I suspect you one of those conspiracy nut jobs. The truth is never simple or straight forward. The US and especially the CIA are no angels, but this man is totally wrong on Russia. And something really bugs me about your mate. As a older person I grew up with guys who fought in WW2, older relatives, and none of them boasted about their service, none would speak of what they went through. As a young kid I had to pester them to tell me things. Yet John comes on boasting about his service telling us has he went through nam etc. I'm not saying he did not have long military service etc, but he does not across to me as normal traumatized individual who's been through the war mill. Believe me anyone who has ,is traumatized to some degree. Plus his history of military service does not make him an expert on geo-politics and Russia. I think you and the other commenters on this video need to go and away and have deep think.
@@stephencrossland2493 And what makes you such an expert on geopolitics & Russia. Instead of criticizing John M., why not provide at least some concrete evidence to support your views, preferably with verifiable sources.
@@stephencrossland2493 obviously your on medication or your clearly delusional and require psychiatric help. As your clearly looking to validate your thoughts through the experience of others. Get a life or as I suggested Medical help.
John Mearsheimer is a knowledgeable, wise, intelligent and just great geo-political specialist who totally beats his opponents with the above mantioned virtues and amazing,nowadays hard to find, honesty!!! A REAL CHAMPION in his field!!! 👍👋👌💯%
@@republica843 the Pope has a moral compass and sees through this catastrophe that will bring down the world economy and cause the death of millions in the global south through starvation. It is truly evil.
Yes, but he has no idea about the history of Russia and Ukraine. No evidence that Putin wanted to recreate the Russian empire? The evidence is overwhelming, including Putin’s own statements. Nice guy, but a useful idiot.
Spot on John Mershiemer is in my opinion absolutely right. The rest are jokes. I don’t want Nuclear war. But NATO have pushed Russia into a corner . And if I had Nuclear weapons use them. It makes me laugh all the others have family and children grandchildren., I don’t so I don’t care less. But the chumps other than John Mershiemer are argueing for their own grandchildren vapourization, How thick they are . I for one love this Ha ha ha 😊🏴☠️
@Jon Little You are entitled to have your opinion, however You say that" As always the Truth is seen by everyone with a little common sense..." Lol- what happens if that majority don't have a little common sense? What happens if that majority is ignorant bcz the Truth requires usually knowledge?! For exemple if I was born in a country in which the Holocaust is not taught in schools or that is just propaganda, in this case the Holocaust is the Truth? and if so I am able to see it ? From your words I see clearly that You have no idea how the truth is present in our lifes or how the humans perceived it.
@Jon Little I' m not allowing that, is your right. As for the rest You are just playing with words bcz You cannot sustain your position. A foxy attitude.🤣😭😂😁👍
@Jon Little I'm not. I gave You a concrete exemple about the Truth. And your response- chasing the tail and blaming the other one for doing it. As I said 🦊.😁👍
@Jon Little If thru self-proclaimed 'wise' man You understand Professor Mearsheimer well what can I say, You are probably much more ' knowledgeable and wise' that he is. Good for You and maybe You should spread your wiseness to the entire World! 😁👍
As usual John is always spot on about whats happening in ukraine and just international relations on the whole. Please have him speak his views on finland and sweden joining nato. I personally believe WW3 will happen on the nordic countries territories and not in ukraine. So have him shed some light on this. Also turkey decision for them not to join cause sweden and findland are harbouring who turkey considers terrorists, ensure to cover the costs of giving up neaturality etc. Thank you.
People don't really understand what a blitzkrieg is all about, it's about gaining as much territory as you can in a small time frame. Demilitarization is about destroying the enemy's fighting capability ie kill as many and destroy as much equipment as you can.
For the context, the participants in this video conference discussing about European autonomous strategic capability. They discussing about the piece by Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks, title "Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back"
Why did Mersheimer think Ukraine made a mistake in giving up its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum back in 1993? Why are Finland and Sweden joining Nato?
Because that the point about possiblity of Russian invasion today. Back in early 1990s, no one can't know for sure that Russian will not invade Ukraine. From realist perspective like Mearsheimer, it's better for Ukrainian to not give up its nuclear arsenal because what will happen if Russian coming to knocking their door (invasion etc) like what actually happened today. So, it's better to ready for a rainy day.
@@Zzzk155 Yes, I agree with you. If Mersheimer was worried about Russian aggression back in 1993, why is he against Ukraine's future membership in Nato? Ukraine is being realistic about its security concerns and has the right to protect itself.
@@helenlozinski3072 for Mearsheimer, Ukrainian trying to joining NATO either by invitation or voluntarily, it will lead to big trouble for Ukrainian. That's what he's talking regarding USA and the West more generally leading Ukrainian down to primrose path. Russian, like USA, doesn't want their neighboring countries became close or part of alliance that associates with their adversaries. It's not like Russian or USA (or any great power according to Mearsheimer) sure that Cuba and Ukraine will attacking them, but they simply doesn't like adversaries or military alliance that associates with their adversaries trying to approach to their border. Mearsheimer first and foremost argue that Ukrainian shouldn't give up the nuclear arsenal in 1990s because its effective deterrence against military invasion. Second, inviting Ukrainian or Ukrainian voluntarily joining NATO will jeopardize Ukraine security itself because Russian (like USA during Cuban missile crisis) will not tolerate that move. It's like more insecurity rather than gaining more security
Findland shares a long border with Russia and is now applying for membership in Nato. If Mersheimer is right about Russia's security needs then Russia will invade Findland, as well as Sweden. This war is about the denial of Ukraine's existence. Putin has clearly stated that Ukraine and Ukrainians do not exist. Future Nato membership is an excuse. Many analysts have concluded his intentions are genocidal. This is a colonial war against Russian imperialism. Look what Russia did in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria. Compare Timothy Snyder's view to Mersheimer's for another perspective.
@@helenlozinski3072 there many views about this issue. Describe it as Russian Imperialism or as NATO expansion that antagonize Moscow, different perspective has its merit. But your point about the need to invade neighboring countries like Finland and Swedan is equivalent to secure Russian security interest is flawed counterargument. You should read the new article written George Friedman to understand why Ukraine is important to Russia from strategic perspective. Moreover, NATO expansion is not merely an excuse, it's among issues that makes relations between USA and Russia more and more fracture. Is Russian behavior more influence by imperial tendency or by security calculation? Time will tell us about it. If you right, I hope the the Ukrainian will prevail in this war. If I'm not wrong, the Ukrainian basically being treated as proxy to crush Russia. Whatever the outcome is, the West, especially the American gain more because their adversaries being push in to the corner and isolated by many countries in Europe. Ukrainian even they prevail, they basically being destroy and use as proxy to weakened Russia for USA
For everyone interested about US grand strategy debate that deeply related to this discussion, you'll guys should read Mearsheimer and Walt's piece about Offshore Balancing, secondly, article written by the three different scholar title "Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment" by Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry & William C. Wohlforth (this three scholars also mentioned by Mearsheimer in his discussion). And lastly, article by Barry Posen, title "Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy" Plus, the piece about the prospect of European autonomous strategic capability by Barry Posen, title "Europe Can Defend Itself". Posen article basically making the point about European had capability to defend itself without US assistant. On the contrary, Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks article about European autonomous strategic capability making the opposing point
This war is a great little earner for the arms makers. Just in time since they lost their pay check in Afghanistan. I hope the people of Taiwan are closely observing how the USA treat their disposable pawns in their proxy wars for profit.
Well he was inconsistent at best. He even sold weapons to the Ukraine, which was a red line Obama did not cross (not that Obama was any better at stopping the forever wars). Trump also chose to side with the pro-israel lobby groups so he killed the jcpoa which might be revived.
@@arthurzhao8476 exactly. Said one thing and did the other, either because he was a liar or he succumbed to the blob. Probably both, depending on the specific policy or issue.
Prof. Mearsheimer gets another A. May I recommend his now looking at the self-congratulatory “we were right” roadshows of Bill Browder and Michael McFaul. With Ukraine as smashed-up as it is, the concept of “being right” in those cases has a shame-feeding quality to it.
I find it very difficult to take Mearsheimer seriously since he also claims that Ukraine was an existential threat to Russia, which is supposedly why Russia invaded it. Ukraine has never been an existential threat to Russia even when Ukraine had approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that it voluntarily gave to Russia in exchange for Russia's promise to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Mearsheimer's notion that a non-nuclear Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads, is absurd. Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine, not the other way around.
How did Russia's nukes help it protect the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine who were getting shelled for 8 years with some 15,000 deaths as a result? The Ukrainian military with its Azov/N_i military leaders and battalions had massed on the Donbass border and greatly increased the shelling in Feb. of this year. If they had overun Donbass and killed all those people, they would have been right on Russia's border and crossed into Russia killing more and more Russians.
why are russians in ukraine now an existential threat to the rest of europe? why is everybody in europe spooked now? why is not nato in ukraine an existential threat to russia? which country has killed most people outside of its borders and invaded/bombed more countries than anyone else since 1980s? of course, the us and its entourage in the west think that they are morally superiour and better than everybody else and that they are always right. btw, there is no evidence that putin wants to restore ussr. are there any cia reports?
I don't know what to comment about all others commentators that seems lost or doesn't get clue of what actually the context of Prof. Mearsheimer criticism in this discussion. Again, here is my explanation. For the context, the participants in this video conference discussing about European autonomous strategic capability. They discussing about the piece by Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks, title "Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back". And that what is Mearsheimer focusing on here
John Mearsheimer is a liberal hegemon whithout a peer competitor, with no security threat in the region - no others to roam into the backyard. ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia
Prof M looks to be a Cassandra figure of epic historical proportions. For some bizarre reason it's very difficult to convince others currently, at least for now, comfortably cheering this unfolding sh*tshow from the sidelines that it is precisely their prevailing attitude over the years that led to this entirely avoidable conflict coming to pass.
Could it be that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was on life support? The professor fails to take this into account. Ask Putin if he cares about his country's GDP being on level with Texas. Go ahead Mearsheimer, ask him.
“professor” could seem being either a Kremlin’s agent or a Kremlin’s troll. I haven’t read any of his books but I’ve watched many of his lectures and discussions posted on utube... What does he keep telling with this permanent ironic smile in his face, like mocking any other having different thinking?“Realistic” fantasy... Russia is either a “super power” or “a state with an economy comparable to Texas’”. It cannot be both... He should comment on Russia’s fascist dogma (eg Dugin’s views) on which Putin’s rhetoric is based regarding the “justification” of the “special military operation”. And he should perhaps read more Tim Snyder 😁. Why really don’t we see anyone else talking in the video but the “wise old guy with the mustache”-Mearsheimer?
Mearsheimer thinks that if Russia wants to take over Ukraine, the war would be conducted differently, but after all, 99.9% of people are not military experts and thus believe most of what they hear or read on the war. He also thinks that recreating the Soviet Union might be in Putin's heart but not his head given the size of the Russian economy, about the size of Texas. However, he meant Russia's nominal GDP, which is 1.8 trillion, but we should focus on its PPP GDP instead which is closer to Germany's GDP given that goods and services are cheaper in Russia than the US (2.13 US dollars for a big mac in 2021 vs 5 dollars in the Us), it produces its own weapons, oil, gas and is self-sufficient in basic food items. Therefore, it does not need the dollar to buy US fighter jets or to purchase oil, but since he wants to strengthen his point, that Russia does not have the money to take over Ukraine, he, thus, uses nominal GDP. Edit: Using PPP, Russia is the 6th largest economy in the world (4.5 trillion) and the second largest in Europe (Germany PPP, 4.85 trillion). Edit: Yes, Russia's nominal (1.8 trillion) is about the size Texas (1.9 trillion), the second largest GDP of the US states, just behind California (3.56 trillion). But focus on Russia PPP GDP, not its nominal as it is able to produce high tech weapons at a fraction of what it cost the US. Edit Countries which armed forces consisted of large share of US weapons , and import weapons and/or oil then you might focus more on their nominal GDP than PPP GDP. But Russia's armed force and economy are somewhat self-sufficient + goods and services are much cheaper there than in the West. Edit: Yes, nominal GDP (at the market exchange rate) matters such as trying to pursue a college education at Harvard or providing a loan or grant to another country, or buying a F-16, etc., etc. but we don't want to underestimate a country (Russia here) when it comes to its war fighting capability by looking at nominal GDP when we should instead focus on its PPP GDP. After all, we want to win a war. Edit: heard it often ' their GDP is size of Texas, nothing to worry about' when in fact it is more the size of Germany's (using PPP) as you are dealing with a space power that can produce quality (just as good or somewhat similar quality as the US eg, hypersonic missile) at a fraction of what it cost the US.
What’s John’s reasoning for Russia’s attack in 2008 on Georgia? He conveniently disregards one important fact. Without the Russian threat there is no desire for NATO membership. Finland and Sweden were neutral for decades. Here comes the Russian threat follows by the NATO desire for membership. If Russia was not such a continued regional threat NATO would be so important to regional security. In 2008 and 2014 Russia was the first to fire a bullet. That’s the Russian threat.
Russian threat? That’s the American line ( rather American lie) to bring others to toe the line. You’re mistaken. Finland and Sweden will regret, just watch 😂
The biggest breach of the international law after the end of the Cold War (if I do not count Panama 1990) was Kosovo/NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999. Yugoslavia did not attack any member of NATO and casus belli for the NATO aggression was fabricated lie in the US direction. So from that event/point in history it is pretty clear (and was to Russians of course) that USA are not willing to respect the international law if it is not/looks to be no the US interest. We have seen plenty of other such breaches since. // Georgia tried in 2008 annex South Ossetia back by force, despite the Ossetians did not want to by part of Georgia and clearly have expressed this their will already since fall of the Soviet Union. It was very bad bet from Georgia to expect that Russia will not intervene. Maybe Georgians were pushed to do it by the US, it is hard to assess, because Saakashvili was crazy enough to believe that USA/NATO will help in the case of Russian reaction. Ukraine is just repeating of the Georgia 2008 scenario, almost down to the smallest detail.
Well, looks who's been "informed" by the McCarthyite corporate media. The only reason Russia was involved with Georgia, was because Georgia attacked first. That was because they were embolden by the west "discussing" their plans to back Georgia and bring them into NATO. once again, your "information" was flipped backwards. Russia had been become aggressive BECAUSE of 30 years of NATO expansion. Plenty of American experts on Russian affairs have warned about this for years. But, the neocon bureaucrats have used the liars in media to brainwash "educated" people like yourself - confident in your own uninformed opinion. Dunning Kruger effect is strong with you.
@@khaccanhle1930 my wife is half Romanian half Ukrainian and we lived outside Odesa for 2.5year. Georgia never was the first to fire a weapon against Russia. They knew what outcome that would bring and they would not want to provoke Russia. Well Russia didn’t need the help. They invaded and have annexed to this day a piece of Georgia. If you think the murders and rapes in Bucha and Irpin were fake or mariopul deserved having their city absolutely leveled you need to ask yourself why you support a murdering autocratic government where 700 private companies have left the state due to not being able to stomach a regime that would create war in 2022 Europe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, fact : US had 8000 troops in Europe before Putin raped and pillaged Ukraine. No European power is bid enough to be a threat to Russia, and militarily neither was the US. This Mearshemer individual seems to think that Russia has the right to veto European nations making their own decisions on which organisation they join. On the contrary, I think the US has been too soft on Russia. Had NATO sent aircraft into Ukraine and a few Heavy armoured divisions this would have avoided this debacle. But the West carried on its appeasement policy, lead by the US. Russia would have not invaded it and would have ended it's "training exercise." How can an individual be so incorrect and blind to the facts ? If NATO wanted to bring down Russia it would have and could have done in the 1990s. Either Putin is madly paranoid or he uses the expansion of NATO as an excuse. Russias' plan to subrogate the all of Ukraine is in tatters and if Putin was really concerned about NATO expansion then it really backfired prompting Sweden and Finland to apply.
No European had to capability to conquer other states in Europe. Seems true. But are Russian had that capability to threaten Europe? Nope. So what the point of NATO expansion if Russia had no capability to threaten European power. Btw, when did Mearsheimer make clear that Russian had "right" to veto this or that? In realist perspective, right doesn't matter in final analysis. Mearsheimer doesn't talking about this issue in "right" perspective. US been too soft on Russia? When did NATO expansion, arming & training Ukrainian is soft move against Russia? Moreover, since when did the West trying to appeased the Russian after this invasion began? And lead by USA? From what happened on the ground, the West, lead by USA is now trying to push Russian to the corner with defeat. That's not an appeasement
@@Zzzk155 I will give you one example of Russia aggressive stance to its neighbours, there are many. Denmark "gave" one of its frigates to NATO for ballistic missile defence. NOT ATTACK purely defence. Immediately a Russian spokesman in the Kremlin makes a statement threatening a non nuclear power with a nuclear attack. Not only was the threat illegal, an agreement all the big nuclear powers have signed up too, but the ripple in the pond is that it encourages non- nuclear powers to have to consider do we develop our own nuclear weapons ? In any case what gives anyone, let alone Russia, the right to tell Denmark what it can or cannot do with its frigates. Russia wants to dominate everything around it and that cannot happen. Those of us old enough can remember what that was like. A return to that is humanity going backwards.
@@stephencrossland2493 When you making a statement that Denmark move to "gave" one of its frigate to NATO for ballistic missile defense is "NOT ATTACK purely defense", its actually doesn't make sense from security dilemma perspective. What one county see as defensive move doesn't mean the other will see it as a defensive too. The term "defensive" itself doesn't persuade big country like Russia to think that what Denmark is doing that related to NATO (which Russian regard as hostile alliance) is purely defense. Not just Russia, even China and USA doesn't buy about "defensive" move make by their adversaries as purely "defensive". And regarding Russian want to dominate everything around it is also debatable if not overinflated threat. Even if that really the case, Russia today is not even coming close to become a second coming of Soviet Union. They had no capability to conquer Europe more generally. And war in Ukraine is a prove that Russian has no capability to conquer even small county like Ukraine
@@Zzzk155 Sorry mate when a missile is aimed at you and is intercepted by a anti ballistic missile or other intercept system prehaps you will understand the difference between a defensive system and an attacking one. An ABM can only shoot down an ATTACKING aircraft or missile. The Danish frigate was already in service long before the threat and whatever attacking weapons it may have had again they were present long before the Russian threat. Plus it is Illegal to threaten a non nuclear state with nukes. All the big nuclear powers including Russia signed up to it to justify stopping proliferation of nukes.
@@Zzzk155 first of all if NATO was a threat to Russia in the 1990s when the Soviet empire fell it was ripe for attack. Did not do that, no instead they invited Russia to join NATO. Russia refused because they were insulted they said because they had to apply and were simply not allowed in. As for Ukraine yes the British helped them with their training. At the moment British trainers are in Czech, Kenya, and about a dozen countries. Are you claiming Russia has a right to attack them too? However, the UK and US declined to sell arms to the Ukrainians on the grounds it might upset Russia ! We did very little to help Georgia.Recently a British warship had to leave a port because of Russian separatists were believe to be planning something silly. So the UK has done everything to avoid a confrontation. Not selling arms to Ukraine worked didn't it ? Now we're pouring in freebies. Appeasement has not worked. You want evidence go and do a tour of those Ukrainian mass graves. It certainly did not work for them !
0:59 min ... "expand" ... "not one inch eastward" ? ... what if 'east' meant: a communist country and those countries are no longer communist; or, at dawn, rise, as a country or state is initially forming; or, the orient (East Asia), or Ural Mountains rather than Carpathian Mountains, Balkan Peninsula or Northern European plain that goes up to Russia; or, to align, pitch, directly east or as if like what is perceived to be the east; or, without first being asked; or, not in a church, and or where an altar or high altar is?, and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... an inch? one mile on the ground; or a twelfth of a foot or something; or a concession; or a small area of highland; and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... ward? an administrative division of a city or borough; or grounds of a castle; or, ... eastward? direction of the east; and or e.t.c. ... ? ... one? the same; or, In agreement; and or e.t.c. ... ? ... expand? recede from; or develop; and or, e.t.c. ... ? ... not? nought; or, zero or one (binary); and or e.t.c. ... ? Is it an agreement or a promise? rather than subjectively think what was said and done, objectively, what was said and done? Also what was written somewhere, in some notes or memoranda or accord something ? ... which river? Oder, Ural, Emba, Elbe? One could go to town on that, hey. 0:59 min ... "NATO" ... "would not expand beyond the reunification of Germany"? ... hang on ... how far did they think the reunification was going to go? .... oh dear ... ruclips.net/video/LcDZdK55mUk/видео.html
0:34 min ... "the United States foisted the decision to include Ukraine and Georgia on the Europeans, especially the Germans and the French so we were deeply committed in 2008 ... " 0:29 min ... "we were going eastward, "we" means the United States." "John Mearsheimer analysis on Ukraine Western Lies" (International Relations & Politics)
John Mearsheimer is a liberal hegemon whithout a peer competitor, with no security threat in the region - no others to roam into the backyard. ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia
1:22 min ... "really matter? We're pimples on the hiny of humanity in the United States, right ... " ... could possibly put a different spin on being someone's squeeze ... just saying ... ... yeah ... I'm good at being a pain in the proverbial ... gotta be good at something ...
3:59 min ... "very important to understand this ... " 5:22 min ... "question is: what are we going to do." 5:26 min ... "you know what we wanted to do. We wanted to come home." 5:35 min ... "We're coming home." ... hmmmm ... home ... sounds good. "The History of NATO, John Mearsheimer, Structural Realist" (International Relations & Politics) ruclips.net/video/SZPkvI_febw/видео.html
John 10, the others 0 - intelligence & honesty over stupidity & deceit.
Spot on
😊🏴☠️
@@alanchriston6806 👍
I suspect you one of those conspiracy nut jobs. The truth is never simple or straight forward. The US and especially the CIA are no angels, but this man is totally wrong on Russia. And something really bugs me about your mate. As a older person I grew up with guys who fought in WW2, older relatives, and none of them boasted about their service, none would speak of what they went through. As a young kid I had to pester them to tell me things. Yet John comes on boasting about his service telling us has he went through nam etc. I'm not saying he did not have long military service etc, but he does not across to me as normal traumatized individual who's been through the war mill. Believe me anyone who has ,is traumatized to some degree. Plus his history of military service does not make him an expert on geo-politics and Russia. I think you and the other commenters on this video need to go and away and have deep think.
@@stephencrossland2493 And what makes you such an expert on geopolitics & Russia. Instead of criticizing John M., why not provide at least some concrete evidence to support your views, preferably with verifiable sources.
@@stephencrossland2493 obviously your on medication or your clearly delusional and require psychiatric help.
As your clearly looking to validate your thoughts through the experience of others.
Get a life or as I suggested Medical help.
John Mearsheimer is a knowledgeable, wise, intelligent and just great geo-political specialist who totally beats his opponents with the above mantioned virtues and amazing,nowadays hard to find, honesty!!! A REAL CHAMPION in his field!!! 👍👋👌💯%
' Pop Frances Blame NATO For Ukraine War '
@@rezakarampour6286 Totally JUSTIFIED!! 👍👌
Reza, give pope Francis a cookie.
@@republica843 the Pope has a moral compass and sees through this catastrophe that will bring down the world economy and cause the death of millions in the global south through starvation. It is truly evil.
Yes, but he has no idea about the history of Russia and Ukraine. No evidence that Putin wanted to recreate the Russian empire? The evidence is overwhelming, including Putin’s own statements. Nice guy, but a useful idiot.
Mershimer is perfect 10 others Big Zero in connecting the root cause of the Current Conflict Ukraine Vs Russia. Putin is 100% right about USA & NATO
Spot on
John Mershiemer is in my opinion absolutely right.
The rest are jokes.
I don’t want Nuclear war.
But NATO have pushed Russia into a corner .
And if I had Nuclear weapons use them.
It makes me laugh all the others have family and children grandchildren., I don’t so I don’t care less.
But the chumps other than John Mershiemer are argueing for their own grandchildren vapourization,
How thick they are .
I for one love this
Ha ha ha
😊🏴☠️
1:24
Pimples on the hiny of humanity.
@@jwshepard6 In the nuclear winter, no one will remember that he was right...
Thankyou John you are one of the few honest people who have the knowledge necessary to show the lies of the US government.
As always Professor Mearsheimer is 💯 right. As always the Truth is seen by the few, while the vast majority is completely in denial.
@Jon Little You are entitled to have your opinion, however You say that" As always the Truth is seen by everyone with a little common sense..." Lol- what happens if that majority don't have a little common sense?
What happens if that majority is ignorant bcz the Truth requires usually knowledge?!
For exemple if I was born in a country in which the Holocaust is not taught in schools or that is just propaganda, in this case the Holocaust is the Truth? and if so I am able to see it ?
From your words I see clearly that You have no idea how the truth is present in our lifes or how the humans perceived it.
@Jon Little I' m not allowing that, is your right. As for the rest You are just playing with words bcz You cannot sustain your position. A foxy attitude.🤣😭😂😁👍
@Jon Little I'm not. I gave You a concrete exemple about the Truth. And your response- chasing the tail and blaming the other one for doing it. As I said 🦊.😁👍
@Jon Little If thru self-proclaimed 'wise' man You understand Professor Mearsheimer well what can I say, You are probably much more ' knowledgeable and wise' that he is. Good for You and maybe You should spread your wiseness to the entire World! 😁👍
@Jon Little I had my last word a while ago, but of course You didn't realise it.😂😭🤣👍
Ukraine is suffering due to Western policies and interference
I think so too. This is very very sad for ukrainian people and whole world-
The whole world is suffering because of these things. Russia, Europe and America, too.
All countries suffer due to their own policies and actions.
Ukraine is suffering due to invasion by an uncivilised, unprincipled armed mob.
Pretty sure Russia has done its fair share of interfering. Lol.
As usual John is always spot on about whats happening in ukraine and just international relations on the whole. Please have him speak his views on finland and sweden joining nato. I personally believe WW3 will happen on the nordic countries territories and not in ukraine. So have him shed some light on this. Also turkey decision for them not to join cause sweden and findland are harbouring who turkey considers terrorists, ensure to cover the costs of giving up neaturality etc. Thank you.
will do when l come across a discussion.
Why is there no talk of turkey veto with respect to ukrain’s nato membership?
People don't really understand what a blitzkrieg is all about, it's about gaining as much territory as you can in a small time frame. Demilitarization is about destroying the enemy's fighting capability ie kill as many and destroy as much equipment as you can.
For the context, the participants in this video conference discussing about European autonomous strategic capability. They discussing about the piece by Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks, title "Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back"
Small GDP, with an area of natural resources the size of the smallest planet, and rising in value.
Why did Mersheimer think Ukraine made a mistake in giving up its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum back in 1993?
Why are Finland and Sweden joining Nato?
Because that the point about possiblity of Russian invasion today. Back in early 1990s, no one can't know for sure that Russian will not invade Ukraine. From realist perspective like Mearsheimer, it's better for Ukrainian to not give up its nuclear arsenal because what will happen if Russian coming to knocking their door (invasion etc) like what actually happened today. So, it's better to ready for a rainy day.
@@Zzzk155 Yes, I agree with you. If Mersheimer was worried about Russian aggression back in 1993, why is he against Ukraine's future membership in Nato? Ukraine is being realistic about its security concerns and has the right to protect itself.
@@helenlozinski3072 for Mearsheimer, Ukrainian trying to joining NATO either by invitation or voluntarily, it will lead to big trouble for Ukrainian. That's what he's talking regarding USA and the West more generally leading Ukrainian down to primrose path. Russian, like USA, doesn't want their neighboring countries became close or part of alliance that associates with their adversaries. It's not like Russian or USA (or any great power according to Mearsheimer) sure that Cuba and Ukraine will attacking them, but they simply doesn't like adversaries or military alliance that associates with their adversaries trying to approach to their border.
Mearsheimer first and foremost argue that Ukrainian shouldn't give up the nuclear arsenal in 1990s because its effective deterrence against military invasion. Second, inviting Ukrainian or Ukrainian voluntarily joining NATO will jeopardize Ukraine security itself because Russian (like USA during Cuban missile crisis) will not tolerate that move. It's like more insecurity rather than gaining more security
Findland shares a long border with Russia and is now applying for membership in Nato. If Mersheimer is right about Russia's security needs then Russia will invade Findland, as well as Sweden.
This war is about the denial of Ukraine's existence. Putin has clearly stated that Ukraine and Ukrainians do not exist. Future Nato membership is an excuse. Many analysts have concluded his intentions are genocidal.
This is a colonial war against Russian imperialism. Look what Russia did in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria.
Compare Timothy Snyder's view to Mersheimer's for another perspective.
@@helenlozinski3072 there many views about this issue. Describe it as Russian Imperialism or as NATO expansion that antagonize Moscow, different perspective has its merit. But your point about the need to invade neighboring countries like Finland and Swedan is equivalent to secure Russian security interest is flawed counterargument. You should read the new article written George Friedman to understand why Ukraine is important to Russia from strategic perspective.
Moreover, NATO expansion is not merely an excuse, it's among issues that makes relations between USA and Russia more and more fracture. Is Russian behavior more influence by imperial tendency or by security calculation? Time will tell us about it. If you right, I hope the the Ukrainian will prevail in this war. If I'm not wrong, the Ukrainian basically being treated as proxy to crush Russia. Whatever the outcome is, the West, especially the American gain more because their adversaries being push in to the corner and isolated by many countries in Europe. Ukrainian even they prevail, they basically being destroy and use as proxy to weakened Russia for USA
Jhon mershimer said real truth yes bitter but reality always bitter
For everyone interested about US grand strategy debate that deeply related to this discussion, you'll guys should read Mearsheimer and Walt's piece about Offshore Balancing, secondly, article written by the three different scholar title "Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment" by Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry & William C. Wohlforth (this three scholars also mentioned by Mearsheimer in his discussion). And lastly, article by Barry Posen, title "Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy"
Plus, the piece about the prospect of European autonomous strategic capability by Barry Posen, title "Europe Can Defend Itself". Posen article basically making the point about European had capability to defend itself without US assistant. On the contrary, Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks article about European autonomous strategic capability making the opposing point
John Mearsheimer is a blessing to the World!
As seen on BBC - as if 🙃
Exactly
😊🏴☠️
Free thought not allowed.
First time hearing Mr. Mearshimer. This man speaks the truth.
This war is a great little earner for the arms makers. Just in time since they lost their pay check in Afghanistan.
I hope the people of Taiwan are closely observing how the USA treat their disposable pawns in their proxy wars for profit.
The US has left Ukraine and the EU headed for the inevitable abyss and moved on to their new "Ukraine" in Taiwan.
Not Joe Biden
He quotes the history most choose to forget or overlook
Did Trump do his best to fight the establishment?
Well he was inconsistent at best. He even sold weapons to the Ukraine, which was a red line Obama did not cross (not that Obama was any better at stopping the forever wars). Trump also chose to side with the pro-israel lobby groups so he killed the jcpoa which might be revived.
No, like Obama he caved to the blob, military industrial complex, and the rest of the establishment.
He didn't fight the establishment
@@arthurzhao8476 exactly. Said one thing and did the other, either because he was a liar or he succumbed to the blob. Probably both, depending on the specific policy or issue.
No. Trump is a celebrity, not a politician. He was interested in attention, not actually changing entrenched US policies and foreign affairs.
You make a lot people squirm John with the truth.
Exactly!
Prof. Mearsheimer gets another A. May I recommend his now looking at the self-congratulatory “we were right” roadshows of Bill Browder and Michael McFaul. With Ukraine as smashed-up as it is, the concept of “being right” in those cases has a shame-feeding quality to it.
I find it very difficult to take Mearsheimer seriously since he also claims that Ukraine was an existential threat to Russia, which is supposedly why Russia invaded it. Ukraine has never been an existential threat to Russia even when Ukraine had approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that it voluntarily gave to Russia in exchange for Russia's promise to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Mearsheimer's notion that a non-nuclear Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads, is absurd. Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine, not the other way around.
Ukraine by itself is not a threat to Russia.
Ukraine as a part of NATO is a threat to Russia.
Very simple.
How did Russia's nukes help it protect the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine who were getting shelled for 8 years with some 15,000 deaths as a result? The Ukrainian military with its Azov/N_i military leaders and battalions had massed on the Donbass border and greatly increased the shelling in Feb. of this year. If they had overun Donbass and killed all those people, they would have been right on Russia's border and crossed into Russia killing more and more Russians.
why are russians in ukraine now an existential threat to the rest of europe? why is everybody in europe spooked now? why is not nato in ukraine an existential threat to russia? which country has killed most people outside of its borders and invaded/bombed more countries than anyone else since 1980s? of course, the us and its entourage in the west think that they are morally superiour and better than everybody else and that they are always right. btw, there is no evidence that putin wants to restore ussr. are there any cia reports?
I don't know what to comment about all others commentators that seems lost or doesn't get clue of what actually the context of Prof. Mearsheimer criticism in this discussion.
Again, here is my explanation. For the context, the participants in this video conference discussing about European autonomous strategic capability. They discussing about the piece by Hugo Meijer and Stephen Brooks, title "Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back". And that what is Mearsheimer focusing on here
No evidence ... No evidence ... Eyes closed, fingers in the ears and going "La. La. La...".
John Mearsheimer is a liberal hegemon whithout a peer competitor, with no security threat in the region - no others to roam into the backyard.
...
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
This is a Monologue, and it is unacceptable!
Largely Putin talking points.
A great explanation. But someone is breaking parts of his videos, especially when he says some keyword.
Guess who. 😉
Prof M looks to be a Cassandra figure of epic historical proportions.
For some bizarre reason it's very difficult to convince others currently, at least for now, comfortably cheering this unfolding sh*tshow from the sidelines that it is precisely their prevailing attitude over the years that led to this entirely avoidable conflict coming to pass.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This book explains very well this situation.
genuine monologue of Russian troll
... but a very smart troll. Mich später than the usual NATO parrots. 😂😂😂
@@verakehrli5636 more smart more dangerous. such people paved the way for hitler etc.
@@martinburlas3979 People like you paved the way for Hitler. People like Mearsheimer were his defeat.
Ukraine is under the control of nazi groups , empowered by the USA.
Same amount as Texas not anymore
... but with nukes. 😆
I do stand with Russia 🇷🇺
Putin is totally RIGHT.
Usa and russia are both aholes
American Imperialism! Accurate!
How could be invited to such hi level discussion a mean character paid by nato?
Could it be that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was on life support? The professor fails to take this into account. Ask Putin if he cares about his country's GDP being on level with Texas. Go ahead Mearsheimer, ask him.
What is your point?
“professor” could seem being either a Kremlin’s agent or a Kremlin’s troll. I haven’t read any of his books but I’ve watched many of his lectures and discussions posted on utube... What does he keep telling with this permanent ironic smile in his face, like mocking any other having different thinking?“Realistic” fantasy... Russia is either a “super power” or “a state with an economy comparable to Texas’”. It cannot be both...
He should comment on Russia’s fascist dogma (eg Dugin’s views) on which Putin’s rhetoric is based regarding the “justification” of the “special military operation”.
And he should perhaps read more Tim Snyder 😁.
Why really don’t we see anyone else talking in the video but the “wise old guy with the mustache”-Mearsheimer?
we love...Russia.........sri lanka
RUSSIA..RUSSIA..RUSSIA..🔥❤️🙏
No, it is Mearsheimer’s lies. Maybe not lies but rather ill-informed opinions. The guy is supporting a criminal. Ouch!
…and bush jr isnt a criminal? Usa is pure and holy? Never started a war?
@@drunkdrftr bush jr is not a criminal, he is just an idiot.
He is telling them their policies have led to this war, and they are laughing??
@Jon Little Can you explain why?
@Jon Little No answer? So you are just hot air?
@Jon Little You responded with nothing, but hot air to his argument? Where is your response to his points? Just name calling.
@Jon Little I knew some prover type argument was coming. If you have no arguments and nothing to add to the conversion, this is pointless. Take care.
Mearsheimer thinks that if Russia wants to take over Ukraine, the war would be conducted differently, but after all, 99.9% of people are not military experts and thus believe most of what they hear or read on the war.
He also thinks that recreating the Soviet Union might be in Putin's heart but not his head given the size of the Russian economy, about the size of Texas.
However, he meant Russia's nominal GDP, which is 1.8 trillion, but we should focus on its PPP GDP instead which is closer to Germany's GDP given that goods and services are cheaper in Russia than the US (2.13 US dollars for a big mac in 2021 vs 5 dollars in the Us), it produces its own weapons, oil, gas and is self-sufficient in basic food items. Therefore, it does not need the dollar to buy US fighter jets or to purchase oil, but since he wants to strengthen his point, that Russia does not have the money to take over Ukraine, he, thus, uses nominal GDP.
Edit: Using PPP, Russia is the 6th largest economy in the world (4.5 trillion) and the second largest in Europe (Germany PPP, 4.85 trillion).
Edit: Yes, Russia's nominal (1.8 trillion) is about the size Texas (1.9 trillion), the second largest GDP of the US states, just behind California (3.56 trillion). But focus on Russia PPP GDP, not its nominal as it is able to produce high tech weapons at a fraction of what it cost the US.
Edit Countries which armed forces consisted of large share of US weapons , and import weapons and/or oil then you might focus more on their nominal GDP than PPP GDP. But Russia's armed force and economy are somewhat self-sufficient + goods and services are much cheaper there than in the West.
Edit: Yes, nominal GDP (at the market exchange rate) matters such as trying to pursue a college education at Harvard or providing a loan or grant to another country, or buying a F-16, etc., etc. but we don't want to underestimate a country (Russia here) when it comes to its war fighting capability by looking at nominal GDP when we should instead focus on its PPP GDP.
After all, we want to win a war.
Edit: heard it often ' their GDP is size of Texas, nothing to worry about' when in fact it is more
the size of Germany's (using PPP) as you are dealing with a space power that can produce quality (just as good or somewhat similar quality as the US eg, hypersonic missile) at a fraction of what it cost the US.
This guy again. Lol..
Yeah, we need more guys like you. Lol..
mearsheimer is being attacked and blocked and for obvious reasons
What’s John’s reasoning for Russia’s attack in 2008 on Georgia? He conveniently disregards one important fact. Without the Russian threat there is no desire for NATO membership. Finland and Sweden were neutral for decades. Here comes the Russian threat follows by the NATO desire for membership. If Russia was not such a continued regional threat NATO would be so important to regional security. In 2008 and 2014 Russia was the first to fire a bullet. That’s the Russian threat.
Russian threat? That’s the American line ( rather American lie) to bring others to toe the line.
You’re mistaken. Finland and Sweden will regret, just watch 😂
The biggest breach of the international law after the end of the Cold War (if I do not count Panama 1990)
was Kosovo/NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999. Yugoslavia did not attack any member of NATO and casus belli
for the NATO aggression was fabricated lie in the US direction. So from that event/point in history it is pretty clear (and
was to Russians of course) that USA are not willing to respect the international law if it is not/looks to be no the US
interest. We have seen plenty of other such breaches since. // Georgia tried in 2008 annex South Ossetia
back by force, despite the Ossetians did not want to by part of Georgia and clearly have expressed this their
will already since fall of the Soviet Union. It was very bad bet from Georgia to expect that Russia will
not intervene. Maybe Georgians were pushed to do it by the US, it is hard to assess, because Saakashvili
was crazy enough to believe that USA/NATO will help in the case of Russian reaction. Ukraine is just repeating of the Georgia
2008 scenario, almost down to the smallest detail.
Well, looks who's been "informed" by the McCarthyite corporate media.
The only reason Russia was involved with Georgia, was because Georgia attacked first. That was because they were embolden by the west "discussing" their plans to back Georgia and bring them into NATO.
once again, your "information" was flipped backwards. Russia had been become aggressive BECAUSE of 30 years of NATO expansion. Plenty of American experts on Russian affairs have warned about this for years.
But, the neocon bureaucrats have used the liars in media to brainwash "educated" people like yourself - confident in your own uninformed opinion.
Dunning Kruger effect is strong with you.
@@khaccanhle1930 my wife is half Romanian half Ukrainian and we lived outside Odesa for 2.5year. Georgia never was the first to fire a weapon against Russia. They knew what outcome that would bring and they would not want to provoke Russia. Well Russia didn’t need the help. They invaded and have annexed to this day a piece of Georgia. If you think the murders and rapes in Bucha and Irpin were fake or mariopul deserved having their city absolutely leveled you need to ask yourself why you support a murdering autocratic government where 700 private companies have left the state due to not being able to stomach a regime that would create war in 2022 Europe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, fact : US had 8000 troops in Europe before Putin raped and pillaged Ukraine. No European power is bid enough to be a threat to Russia, and militarily neither was the US. This Mearshemer individual seems to think that Russia has the right to veto European nations making their own decisions on which organisation they join. On the contrary, I think the US has been too soft on Russia. Had NATO sent aircraft into Ukraine and a few Heavy armoured divisions this would have avoided this debacle. But the West carried on its appeasement policy, lead by the US. Russia would have not invaded it and would have ended it's "training exercise." How can an individual be so incorrect and blind to the facts ? If NATO wanted to bring down Russia it would have and could have done in the 1990s. Either Putin is madly paranoid or he uses the expansion of NATO as an excuse. Russias' plan to subrogate the all of Ukraine is in tatters and if Putin was really concerned about NATO expansion then it really backfired prompting Sweden and Finland to apply.
No European had to capability to conquer other states in Europe. Seems true. But are Russian had that capability to threaten Europe? Nope. So what the point of NATO expansion if Russia had no capability to threaten European power. Btw, when did Mearsheimer make clear that Russian had "right" to veto this or that? In realist perspective, right doesn't matter in final analysis. Mearsheimer doesn't talking about this issue in "right" perspective. US been too soft on Russia? When did NATO expansion, arming & training Ukrainian is soft move against Russia?
Moreover, since when did the West trying to appeased the Russian after this invasion began? And lead by USA? From what happened on the ground, the West, lead by USA is now trying to push Russian to the corner with defeat. That's not an appeasement
@@Zzzk155 I will give you one example of Russia aggressive stance to its neighbours, there are many. Denmark "gave" one of its frigates to NATO for ballistic missile defence. NOT ATTACK purely defence. Immediately a Russian spokesman in the Kremlin makes a statement threatening a non nuclear power with a nuclear attack. Not only was the threat illegal, an agreement all the big nuclear powers have signed up too, but the ripple in the pond is that it encourages non- nuclear powers to have to consider do we develop our own nuclear weapons ? In any case what gives anyone, let alone Russia, the right to tell Denmark what it can or cannot do with its frigates. Russia wants to dominate everything around it and that cannot happen. Those of us old enough can remember what that was like. A return to that is humanity going backwards.
@@stephencrossland2493 When you making a statement that Denmark move to "gave" one of its frigate to NATO for ballistic missile defense is "NOT ATTACK purely defense", its actually doesn't make sense from security dilemma perspective. What one county see as defensive move doesn't mean the other will see it as a defensive too. The term "defensive" itself doesn't persuade big country like Russia to think that what Denmark is doing that related to NATO (which Russian regard as hostile alliance) is purely defense. Not just Russia, even China and USA doesn't buy about "defensive" move make by their adversaries as purely "defensive".
And regarding Russian want to dominate everything around it is also debatable if not overinflated threat. Even if that really the case, Russia today is not even coming close to become a second coming of Soviet Union. They had no capability to conquer Europe more generally. And war in Ukraine is a prove that Russian has no capability to conquer even small county like Ukraine
@@Zzzk155 Sorry mate when a missile is aimed at you and is intercepted by a anti ballistic missile or other intercept system prehaps you will understand the difference between a defensive system and an attacking one. An ABM can only shoot down an ATTACKING aircraft or missile. The Danish frigate was already in service long before the threat and whatever attacking weapons it may have had again they were present long before the Russian threat. Plus it is Illegal to threaten a non nuclear state with nukes. All the big nuclear powers including Russia signed up to it to justify stopping proliferation of nukes.
@@Zzzk155 first of all if NATO was a threat to Russia in the 1990s when the Soviet empire fell it was ripe for attack. Did not do that, no instead they invited Russia to join NATO. Russia refused because they were insulted they said because they had to apply and were simply not allowed in. As for Ukraine yes the British helped them with their training. At the moment British trainers are in Czech, Kenya, and about a dozen countries. Are you claiming Russia has a right to attack them too? However, the UK and US declined to sell arms to the Ukrainians on the grounds it might upset Russia ! We did very little to help Georgia.Recently a British warship had to leave a port because of Russian separatists were believe to be planning something silly. So the UK has done everything to avoid a confrontation. Not selling arms to Ukraine worked didn't it ? Now we're pouring in freebies. Appeasement has not worked. You want evidence go and do a tour of those Ukrainian mass graves. It certainly did not work for them !
0:59 min ... "expand" ... "not one inch eastward" ?
... what if 'east' meant:
a communist country and those countries are no longer communist; or,
at dawn, rise, as a country or state is initially forming; or,
the orient (East Asia), or Ural Mountains rather than Carpathian Mountains, Balkan Peninsula or Northern European plain that goes up to Russia; or,
to align, pitch, directly east or as if like what is perceived to be the east; or,
without first being asked; or,
not in a church, and or where an altar or high altar is?, and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... an inch?
one mile on the ground; or
a twelfth of a foot or something; or
a concession; or
a small area of highland; and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... ward?
an administrative division of a city or borough; or
grounds of a castle; or,
... eastward?
direction of the east; and or
e.t.c. ... ?
... one?
the same; or,
In agreement; and or
e.t.c. ... ?
... expand?
recede from; or
develop; and or,
e.t.c. ... ?
... not?
nought; or,
zero or one (binary); and or
e.t.c. ... ?
Is it an agreement or a promise? rather than subjectively think what was said and done,
objectively, what was said and done?
Also what was written somewhere, in some notes or memoranda or accord something ? ... which river? Oder, Ural, Emba, Elbe?
One could go to town on that, hey.
0:59 min ... "NATO" ... "would not expand beyond the reunification of Germany"? ... hang on ... how far did they think the reunification was going to go? .... oh dear ...
ruclips.net/video/LcDZdK55mUk/видео.html
"Why is Russia Angry,post cold world | Stephen Walt Explains" (International Relations & Politics)
0:34 min ... "the United States foisted the decision to include Ukraine and Georgia on the Europeans, especially the Germans and the French so we were deeply committed in 2008 ... "
0:29 min ... "we were going eastward, "we" means the United States."
"John Mearsheimer analysis on Ukraine Western Lies" (International Relations & Politics)
John Mearsheimer is a liberal hegemon whithout a peer competitor, with no security threat in the region - no others to roam into the backyard.
...
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
1:22 min ... "really matter? We're pimples on the hiny of humanity in the United States, right ... " ... could possibly put a different spin on being someone's squeeze ... just saying ...
... yeah ... I'm good at being a pain in the proverbial ... gotta be good at something ...
3:59 min ... "very important to understand this ... "
5:22 min ... "question is: what are we going to do."
5:26 min ... "you know what we wanted to do. We wanted to come home."
5:35 min ... "We're coming home."
... hmmmm ... home ... sounds good.
"The History of NATO, John Mearsheimer, Structural Realist" (International Relations & Politics)
ruclips.net/video/SZPkvI_febw/видео.html