.
Council on foreign relations
When is the debate? I need to see this.
Me too. Seems like we have to wait for the Upload.
There was one in May but there should be another in the fall
@@johndoe-vc1we thanks!
took place 7 months ago. its here on youtube.
@@siamcharm7904
Thanks!
What an incredible interview! Mearsheimer is the Premier Authority on the subject.
John holds onto his script and doesn't deviate from it. John serves some purpose.
"The more successful we are... the more likely Russia will use a nuclear weapon."
"I don't see the off-ramp for either side... I see the possibility of Ukraine being completely destroyed"...
I AGREE, UNFORTUNATELY.
JM peels back the posturing about ideals like "immutable sovereignty" to identify the "ruthlessness" that is really driving the conflict in Ukraine. The welfare of ordinary Ukranians is the last thing that American policy makers give even the slightest damn about.
Will CBC send anybody to this debate?
Great question
@@jk5042 Thank you. I simply turn off CBC. By now, I know what to expect. Most interesting/intriguing analysis comes from MK Bhradrakumar.
I enjoy listening to Mr Mearsheimer and think that he is brave and honest in his opinions, but when he talks about the US wanting to force a "liberal" hegemony on the world after the collapse of the USSR I can't see much evidence of this. The US wanted compliant states who would always follow US diktat ahead of their national interest. Whether these states were so-called "liberal" or authoritarian regimes doesn't matter to the US just so long as they show absolutely no independence from the US.
When Mearsheimer says “liberal hegemony” he is referring to economic liberalism, i.e. rules based free-trade, though more and more social liberalism and “human rights” are factoring into the equation.
@@MD-md4th Ok but even with this understanding it doesn't descibe what the US desires from other countries. If this "rules-based" free trade existed then why, for example, did the US do everything in it's power to stop european countries from buying Russian gas? Why does the US sanction so many countries across the world? The US is interested in one thing and that is compliance. That's it. The rest is just window dressing so that the liberal humanitarian bombers can pretend to have a clear conscience.
"Whether these states were so-called "liberal" or authoritarian regimes doesn't matter to the US just so long as they show absolutely no independence from the US."
I don't think that's true. The US, for example, has pushed the homosexual agenda hard on other countries, flying rainbow flags at our embassies in foreign countries, conditioning our foreign policies on other countries' domestic policies on homosexual issues... If by "show[ing] absolutely no independence from the US" you mean submitting to everything the US wants those countries to do, including strictly domestic policies, then what's the difference between showing no independence from the US and forcing a liberal hegemony on the world?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 US Power doesn't care about rainbow flags or human rights . This is just a smokescreen. A fob to liberals so as they can pretend to care. One day the US is scolding Russia on gay rights, the next day they are selling 20 billion worth of arms to their best friend Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It is pure hypocrisy...but this nonsense obvoiously works with a certain segement of their population.
@@wbafc1231 However inconsistent and unprincipled US foreign policy is, I think the point remains that there isn't any clear line between liberal hegemony and other countries not showing independence. I think that's different with China, for example. It seems China pursues its economic and geopolitical interests in Africa, for example, without trying to impose any of its values on African domestic policies.
The question I would like to ask Mearsheimer is why does he classify Russia as a great power? besides nukes and oil/gas they don't rank in top 10 of any list! is having nukes enough to qualify as a great power? where does that put countries like North Korea, Pakistan and Israel for example?
Nuclear weapons; overall size of the military especially the army; resources; geopolitical importance including historical context.
you obviously don't recognize importance of having the biggest and (arguably?) the most modern arsenal of nukes.... well, US didn't hesitate to use them, I hope you at least know that. So US is allowed but Russia, IF CORNERED, is not? Seriously? Not allowed by whom? So, Prof. is absolutely right - if, God forbid, Russia will become cornered, GOD HELP US ALL.
I'd like to see Stephen Kotkin debate him. Kotkin would demolish him.
There's an argument Kotkin uses that demonstrates clearly why Russia is NOT a great power & should NOT be considered a peer to NATO.
[I have several Kotkin interviews saved on my playlist]
Did you check GDP (PPP)?🤦
Russia is the sixth largest economy just after Germany.
this whole nato discussion was mostly words spoken, the proof has to be in the pudding as they say. ukraine has a negotiation strategy of keeping open the possibility of nato admission, or at least they felt it was a good negotiation strategy with russia (maybe that backfired?). But its why nato has an "open door policy," it creates ambiguity and options, which in turn keeps an adversary off balance. even now, in hindsight, its hard to say which is better, having buffer states between nato and russia, or admitting neighboring states into nato. im sure the baltic country's are pretty happy to have the support of the alliance behind them for deterrence purposes and see it as a net positive. the West was not training and arming ukraine for an aggressive posture, it was all done in response to russia's invasion of ukraine in 2014! i've yet to see any convincing argument to the contrary on this, and even if we were in small part "championing" ukraine against russia, that should not provoke an invasion as there was no proof it was hurting russia in any way whatsoever. even if mershimer provides a great power "explanation" for russia's behavior in detroying ukraine, it doesnt make it right, and we all know that great powers dont always get their way all the time!
"the West was not training and arming ukraine for an aggressive posture, it was all done in response to russia's invasion of ukraine in 2014!"
As if Russia's 2014 "invasion" of Ukraine was totally out of the blue and the West had played no part in the events that led to Russia's "invasion"! Ha!
"even if mershimer provides a great power "explanation" for russia's behavior in detroying ukraine, it doesnt make it right"
What difference does it make if it's right or wrong? Whatever ways Russia is right or wrong, the options our rulers (in the US) have for responding to Russia and the situation in Ukraine and the likely outcomes that will come from those responses are the same.
You are on the right track. Russia has more than adequate means to repel a land invasion. It is called their nuclear deterrence. Russia is mortally afraid of a free and democratic Ukraine on its border. Putin fears the bleed over effect. Were that to happen at some point ordinary Russians would demand the same. It is as simple as that. Mearsheimer is a hopeless ideologue who will try to fit the facts to his demented ideology. When this war is over and Russia loses guys like Mearsheimer will be in the Rogue's Gallery of Putin's collaborators.
If Russia was a good neighbor, all those former Warsaw pact countries would have no need to turn their back on Russia and join Nato to be secured. Ukrainians are free people. They are not Russia's backyard or a buffer zone.
Nato is an excuse for Putin He wants to annex Ukraine. Poland joined in 1999, Lithuania in 2004, both Russia's neighbors. Did Putin wake up yesterday? He hates Nato because he can not invade Nato members.
@@Blanka1100 BS! What evidence is there of Putin wanting to annex Ukraine prior to the Western-backed toppling of Ukraine's president in 2013-14, let alone prior to NATO's 2008 declaration that Ukraine would join NATO?
👏👏👏👏👏thank you❤
But not a word about Putins expansionist plans- which so far have included Georgia, Crimea, Transnistria etc...and Ukraine!
John Mearsheimer, Russia must be partitioned to have a peaceful world…period!
He talks a good story. I wonder what he would have said in 1939? Something like this: "The German"s saw an existential threat to Poland joining forces with Britain, and took decisive action like they said they would"
If I had to guess, he would say that England and France encouraged Hitler to re-militarize Germany, that had succumbed to revenge driven national feelings. They allowed him to break all the restrictions and rules; betrayed their allied states and let Hitler conquer them without any consequences; then turned him East and yelled: "Get'em boy!"
At least, that's the short version of what happened.
Don't know about 1939 but in 1914 he probably would've said that French and Russian general mobilization, despite German pleas to calm down, left Germany little choice as to declare war in advance and try to win a quick victory before being hoplessly surrounded.
And if he said that he would be totally right.
@@manmanman2000 Im not so sure. The Germans did give the Austrians a "blank check" to present unacceptable ultimatum to Serbs, allied to Russians. That was pretty much already a war declaration. Russians mobilized first, because their country was way larger with less developed railroad network. It simply would take them way longer to get troops assembled.
If you actually research the initial outbreak of wars, most of them start with both sides fully aware it's about to go down. WW2 German invasion of Poland was not a huge surprise after Danzig ultimatum. Hitler invading USSR was a famous exception.
@@azzazel225 The Austrian heir to the throne was asassinated by a Serb acting for a Serbian terror organization. Declaring war on Serbia was stupid but it was in some way an understandable reaction. A modern analogy could be 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe the war could've been contained and kept local but general mobilization of FR und RU was a very serious, major escalation. In my view that was crossing the point of no return.
As for the destruction of Ukraine Russia to some degree is doing so it is NATO that did the damage while using that land as their test because they themselves are not sure if they can directly now poland is an extension of the platform of the fight and that will be another deserter which is next after poland all of Europe
As a realist Mearsheimer should also recognize, that Russia is not a great power anymore. Russia has the economic power of Italy, it stands no chance against the west. The core of the problem is that Russia thinks it is still a great power. And none of the russian interventions in Georgia, Syria, Belarus have been punished. So Russia overestimated itself and thought that the attack on democratic Ukraine would have no consequences. It would be naïve to believe that Russia would have stopped with Ukraine. Moldova, Finland and also the Baltic states are next on the menu of the Russian bear. Appeasement policy is not working. That is also a lesson of history.
😂
You are on the the right track. Thanks for your contribution.
Mearsheimer: the best Russian money can buy.
Or he is just obtuse.
Since Mearsheimer's most basic, underlying premise (the Ukraine invasion is all, or even mostly, about Ukraine's membership in NATO) is almost certainly entirely false, it's hard to grapple with the rest of his assertions.
It's funny how his fan girls stick their heads under the sand when this is pointed out to them.
What is it about then?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Mostly Putin's ego, combined with a naked land grab.
@@dmitryspivak4586 If the war were about Putin's ego, then that would mean Mearsheimer is wrong about pretty much the entire Russian ruling elite having the same attitudes about Ukraine. Where's the evidence that Mearsheimer is wrong on that point, that Russia would have acted very differently apart from Putin?
And as for the naked land grab hypothesis, I think that's most clearly debunked by the peace terms Russia offered and Ukraine refused at the start of the war. Even if Russia was disingenuous in its offer, Ukraine clearly rejected a peace that would have protected Ukrainian independence at the cost of remaining independent of NATO and granting self-determination to the Donbas.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
a) Yes, Mearsheimer is 100% wrong about the elites supporting Putin's invasion. Almost every bit of data available confirms this. In fact, most of the elites had no idea the invasion was actually happening.
b) Russian offered NO "peace terms" to Ukraine in the beginning of the war. Even now, when they're obviously and thoroughly losing the war, their "peace terms" include a giant land grab.
c) Ukraine was never entering NATO, and there was no offer of Ukrainian independence.
d) The invasion was not precipitated by any Ukrainian movement towards NATO. The invasion occurred in a total vacuum as it relates to any NATO ambitions.
e) Why didn't Russia invade the Baltic states when they ACTUALLY entered (or were about to enter) NATO? Why is it not invading Finland now that they've applied for NATO membership? Oh, right, because it's a total BS excuse for Putler apologists.
How prescient is it to predict that Vladimir Putin would eventually move on Ukraine? Give me a freaking break. He was going to do it regardless of any and all geopolitical developments. What drivel.
"Discussion is impossible with someone who claims not to seek the truth, but already to possess it."
@@azzazel225 Thank you sensei.
As much as I respect John, he is stuck with a single package of arguments and haven't really addressed a lot of points that were raised by the host. I've seen him resort to singing the same tune over and over while his opponents are changing and adapting. I suspect John is going to have trouble convincing anyone in upcoming debate.
When you’re telling the truth, there’s only one version.
Mearsheimer's opponents are "changing and adapting" because their unsound arguments are getting destroyed.
Why does he have to change his argument? He is telling pure truth. Only the ones who don't want to accept it are coming with new arguments.
@@roberdeoberde9589 I don't think he has to change it, but expand on it. There are things he doesn't address and it might be seen as a weakness. Although I agree with your arguments about only one version of the truth.
@@AntPictures what opposing arguments would you say he is ignoring?
I disagree with this theory. Cuban missile crisis was in 1962...the year is 2022. This kind of views are more imperialistic and basically telling us that smaller nations don"t have a right to exist. I consider Mershaeimer a hypocrite. On one hand Mersheimer criticizes the support for Ukraine and on the other supports the US policies backing up Taiwan (money-money). It"s 2022, almost 2023...people should grow up.
1. You're calling his views "imperialistic" because you don't like them. If you knew anything about neorealism you'd know that Mearsheimer (among most realists and neorealists) are not "imperialist". Messianic neoliberals and hawkish neoconservatives? Sure. Neorealists? Typically not, and especially not in the case of Mearsheimer.
2. From the military and economic viewpoint, which is the framework that (neo)realists operate within, Taiwan is both more vital to the U.S. and more vulnerable to foreign aggression.
I agree that people should grow up and face reality. Mearsheimer's theory is one of the most utilitarian theories of international politics, and is not applicable solely to the Russo-Ukrainian War, but the broader stage of geopolitics in general. That's the point of theory: not merely describing, but explaining reality.
That's not what I heard. I think he says that smaller nations have a right to exists as long as they do what the dominant power in their part of the world wants. And that seems to be pretty correct.
then you grow up
@@dominikpriscak157 That's really a thing for you 'growing up' , it seems.
You are absolutely not a realist. The Western liberal order is a fantasy and a fraud and Ukraine isn't deciding anything for itself.
It is self-evidently an American stooge.
The paradox and in fact the hypocrisy of Mearsheimer is that he spent his entire life career promoting the theory of offensive realism. The theory that treats great powers as "black boxes", irrelevant of personal or moral factors, which aim to increase their relative power at the cost of other powers. He even said on multiple ocassions in the past that if the US want to weaken Russia, they should let Russia invade Ukraine. And yet, now that this has happened (conveniently for Maersheimer he is ignoring the fact that it was the Ukrainian people who wanted more integration with EU and NATO institutions, thus sticking to his "black box" theory where the voice of lesser powers doesn't matter) he is trying to put the blame on the US and other Western powers. Well, if Mearsheimer wants to stick to his lifelong theory, he should praise the US for weakening Russia. For some reason, he now seems to be turning his theory other way around to appease Russia just because Russian government says so and feel like Russia being more influential than it really is. If he were truly sticking to his own theory, then objectively the US are doing excellent job at reducing Russia's relative power.
However, if he wants to abandon his very own theory then he should take into account the voice of Ukrainian people. Likewise, it was the central and eastern European countries that wanted to join EU and NATO at the turn of late 90s and early 2000s. There was no NATO expansion eastewards, but central and eastern Europe's "expansions" towards EU and NATO at the free will of its citizens. While I have followed Mearsheimer's realism theory for many years, and found it quite objectively realistic (no pun intended), I'm astonished by his hypocrisy exposed amid the current conflict. The only actor to be blamed is Russia who pulled the trigger. Russia acts like a school bully, angry at others who do better and using force and threats to coerce others to follow its autocratic and failed fate.
The bottom line is: Mearsheimer became a victim of his own theory, and for some reason he started twisting it to make it more suitable for Russia.
The only reason prof. Mearsheimer doesn't is because of his racism toward China. He wants (like the Trumpists, think about Steve Bannon) the white nations to join against China. The US and their proxy-war against Russia spoils this goal, so he takes on the US in the Ukrainian conflict. This inconsistency exists only if we take China into consideration. Without China he would have a different more consistent approach with what he used to have.
@finiteautomata3888 sure, but that doesn't really negate what I said earlier, nor the fact that Ukraine opted for integration with the EU, the rejection of which by Yanukobych sparked the Euromaidan. And indeed, the later mishandling of the whole situation by Russia only enoucraged Ukrainian people to also opt for NATO integration. So the fact that there was little support for that earlier doesn't really matter. One could always go back in history to find some plausible arguments, but that's just rationalising.
But before joining NATO, polls were conducted in Slovakia where the overwhelming majority expressed their opposition to Slovakia's joining NATO, yet our sold-out politicians decided against the will of the people, so much for your "free will of citizens to decide".
I don't think prof. Maersheimer contradicts himself. He says that this is the reaction the US and the west could expect if they pushed for NATO membership of Ukraine. And I believe that in his realistic view that was a stupid choice. First because you take irresponsible risks by challeging a great power with so many nuclear arms. And second because Russia is not the peer competitor to fear for the US. That's China. And all this distracts from the real battle. I agree that the intern politics in the US is a major reason for it's obsession with Russia. For they have blamed almost everything on Russia. But that doesn't make his realism invalid. It just proves that what the Ukrainian people want doesn't matter that much.
Nicely stated…
Mearsheimer misinterprets all facts to fit with his own NATO hypothesis. Countries ask to join NATO - as Sweden and Finland have done. NATO is a collective defense organisation - it doesn't go 'marching up to the borders of Russia'.
Putin's popularity in Russia was at it's height after he invaded Ukraine, a country who's borders he'd guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994. In return, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to Russia. Putin thought he could repeat the exercise only taking over the whole of Ukraine. He badly miscalculated and using nukes are not going to reverse his fortunes. He has a way out - withdraw.
NATO and the United States have fought many wars against other countries. Which of these countries has ever attacked a NATO country? How many of these wars were defensive? NATO, the defensive alliance, is the funniest joke of the last half century.
@@NameRiioz The countries in NATO have fought wars it is true, but NATO as an organization hasn't.
@@davidbrunsdon3245 The most famous of all are Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya. Given that NATO forces are mostly U.S., any NATO territory becomes a conduit for U.S. interests, the country that has conducted the most invasions in recent decades. At the same time, the U.S. constantly interferes in the affairs of other countries, wherever they are. Who wants such neighbors if you are on bad terms with them?
Nato is an extremely efficient shopping center to sell weapons to rich countries that will never need them. Nato creates the need to buy weapons, but could not win a war because it is not structured for fighting. The purpose of Nato is just for selling american weapons and to engineer regime changes to creat urgency to buy stuff from USA.
@@NameRiioz But there are many possible explanations as to why Putin chose to invade Ukraine - Mearsheimer only argues his NATO theory. The other explanations are equally plausible, for example:
>> Putin's intent to re-create Novorussiya:
>> Domination of gas supply to Europe and prevent Ukraine entering the market:
>> The political threat of an emerging democratic Ukraine.
The debate that I would like to see is Stephen Kotkin and John M. Stephen is clearly the most authoritative Russian History authorities.
Who is John M. Stephen?
Tons of better experts out there. Native English speakers are really bad at understanding other cultures.
Timothy Snyder too
@@metsgiantsfan333 John M. = Mearsheimer
Stephen = Stephen Kotkin
@@jacqdanieles Those "historians," that happen to be part of the council on foreign relations, are the best at spreading slanderous propaganda and promoting ethnic hatred. If your goal is to start thinking like a Nazi, those two are great.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Griffiths