Thanks! Good to hear you again Brian Lamb! 😀. I miss you on CSpan and I appreciate your interview with Professor Mearsheimer. Very informative. Thank you again sir. 😀
Thank you for confirming the interviewer who I was hearing and picturing in my mind but forgot his name . I miss Brian Lamb as chief journalist, interviewer, anchor, etc on C-SPAN TV too
I remember reading his book “The great tragedy of great power politics” as a young political science student. It changed my world view forever. I deeply admire this great scholar.
@@aristidescabeche1506 He is, Russian Internet is full of his videos, he is a star of the justification of the war in Ukraine. And guess what? He is not even sorry for it...
As a listener I to am very happy to hear your voice Mr. Brian Lamb.. BRAVO..watching your show Booknotes on CSPAN not so long ago it seems when I was a young man..I remember saying to my Dad wow NOW you can't say everything on TV is junk..I really looked forward.. especially when I missed a week..to BOOKNOTES and what intelligent and engaging back and forth between the author and yourself would take place..many of the author's I not only didn't know about but let alone see them in person on TV was so great because it was with you sir or not at all!!
I came across John around December last year when the Ukraine situation started spiking again. I went in expecting a blustering anti-Russian American, and what I got, reason and even-handedness, was a pleasant surprise. Though I disagree with him on parts, especially regarding Putins behaviour between 2000-2014, he has in general put word to thoughts I've had for years, but was scared to say. Truly an intellect worth paying attention to.
Total Support from USA. John Matlock, his age is a little "worse". But if anyone does not know John another great guy. There are thousands like John and John. These are not inaccurate or isolated ideas.
Well he didnt exactly nailed it or did he? ... Read Anne Appelbaum on Mearsheimer. Or go figure out why the Russian aggression turns to a disaster not only for the people of Ukraine but for the thousands of dead soldiers. Im sure Prof. Mearsheimers 19th century logic about "might is right" doesnt fit anymore.
@@vrfvfdcdvgtre2369 Well we do have a lot of international insitutions and agreements and they work. One of of many problems Mearsheimer has is can't understand that several institutions are made to stop the kind of "realism" Mearsheimer suggest. You can argue if they always are work (Like the treaty in Budapest 1994) and I would say yes they in fact do. But a cleptocraty state with an auctorian leader who uses force and just don't care about agreements, then it is risking international condemnation - that's what happends right now. I would suggest this is more realism than Mearsbergers suggest with his pre-colonial way of seeing the world.
01:12 answer to why he enlisted in army....was only an alternate for WP.; 4:15 adversity at WP; :07:04 how JJM ended up in USAF.......7:50 JJM father was a reservist Colonel; 9:40 only performed well in last year at WP; //////////////. 15:59 Brookings boosted his confidence 17:11 2 years at Harvard, published book 18. ~ gratitude to his peers////////////////////////////// 18:45 who influenced ? Paul Kennedy British Naval decline theory if International Politics Waltz , K ; Jack Snyder; 21:30 bk Why Leaders Lie ; 23:35 leaders rarely lie to each other vs they lie to their populations far more often; 24:45 best liar was H ..very hard to read ...duplicitous eg Sudetenland /////////////////////////////
People like Mr. Mearsheimer , Noam Chomsky , Chris Hedges , David Wolfe , Yukon Huang and others ought to be in US Government posts , not ignoramous like the ones in Government presently.
Yeah, absolutely. American liberalism is just awful, look at the laundry list of atrocities it idealises: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States Thank god for the Mearsheimer world view, along with other critics of American liberalism. The list still needs Tucker Carlson though.
He is a lying piece of shit person. I have to agree he is very convincing. Russians are using his teachings to justify reaping women and kids in Ukraine. And this garbage of a human is not even sorry for that...
@@mechuniversal Yeh, the oligarchs "love this guy" because he is telling the truth, but America's ruling class hates him because he is telling the truth....
36:00. After 36 minutes of listening to Professor Mearsheimer talk about his background and then articulate a view I have shared for 5 years with the sole exception of our disagreement about causes of August 2008 being 5 parts the massacre in Ossetia and 1 part the Bucharest statement, I find a tactical difference in the Professor’s arguments expressed. Not a strategic difference.
Which massacre? you mean Georgian people were massacred by Russians I guess? Cause South Osetia is not real state it is in reality Georgia, Tskhinvali Region.
wonderful interview - for some of his own admitted 'wrongs' like on NATO, I don't think it is a blot at all, anyway, he said what should be done but he is not in charge. Still I think he is absolutely right on NATO expansion.
It was the governments and citizens of Warsaw Pact countries that RAN to join both the EU and NATO. They were tired of living with the Soviet/ Russian boot on their neck!
@@АлексейГолуб-н7п we know Russia. I think Russia has to be conquered and divide into smaller states. 100 years of occupation by nato and maybe the ppl of Russia will realise that the shithole of a country they lived in must be forgotten.
I don't understand why most always refer to Trump being a liar, when in reality, aren't most politicians liars and bullshitters by default? Yes, some are most honest than others but they pretty much all fall under the same umbrella regardless of their political spectrum. At least the is my view on that issue.
Because Trump lies so blatantly that it's easy to doubt him, which is why he is attacked and also why i like him. In a way he is far more honest and far less hypocritical I mean, ppl call him a baffoon and shit but I 'll rather pick him over the snakes any day of the week
In what way? Mr Mearsheimer is pretty alone, advocating for a world order were the imperialists has som fucked up "right" to attack their neighbors. Tell me about all the righteous wars Russia has been involved in since 1945 and how they turned out in Russias favour. You can start telling us about the body count, and the economic prosperity Russia gained from it.
@@Holzwache The invasion is the Russian response to the Ukrainians wanting to enter the Nato Alliance which has been the USSR, now Russia's enemy for 45 years what is there not to get? Sure its wrong but why are the Ukrainians acting tough before entering the alliance. Now that they are getting invaded and Nato and the US is not helping them as expected who is to blame for not forseeing this situation.
@@Drunkendrakon First of all. Russia is not USSR.Russia signed the Budapest protocol together with US and more to guarantee Ukraines borders and integrity. Russia invaded Ukraine 2014. Then again 2022. I live in Sweden. Do you think we should to ask Russia before or after they invade us if its ok to join Nato? Truth is that no nation has the right to invade a neighboring country unless you find some immediate threat (not fake ones as you probably by now are aware of) or an act of genocide. Russia has proven to be an aggressor not for keeping peace or usher democracy but just to control its neighbors. Thats why Lavrov demands unconditional retreat from Russias neighbors. In what way should russia be treated otherwise than other countries? Because they are a "great power"? Well if you count missiles and nuclear weapons yes, but I do think you agreee that we don't want to live in a world where you count nukes and therefore benefit I from it by your fellow neighbors.
Yes. Too bad the American media and some "woke" students at the U of Chicago don't like him. He's a treasure, as was the late Stephen Cohen. I love his lectures.
@@PIANOSEEDS Yes this is so true...it seems that the majority of regular people today are actually realists and understand that nothing is ever what it seems in these situations...it is really sickening that innocents die while the elite get richer
The host said the interviewer said Trump was the biggest liar. The guest didn’t say that, he said he was the worst liar. Other than that, great interview.
The washington post lie tracker for trump lists "We built the greatest economy in the world" as the number one lie (for him repeating it so often). Clearly this is a bogus fact check. I have no doubt trump lies, but oddly enough, the things the media told us he lied about, he was usually right about. My opinion on the worst liars are the lies that lead to war. The people claiming that Putin is trying to rebuild the USSR are just as bad as the bushies that lied about WMDs.
@@thoswallace Examine Trump from a 'realist' perspective. Look at substance and not only packaging. Trump was correct in what ailed the American voter and was not lying about the problems with China, stupid wars, deindustrialization. Take a bus ride from O'Hare airport to Southbend, IN and you'll see the 'carnage' that Trump talked about in his inauguration speech. My eyes watered in sorrow on that ride to visit my father at a Pascal seminar at Notre Dame as we passed the Chicago south side and Gary, IN. The tears did not stop until I saw the greenest corn I ever saw between there and ND. I'm from the SF Bay Area and the people there are so bubbled. Get out and never judge a man solely by the packaging. Watch what they DO and understand their goals. Policy is paramount in the end. Results matter.
I'm retired CIA, 30+ years. In CIA, there are two foci of mission - collection of foreign intelligence and analysis of what is collected combined with whatever other intel is available. EVERYTHING CIA does is aimed at those two missions which really are just one. Billions might be spent on satellites and thousands and thousands of CIA personnel work at logistics, personnel, finance, travel, security, computers, etc. but all of that is to support the two points of the double pointed spear. Professor Mearsheimer is the analytical side personified. Without doubt, many CIA analysts are in his camp. I am an operations guy so I have no dog in the fight except to point out Dr. Mershimer's very strong emphasis on the GALACTIC power of nationalism in international affairs and how it REMAINS even in 2022 such a huge factor even after it nearly destroyed the world in WW One and Two and after so much progress has been made with peace in Europe for over 75 years (except for Yugoslavia and now Ukraine). Nationalism is the ethnic electricity of the people of China and it remains very powerful in Japan though it is rarely mentioned. Putin uses Russian nationalism to stay popular and it the main reason he invaded Ukraine - he KNOWS NATO would never attack Russia, that if Ukraine had been part of NATO it would NOT have been a threat to Russia and more than if Mexico became part of NATO would it be a threat to the USA. As the professor said, there is an element of radical uncertainty which I personally attribute to the behavior of people as human beings, people do things that are literally CRAZY. It's just the way we are.
As a Kirk conservative, I really am interested in what this Mearsheimer guy talks about as I've always believed that prudence and courage are the two most important virtues. Prudence and realism is the way to govern and that includes foreign policy.
Brian’s a fantastic interviewer. If he weren’t so committed to producing the most boring television ever conceived in the darkest depths of hell he could’ve been at least as big as Charlie Rose if not bigger. I say this as a lifelong CSPAN fan.
I understand John's point, but it doesn't address why didn't Putin do what the USA did during the Cuban missile crisis, which is to negotiate until the desired result is obtained? John never addresses why war was the only option for Putin. I have heard John talk about how you can't talk about rights regarding international relations, I would say that you can't talk about "hard proof" either.
He’s been trying to negotiate for 8 yrs and not been listened to indeed to rhetoric and actions from US administration and NATO has had become more belligerent and aggressive in military leanings by training Ukraine troops encouraging Zelensky to poke the bear
Putin is surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. Authoritarian regimes are notably bad at keeping their leaders informed because everyone is scared to tell the truth about shortcomings in their areas of responsibility.
Putin actually raised these issues when he came to power in 2000, then forcefully at Munch in 2007, then forcefully at Valdai in 2014, then forcefully again in 2019, then he raised the issue again in late 2021, seeking explicit guarantees.
Interesting interview, but I was a bit disappointed that the interviewer didn't press him on his views about attribution of responsibility in regards to the Ukraine situation and whether his views of attribution of responsibility have changed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
NATO keep the peace in Europe? Sorry, but John skips over a horrific war fought over Yugoslavia by NATO. He also ignores the role of NATO in not keeping the peace elsewhere, such as Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
"a horrific war fought over Yugoslavia by NATO" well this is not true and you certainly know it. Don't try bias a complex civil war with 100.000s casualties were one of the offenders was involved in a prolonged ethnic cleansing this time in Kosovo. I do agree on many mistakes the US did especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you know as I that the main goal was to install some kind of democratic self governing institutions - that failed. Its a huge difference in Ukraine and if you can't see this, just look around. 140 nations has risen sanctions against Russia.
@@Holzwache Tell that to the dead civilians in Yugoslavia, which by the way included Chinese dead when their embassy was struck. NATO leadership knew the war against Iraq was launched on the basis of lies. Even Colin Powell admitted that his lies before the UN were a "blot" upon his career, in fact, it should have earned him a rope necklace per Nuremberg Justice. Another factual error you've made is the supposed number of 140 nations sanctioning Russia. The real count is that out of 193 countries in the world, only 41 are unfriendly to Russia and have imposed sanctions. Friends include China, India, Mexico, and nearly the entire Middle East, Africa, and South America.
@@TheSonicfrog The dead civilians in Yugoslavia due to the civil war 140.000 This was before Nato finally did something. the terrifying casualties (civilians) due to Nato bombins approx 500. Before that Mr MIlosovic caused 10.000 civilian deaths. The deadly air strikes stopped further killings. Milosovic was trialed as a war criminal. Dear Among Friends. I really feel sad for the deaths, but you have to understand what was going on. If you just learn to see what is happening in Ukraine with countless civilian casualties and the butchered soldiers on both sides - maybe you se where you are heading to. Today me and som friends managed to get som shelter for some Ukrainain refugees - two young women and a cat A mum and her baby. They are totally devastated after their horrible expericence from Mariupol. But that's probably ok for you - Putin has got it right eh? Do want to make something good of your life - stop reading fucked up propaganda from your Russian state channels, stop drawling to your nationalist serb propaganda and try to do something nice to your neighbours. Send some love and relief to the millions of Ukrainian refugees who just want to go home but can't because of the tyrant you currently support. Im sorry but if you truly believe just 41 countries condemned Russia.... Im not sure what planet you live on. I Hope you find your way back to sanity.
Its hard to argue about the benefits of a neutral Ukraine .. but are we going to reconcile them to a closed regime , or a liberal democracy...If the people have a vote will they elect a dictatorship? And in march 27th 2022 has Putin become dumb enough to self destruct Russia as you predicted in 2015. Russia seems to want all the benefits of democracy without the democracy.
He went in because Zelensky wants to be part of NATO, heck he keeps asking for NATO’s intervention in Ukraine and Zelensky just acknowledged Azov forces to be allies (yeah the fascists ones). Living next to a super power you must become a good neighbor or you are going to get wrecked. I live in Mexico and if Mexico’s leadership was pursuing a military alliance with China there’s no scenario where the US would allow it. Is in the interest of Mexico’s Leadership and Mexico’s people to be in good standing an try to be good neighbors to the US. That’s a fact.
@@makisjnx007 I agree with you. But then why did Putin make up all that mierda about the Ukraine government being run by Nazis? Everyone (except the Russian people) know that’s not true. Why didn’t Putin just tell his people the truth? Why the lie about ‘denazification’? And that tiny Azov militia doesn’t run the government, not even close. Putin lies as much as trump.
He is a national treasure to you Russians only. I have to say, I am really impressed at how many of you have come out, with western RUclips handles, and decent English, to throw your support behind this man. So much praise but they all say the same thing - “living legend”, “national treasure”, all these vague compliments without any specifics. You overdid it, comrades. That said, I have nothing against the Russian people, I hope this is over soon without much more bloodshed. Ukraine will never surrender, so it’s going to be up to your dictator president to know when to quit.
@@Rocket_scientist_88 i just cant understand you and most western peoples mindset. why you want ukraine so bad in to nato that you are willing to fight for last ukraine. that is just non sense. i live in finland and if my goverment say that we are going to nato and russia attack and say no to nato. im not going to fight for nato mebership. that is just nonsense. they who want in to nato they can fight, but leave rest of us normal people alone.
@@AmisCorolla you might check the press as it was mentioned that both Sweden and Finland are looking into NATO membership. 🤷♂️..don’t know what more to tell ya..
I have a question after listening to a few of Prof Mearsheimer's talks. I hope someone can help me figure this out: why is Ukraine's choice a failure? Cuba turned to USSR during the cold war because they fear America. And just recently the Japanese leader was inviting the US to install nuclear warheads on their soil because China makes them nervous. Seems like if you live next to a neighbour that scares you, it's almost conventional to seek alliance with a distant great power. It worked in the past. Why doesn't it work for Ukraine?
they should not be afraid russians. media has been black mailed them and all of us whole time. its old and deep problem. after soviet union collabsed it made very unstable time for ukraine. this is very complicated thing. if you look ukraine voting rating and things what happened in 2014. Some are pro russia and another are pro ukraine/west minded. And that started war inside ukraine they have been fighting 8 years themself, both partys has their own interests, there is language war also. then there is geopolitic defense problem between russia and west usa/nato. There is also trade political problem between russia and ukraine and between ukraine and Eu. So there is 3 big problem to solve, there has been negotiations 8 years now. war is political tool also to get peoples make some tought decisions. both russia and west has their points but also dirty game. i think usa is equally guilty of this mess. hope we find some solution to this. i think ukraine should stay independ country. make relations ships between west and east. it is not a bad thing. i live in finland and eu is not best thing for us all the way. same thing with nato. i think best thing is to be independent in every way, food energy, money.. make your own laws and things. now nato and eu says us what to do. and there is good and bad. it is also strange that you need some kind of nato member to have friends who deffend you. instead of making enemys and buying protection we should start making friends with our neighbors. when you are friendly, independend but not naive you should be fine.
It did not work for Cuba, because that invitation led to the missile crisis and the Russians where out. Because of the Monroe doctrine, the USA forbids countries on the Western hemisphere to seek alliance with distant foreign powers. This means that the sovereign choice that we grant Ukraine is not granted to all countries on the Western hemisphere. So in short: it works if the big neighbour is not the USA.
It hasn't worked out for anyone, ever. The Serbs tried it with Russia, and it led to a world war, and they got yugoslavia. The Czechs and poles tried it with the french, and got stabbed in the back. The Cubans tried it with the soviets and it nearly started another world war, and the soviets backed off. And now we have Ukraine.... who the west encouraged to go poke the russian bear and now they're getting curb stomped. It literally just leads to wars and getting your ass kicked. It has never worked, and will never work. you either get along with your neighbours or one of you stops existing. Calling in a bully just delays the inevitable, and might spark a war.
it did not work for Cuba(cuban missile crisis, not even 60 years later would the US lift the sanctions ) and it will not work for Japan(which still has not taken place)
Why don’t we hear from David Satter? Satter exposed the shocking circumstances surrounding Putin’s rise to power in 1999 and was the first Western journalist to be expelled from Putin’s Russia in 2013. Satter also began reporting from the Soviet Union in the 1970s for the Financial Times and later the Wall Street Journal.
@@xiangli2452 The evidence that the FSB planted bombs in the basement of an apartment building in Ryazan is overwhelming. Russian citizens including Duma members who investigated this have been murdered. Satter has been saying this for 20 years and Russians also know the truth.
One reason is a social credit system that against everything the West has traditionally stood for. Most Americans DO NOT want to be in a matrix of China's slavery as they are the most racist and xenophobic country on the planet. They simply are not anywhere near ready for world leadership and certainly not with their hyper-bigotry and only one race that matters.
@@SapwolfThanks for your reply. If I understand you correctly you claim socialism was a bigger economic failure than neoliberal economics? I recommend you listen to "The bad Samaritans" Audio book on RUclips by some Korean author (economist). How have rich countries became rich, a study. The common thread industrialisation through tariffs/protecting your own economy. Concerning the USSR, read Revolution Betrayed first chapter (or just take my word for it) -Russia went from a 3rd World country to being number two in terms of GDP in ~30-40 year's, at a huge human price, no question (don't defend Stalin). How was it possible for USSR to achieve an unprecedented increase in GDP and why aren't we told about it in school? Compare Cuba before and after the Revolution! China post 1949, hundreds of millions lifted from poverty. Countries who can't develop independently are forced to accept neoliberal/IMF economics (austerity). I say neoliberal economics is junk economics. The politicians who advocate for it never follow it (free trade, the market is God, privatisation etc) themselves. They do however want others to follow the doctrine. Ronald Reagan said government was the problem. What did he do? Increased the spending and imposed tariffs! Capitalism today in the US is Public RnD/investment - Private profits. +Recycling surpluses from other countries. Tell me if you think I'm wrong!
Because we saw NATO expansion, EU expansion and the "color revolutions" as part of our effort to spread our glorious liberal democracy around the world. Russia saw it as an existential threat which, of course, it was!
Reason would be to weaken Russia, because they have too much power in the eyes of the west. The war in Ukraine will be very, very, very hard on Russia economically and militarily. However, they don't care about military losses because to them this is an existential conflict, they loose if they go all the way but they loose more if they give up. Think about it - if they give up and retreat it shows weakness - heck they might as well hand over all the nukes with Putin in top for that matter. If they push this to the end they loose their whole army, their whole economy. I know one thing about people living in -50C - they don't EVER do is show weakness. What they do show is ironclad resolve in any circumstances. Even the worst ones that they are in right now. Just to make it clear, my opinion is that everyone will loose in Ukraine, there is no victory for anyone at this point and this is an unnecessary conflict.
Anyone who knows the Russians has probably heard similar stories about their homeland. That the Americans are plotting, the "collective West" is aggressive, that Moscow just needs to defend itself somehow. Even the attack on Ukraine is explained by the necessity of taking care of security. On February 20, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke in a similar way about his country: We remind you that Russia has never attacked anyone in its history. And Russia, which has survived so many wars, is the last country in Europe that even wants to say the word "war" Russian propaganda, and the Soviet one before that, told its people the same. A peaceful nation, a fight for peace, a desire for nuclear disarmament, arming only in fear of external aggression. Bad NATO bases in Poland, bad NATO enlargement, it's terrible to think that Ukraine is joining the European Union - all against a helpless Russia surrounded on all sides. And conspiracies - the world continues to persuade itself to follow the idyllic Slavs around Moscow. Jews plot, Americans plot, Poles are very intrigued (until they became negative heroes of one of the national holidays) - today, before the war, and in the 19th century, so peaceful thanks to several European empires. The Jesuits also conspired - until they entered folk proverbs. In his old age, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn saw Jewish conspiracies in the communist project - it was not Russians, but Jews, also other nations, that were tormenting peaceful compatriots - Russians. From this sense of hurt that Russian culture tends to its recipients, a desire for revenge is born. Just as the social margins and the losers in life blame the rest of the world for their failures, Russia, in its poverty and internal disasters, takes its peculiarly understood justice from rape and robbery. Just like the last degenerates, who have nothing to lose, rationalize their cruelty and bestiality, those who supported the Bolsheviks in 1917, feeling that "their time has finally come", because they will finally make up for their unjust failures and fortunes, so all of Russia in the course of history it became a failed project of civilization.
Nice straw man: Mearsheimer claims that the "Western" position is invalid because Mearsheimer's position implies that the West is culpable, a conclusion that is unacceptable to those who hold the "Western" position. That's the stupid kind of reasoning that a rookie debater. but not all "realists," can see through. On the other hand, Mearsheimer's deep insights earned him the 2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow, so he must be doing something right.
If Ukraine has no right to join NATO, even if the majority of Ukrainians want to join, how does Russia have a right to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Where does this right come from?
Hi from Russia. Ukraine have a right to join NATO, no doubt. NATO have no obligations to accept new members, though. Russia express desire to join NATO twice, with no result. --- We not fight Ukraine. We fight West. Ukraine not a prize, its a battlefield.
Our demands to NATO from December 2021 includes clear statement about "military measures", if talks fails. So, once again - its not about Ukraine at all. We simply don't have other option to bring our army to NATO borders. We not go for Ukraine, we go THROUGH Ukraine. Our talks with NATO postponed for now, because we need our army free from other tasks prior another round of negotiations. Once we park our tanks on Polish border - you will have one more chance to adress situation peacefully.
The problem with the 'Realist' view of world relationships is that it locks into all future scenarios the 'Might is Right' maxim. The post war paradigm, of relations between powers based on mutual territorial respect, a product of the self-examination midst the ruin of the WW II world, is an opportunity to break out of that cynical and fearsome cycle. In fact, if we fail to embrace a new world order, then we cannot break the war cycle. Mankind is not bonded to the 'might is right' philosophy any more than we were bonded to the slavery model of economics. It troubles me too that Alexsandr Dugin quotes Prof Mearsheimer as justification for his fascist worldview that has propelled Putin to conduct his wars. I'm not blaming Prof Mearsheimer. Simply showing that the "Realist' philosophy is embraced by the most dangerous men on the planet. One point that I fully agree with Prof Mearsheimer is the problem of China and if we buy into 'might is right' then we are doomed to armed conflict with them too. Whereas, if we embrace the modern mutual respect paradigm, we could avert that future crisis. He would term me naive. Better naive and hopeful than 'realist' and nihilist.
Just read an article in the newspaper. Just wondering if John sees Putin as having the right to spread pain and destruction in a world where most would just like to keep a bully in his place? Like Trump did.
Ukraine was fine until the US backed Maidan coup. That's when Russia took Crimea as a response. That's far from bullying, it's common sense to not let warmongers surround you from every tactically signifcant patch of land
@@tad8582 No, you are not alone, and I'm a very prudent nationalist and American myself. Globalism vs Nationalism is an axis that is not the same as good vs evil, law vs chaos, or capitalism vs socialism.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite agree. The Soviet Union has been falling apart since 1991. The former Soviet states have understandably sought rapprochement with the EU and NATO. Since Russia no longer has anything to offer the remaining countries, it is logical that these countries also want to isolate themselves from Russia. It is only a matter of time until the other remaining countries such as Georgia and Chechnya will want the same. And it is too easy to say that Russia has every right to build a line of defense around itself. Surely they will have to give something in return to the countries they want to use for that.
"Leaders do not lie much to each other." Unless, of course, you're Vladimir Putin. “Russia is not going to attack anyone. It's not like that.” -- Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin. 2021-11-23.
Exactly, Im sure Mearsheimer would see Taiwan as a legitimate target for China. In his point of view "might is right". As if nothing has evolved since the Cold War era.
@@Holzwache "As if nothing has evolved since the Cold War" my friend the US committed genocide in the middle east after the Cold War ended. Nothing has changed except that imperialism is now labeled "freedom and democracy"
I don't agree .. Professor is just basing his thoughts and predictions on the theory of "The tragedy of Super Powers Politics" and the fact that US will go to great length not to tolerate any other Super Power in the system .. hence the expected Security Competion between China and USA that is unfolding and is expected to intensify.
... I would put it (to you) that it may be impossible to be a Right academic - because the moment the Right ideologue enter the intellectual world, the Right will find out that it cannot maintain reality & intellectual consistency. ... Left Bank (Rive Gauche) of the Seine are the academies, intellectuals ... it’s where they say that Paris “learned to think”.
He blames NATO expansion for the Ukraine war. But Russia gives the reason why NATO membership is necessary: to join together & protect countries from Russia. Every NATO country is today breathing a sigh of relief that NATO exists.
That is the logic that drove Poland to join: memories of Katyn. But if you arm yourself against your neighbour then it is axiomatic that your neighbour will see you as a threat. Then they will arm against you and hence back to the arms race. Meanwhile the arms race in Asia is likely to be lost, for precisely that reason. So while it is wise for Poland, it is not wise for the USA. This is the point he is making: not that the European NATO members made the wrong decisions for themselves, but that his own country USA (and the Ukraine) made decisions that are wrong for them.
There is certainly a case to be made for a great power to be "realistic" in terms of zones which another great power declares to be of critical security interest and in which it will intervene if need be. Cuba is an example. Ukraine turns out to be another. Which brings up Taiwan. It's really indefensible, and it insists not only on its sovereign freedom but also on the expectation that the US would stand by it. I'm not clear where Mearsheimer stands on US action. Should the US apply his realism doctrine in this case? The primary lesson, I think, is to be learned and observed by the lesser powers. Depending on their neighborhood, they should take nothing for granted.
He's explicated this in other talks, and his view is that the US should defend Taiwan militarily if China invades, and do everything possible to deter Chinese invasion. This is very much linked to his views on Russia. Russia, in his view, is a great power in decline in the midst of a long-term population and economic crunch, and thus poses no threat to the United States. China, in spite of its internal issues, is a nation economically and militarily on the rise which could threaten to become regional hegemon of East Asia, becoming free to project power into the Americas, violating the Monroe Doctrine. So establishing a front for fighting Russia is a foolhardy and counterproductive distraction while establishing one with China is necessary. His basic view has actually been (along with historian Steven Cohen) that the US and Russia have many common interests which they should pursue together, among them containing China which threatens to encroach on Russia's influence in Central Asia with the One Belt, One Road initiative. In his view, the US should have pursued a policy of rapprochement and cooperation with Russia in the post-Soviet era, but has instead driven them solidly into the Chinese camp with its foreign policy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I think the argument is compelling. Always possible Russia would have stabbed us in the back, but it's hard to say. We'll never know now.
@@nathanhopkins7976 But Taiwan is not defensible, even under the best of circumstances. There is no amount of conventional US force that could defeat China if China decided to invade Taiwan. And no one would want to escalate beyond conventional, I think we're agreed. So there is no "deterring" China if China decides it needs to take that step. Like Ukraine, it's really up to Taiwan how things turn out. In Taiwan's case, in order to avoid a Ukraine scenario, it needs a non-conventional arsenal. As to Russia being "squeezed", it is still up to Russia to decide between a EU alignment, a China alignment, or to attempt a neutral stance. It's not really the US, it's the EU that's become the local hegemon. It's disconcerting to any Russian leadership that after 300 years of looming over Europe, Russia has become a client-state of the EU. The EU has very adroitly employed NATO as its ultimate insurance as it has expanded to become 10x bigger economically than Russia. A smarter, forward-looking Russian policy would have embraced a close relationship with the EU, perhaps using Ukraine as a bridge to build that partnership. It could have completely sidestepped NATO. But the past glory was too strong a memory for the Russian leadership to overcome. As far as the US is concerned, the EU is, and will remain, its most important partner in every sense of the word. The EU is a friendly, dependable regional hegemon. The Russians have, so far, not understood the role they can play, the security they can assure for themselves, because their past gets in the way. In any case, the US is in no way threatened by any power. A quick glance at a map will confirm that.
@@hc8379-f4f I disagree on your assessment of Taiwan, but I don't want to get too in the weeds. Suffice to say, Taiwan is self-evidently much more defensible than Ukraine. If the PRC is willing to pay any price, they can invade and occupy Taiwan. But if the US is unwilling or unable to directly defend Taiwan then it is in for a long, protracted struggle with China in the Pacific. Vis a vis Russia, I think you are underestimating the role the US has played. It is self evident that both the Russians and many European countries like Germany did desire a very similar cooperative arrangement. It is why Nord Stream 2 was built. It is also worth noting that France and Germany have been the main forces pushing back on US escalatory moves with Russia. That was true in 2008 when they objected to the addition of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO at the Bucharest summit, it was true before Euromaidan (when they tried to negotiate both a 3-way trade deal with Russia, Ukraine and NATO), and afterward when they pushed Ukraine to enter talks in Minsk and implement the Minsk II agreement. The major countervailing force to this has been the US. It was the US government and state department which materially supported the 2014 Euromaidan revolution (see the Nuland-Pyatt phone call in which US officials discuss who to staff the new government with in Ukraine while saying "Fuck the EU," all the democracy promotion money flowing into Ukraine). It was the US which pushed most fervently for NATO expansion. It was the US who first began selling weapons to Ukraine while countries like Germany refused to do so. For his part, Putin was generally always amenable to working with Western countries, but not if they crossed certain red lines in countries like Ukraine. It is remarkable to me that Putin did not become more overtly hostile to us sooner than now. I will say one more thing, which is that I think US-EU interests are far less aligned than you allude to, and the US should have no interest in a competing European superpower. We fought in two world wars to prevent a united Europe, and with good reason. It is, after all, against European colonial powers that the Monroe doctrine was articulated. In particular as your perspective indicates (as I guess you are European, I am American myself) the interests of the EU, insofar as it can be thought of as a block and not an inhomogenous confederation, are very much as odds with US (as well as Australian and British interests) on China. The 1B1R initiative is a ploy by China to cut US dominated naval shipping lanes out of the global economy, mainly to reach European markets. This is also what Taiwan and the South China Sea conflicts are about, controlling global trade. As a block of countries which trade much more extensively with the Chinese than even we Americans, it is easy to see why European countries are far less concerned about China, who does not really challenge their interests. For the US, these changes to global trade and being cut out of Asian markets are critical concerns, not to mention that a Chinese navy free to roam to Pacific is a potential direct threat to our homeland. I don't mean to exaggerate. Of course you are right that the US is probably the most defensible country in the world. But it did not become defensible by neglecting to pursue strategies aimed at preserving its advantages. We have also seen from the collapse of the Soviet Union that superpowers can still fall, and that economic factors like participation in global trade are critical to maintaining the existence of nations. If the Chinese succeed in their ambitions, they will isolate and contain the US just like we did with the Soviet Union. We will become a declining power festering away alone in the New World until we lose our political cohesion and break apart, a fate far more devastating in the nuclear age than any invasion with conventional weapons could produce. Perhaps that is inevitable, but for us, we must try to avert this situation at all costs. At present, we are not doing a very good job.
@@nathanhopkins7976 Good discussion, Nathan. I appreciate the exchange of ideas. I'm Brazilian, btw, living in Cda for fifty years, trained in American universities, so I kind of know all 3 worlds. Actually, Canada is the most defensible country in the world. Not only defended by the US, but also by all those European countries, and by its fortuitous geography. As a S. American, I can tell you that the Monroe Doctrine has been meaningless to the region. It was Castlereagh and Canning that kept European powers from restoring the Spanish colonies to Spain. But the basic thing is that the Mearsheimer thesis, while sounding good as a basic principle of foreign policy, I believe is misapplied by him operationally. It's overweighted. Many events are chancy: sometimes the US succeeds, sometimes not, but it's circumstancial, and not real determiners of increased or decreased state of US security. Vietnam, a supposed disaster, turns out to want a firm coordination with US policy. We don't really know where Iran will go in the future, but I can see the US threading the needle between S.A. and Iran in the future. Cairo was a solid USSR ally for a long time. No more. India is now a near-ally. Circumstances, particularly the rise of China, change US prospects and alter policy. But Mearsheimer also goes wrong, I think, in minimizing the importance of liberalism -- understood as representative government, freedoms of the individual from state or elite oppression, a fair judiciary, the primacy of the common man, market capitalism. The kind of messy democracy practiced by the US, modern Europe, Japan, SK, even Brazil or India, is what people want. It's what scares the "ruling party" the most, and it's what made the entirely fake USSR constitution so untenable. In the case of Ukraine, you give the US too much credit. Ukrainians wanted to be part of the EU. Germany (that definitely wants NATO to continue) was the major investor in Ukraine. The EU, by virtue of its economic strength, was always going to test whether it could peaceably incorporate Ukraine. If not peaceably, then, well, maybe there will need to be a conflict to show Putin that his power is more limited than he thinks it is. I predict there will be a change in Russian politics. Russians are basically Europeans, socially, culturally, politically. Russia's future lies in a tight partnership with the EU. But it needs to transition to a messy democracy at the same time. In short, US foreign policy can't tie itself to some overriding "security" algorithm as prescriptive as Mearsheimer proposes. There needs to be ample room for supporting the democratic "drift" which has been making the rounds since 1789.
@@hc8379-f4f Not with external military forces. China is already at war with the USA for many years. I was in Milpitas, CA in the 1990's when the Chinese bribed the city council there to REPLACE the US flag flying at city hall with the Chinese communist flag for a long three day weekend. I did not see it at the time because I had not driven by that intersection those particular days. But if I had, my brother would have helped me shimmy up that pole and rip that flag down. Could you imagine a chinese city flying the US flag at their city hall any days ever? No. This war is not recognized by Americans much and yet it rages on.
He actually said he voted for Bernie! For someone as smart as J. Mearsheimer that is pretty amazing. Just goes to show how people will ignore everything else and vote their pocketbook.
It was Ukraine to decide to join Nato, much more than Nato decided to include Ukraine. Unfortunately, Nato showed a green signal to Ukraine, but took no real actions for more than a decade, finally allowing aggressive Russia to unleash the war. And what did Nato do then? They started repeating again and again that we won't interfere, even when they were not asked, thus giving more and more green light to the aggressor for further aggression. That's how it looks from Ukraine. Please tell me if I'm missing smth.
C-SPAN: fewer commercials, stop trying to make a buck off a genius, your interlocutor added NOTHING to this but a guttural former NYC detective's voice doing an "interview."
He's right about NATO expansion, however both Ukraine and Georgia have the right to join NATO as democratically the majority of their population wanted to be part of the west and not under the influence of Putin's Russia. So It is Russia's fault for disrespecting Ukraine's self-determination and for violating international law by invading a sovereign nation.
Cuba in 1962, as a sovereign country, had the right to deploy Soviet missiles on its territory. But the United States did not like it and they almost brought the matter to war, which would have ended in a nuclear catastrophe.
@@НиколайИванов-ф4ж I see your point, but the difference here is nobody was threatening the existnece of Russia nor anybody can since they're a nuclear power. It's just that Putin is losing his sphere of influence, and he then used force instear of using energy nd diplomacy. It's gonna cost Russia a lot
@@kemalsalic3521 Putin's diplomatic efforts in the case of Ukraine lasted 8 years, the Ukrainian side and the West could not agree with Russia. The West continued to supply weapons to Ukraine, Russia was simply running out of time when military force could be used. We see that Ukraine, thanks to the help of the West, is already effectively fighting. What would happen in a few years, when its rearmament was completed and Ukraine itself could attack? If the escalation continues, it will cost everyone dearly.
True countries have the right to sign military agreements but NOT at the expense of another country's security. It maybsound cliche but what I'd China 🇨🇳 placed 300k troops and missiles in Cuba to ensure the security of Communism in the Western hemisphere. Would that fly? Probably not.
Cannot pick an issue I disagree with Prof Mearsheimer. Didn't know of him till recently, and presently confess being captivated by his systemic grasp of political essence, in international politics.
coming from the Baltics, I am disheartened by this professor. Yes, "Might makes Right", but to me it appears that Russia is probably the last of the colonial Empires of the last century and is going the same way as the Great Britain did some 70 years ago. It is putting up a fight, but I think that Russia is not mighty at all (it is not a world power, but rather a regional one, by GDP and otherwise) and it is about to lose Ukraine for good, which probably could be compared to Great Britain's loss of Ireland (or India)?
@Deanthony Melton Russia is not a world power, and it will go the same way as Ottoman or British empire. Intimidation against Ukraine's NATO membership was just a red herring in an effort to keep the empire intact, IMHO.
@Deanthony Melton by GDP Russia is on par with the Netherlands, Ukraine is not far behind. Moscow is losing to its colonies, like the UK lost the US in 1812, IMHO
I observe, and i think every person in history up to the future subconsciously knows, "where" realists are really coming from (And i observe this is what the likes of mearsheimer don't really realize). If you and they really think deeply about it, they (realists) are actually really coming from the LACK OF COURAGE,... to be IDEALISTS.... (and they, realists, justify it - realism - with all kinds of "acrobatic" reasoning). Most of them voice out their realpolitik viewpoints in the safety of their privileged circumstances - like Nicollo Machiavelli himself. (That's why he, mearsheimer, always say, not verbatim: "I'm very happy I'm living in (the most powerful) liberal democratic country - which ironically is a product of idealism, ...but when it comes to international relations...- he's a realist) His and his et al's IR Old World 19th century Machiavellian realpolitik viewpoint... ...actually HAS to die,... ... WE, THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE ALL KNOW IT IN OUR HEARTS IT HAS TO DIE, "YESTERDAY", hundreds, even thousands of years ago... ... And I think deep inside his (mearsheimer et al's) heart he knows it. But like all (socio) realists, he doesn't have the COURAGE to admit it...because he doesn't have the courage to BE against it (human CONSTRUCTED reality)... And his realist thinking is greatly influenced by his privileged personal situation: a legal citizen of the most powerful nation in the world, and all the privileges and personal SAFETY, it entails. What differentiates a realist from an idealist? COURAGE and Empathy for the rest of YOUR human race. Courage to DESIRE, ENVISION AND USE YOUR GREAT MIND, to PERPETUALLY make things better than what they are, than JUST cowardly accept the social constructs that our physical/biological/historical reality socially CONSTRUCTED for us. Clue: if it's constructed, it can be DE-constructed or changed.
I enjoy listening to Mearsheimer up to a point, but he is blinded by theories and is pretty much wrong on everything that matters--starting with his exaggerated assessment of Russian strength. The place where you can see Mearsheimer's Ukraine blindspot most clearly in this interview, is when he characterizes "conventional wisdom [about Putin] in the west and certainly in the United States... as that putin is a revanchist... interested in either recreating the soviet union or... in creating a greater russia that looks like the former soviet union, and what's going on in Ukraine is the first move in that direction."(c. 28:30) But that is simply not true. No actual Western leader thinks that way. At any rate, no leader in the West is concerned about the resurgence of the Soviet Union. The West is concerned about expanding markets and securing resources for its huge and efficient economies. So, for that matter, are the Chinese. Russia is a problem, not a power. It is a weak state with the recklessness of the weak. A blackmail state, influential in the same way that Saudi Arabia is. It would be an enormous mistake to treat Russia like a functioning state that can actually benefit from military victory. Russia cannot hold what it conquers. It is hard to see it as a great power in any meaningful sense, because--as we are seeing in Ukraine--Russia is oil fields, a bunch of nuclear warheads, some poisoners, barrel bombs and artillery shells aimed at schools and hospitals. Someone should ask Mearsheimer what he means by a "great power" and why he still insists on referring to Russia as a great power.
I don't think Mearsheimer views Russia as a superpower like it was as the Soviet Union. I personally view Russia as being a great power inheriting alot of things from its past such as its large quantity of Nuclear weapons (not exactly conventional military might but still a very dangerous weapon which we should never downplay/forget about) as well it's influence over it's neighbours. Also it's geographical position will help keep it relevant as a global player. I am not sure if a formal definition of 'Great Power' exists but agree it should be clarified.
You have no idea what Western leaders think to them selves. If you have more nuclear weapons than America, you are per definition a great power, and if you don't think so, drop a nuclear weapon on Russia and wait say 30 min
I dont think they’re talking about the soviet union but something like a greater Russia. But ur right in a sense that i dont think most of them actually believe that. Because Putin isn’t interested in that and they’re not that stupid.
The realist human view of people like him make me cringe and vomit. Instead of them realists using (their vast knowledge of) realism to envision, theorize, support, attain, maintain or improve on idealism in the world, they don't have the desire, enough love for the Others, imagination or courage to do those but just instead treat (social CONSTRUCTED) reality and realism as the be all and end all and the indomitable end in itself. They're like the people hundreds of years ago who strongly believed that abolishing state sanctioned slavery or a national leader that was not a king/queen, were impossible.
Plenty of blame to go around, but the lion's share is the western global dominance strategy. I can't blame the Ukranians for wanting to join the EU, and I prefer liberalism by far to autocracy and want that for others (though arguably we have an anarachic semi-illiberal imperialism at best), but we can't expect to be the world's only power to enact doctrine along our borders (at any stage in development...that western idealism has progressed doesn't mean it has time to proliferate appropriately) I've heard John say that ultimately he would probably bet on Frank Fukiyama, but perhaps the winds are far more turbulent. That is a supercrude paraphrase with some of my own words after the comma. I feel like the "dialectic" between the two would be resolved by asking the question: how long might the end of history take? or might major roadbumps like total thermonuclear warfare, issues with WMD proliferation, rampant nationalist conflicts, or global trade and peace turn the trend more into a sawtooth wave of liberal progress over decades (other fractions of centuries or millenia may be just as appropraite to reference) As someone trained in environmental science, chemistry, and engineering with siblings in Philosophy and Public Admnistration these time frames ARE important whether or not individuals can honestly confront or resolve them, and the whole reason these two are SOOOO important to the political portion of my studies (we need to be informed by history, this wind at our backs stuff we find in the sustainability movement is counterproductive). The world is a circus, the strength of John's impact on me are identifying structurally what is going on, and having the empathy to ponder other's sincerely held beliefs or mere desires (generally informed by trends in history and thought). John does stand on shoulders living and dead, but for sure anyone who comes after will have to take a ride on his back.
John Mearsheimer either forgets or ignores that the majority of Ukrainians would like to belong to the EU not Russia's Eurasian Economic Union. The leadership of all of the post-Soviet satellite states wanted to join the EU and NATO, as did most of the citizens (They had had enough of the Soviet/ Russian boot on their necks.)
His views are not based on what "should" happen ideally, but what realistically will happen and how great powers actually operate. Ukraine is in a situation were they are forced to pay close attention to what Russia wants from them, and what we are seeing now is what happens when they chose something that does not align with Russia's interests. In an ideal world - Ukraine could chose whatever they wanted, but in the real world - they have to pay attention where competing interests/threats are.
I am Ukrainian and you are wrong! Majority of Ukrainians didn’t want to be in EU and especially NATO! We never had a national vote about these matters, it’s our elites that decided we should be there. And also our economy was working towards Russia’s economic Union, that’s why our president Yanunkovich didn’t want to sign association with EU. Ukraine’s economy simply couldn’t compete with EU, and at the end our industries were destroyed. Don’t talk about something you don’t even know.
@@skiddilydooin the ideal world we were a neutral country with much better economy then now until your Barack Obama with Joe Biden decided to come and bring their fake “democracy” just like they did to Syria, Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone in the world knows your “democracy” only means stealing resources and destroying countries. And under Soviet Union Ukraine was a great agrarian nation with lots of factories, and jobs everywhere, and unlike in US people in USSR owned their apartments and own to these days and to these days we don’t have ghettos in Ukraine and neighborhoods where police is afraid to come. If you have never been to Ukraine don’t analyze what you don’t know.
@@skiddilydoo ah yes the classic she was wearing a miniskirt victim blaming. It all have been inevitable since 2005 when putin wrote essay on how ussr collapse was the great tragedy. We the Ukrainians knew since then he will try to recreate ussr2.0. We could have just rolled over and fetched the branch like obedient vassal dogs or resisted empires like Ukrainians did with various levels of success for last 600 or so yesrs
I just "love" how Americans speak about countries such as Ukraine as if it's just a chessboard, completely ignoring the historical background between Ukraine and russia, completely ignoring the wish of Ukrainians to have nothing to do with russians and their self-proclaimed dictatorship, which has always been a dictatorship, democracy is not really popular among russians at all, they choose not to have an opinion. Ukraine doesn't want russia at their border, that's it!
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks! Good to hear you again Brian Lamb! 😀. I miss you on CSpan and I appreciate your interview with Professor Mearsheimer. Very informative. Thank you again sir. 😀
Thank you for confirming the interviewer who I was hearing and picturing in my mind but forgot his name . I miss Brian Lamb as chief journalist, interviewer, anchor, etc on C-SPAN TV too
I remember reading his book “The great tragedy of great power politics” as a young political science student. It changed my world view forever. I deeply admire this great scholar.
I'm reading it currently. Very Insightful book.
I believe he is the greatest IR scholar and political scientist alive.
Yes, he really did change the world, Russians agree with his teachings too
@@aristidescabeche1506 He is, Russian Internet is full of his videos, he is a star of the justification of the war in Ukraine. And guess what? He is not even sorry for it...
I, like many, have only just discovered him but he has changed my worldview in short order. I too admire him a great deal.
As a listener I to am very happy to hear your voice Mr. Brian Lamb.. BRAVO..watching your show Booknotes on CSPAN not so long ago it seems when I was a young man..I remember saying to my Dad wow NOW you can't say everything on TV is junk..I really looked forward.. especially when I missed a week..to BOOKNOTES and what intelligent and engaging back and forth between the author and yourself would take place..many of the author's I not only didn't know about but let alone see them in person on TV was so great because it was with you sir or not at all!!
Mearsheimer is the best 👌
I came across John around December last year when the Ukraine situation started spiking again. I went in expecting a blustering anti-Russian American, and what I got, reason and even-handedness, was a pleasant surprise. Though I disagree with him on parts, especially regarding Putins behaviour between 2000-2014, he has in general put word to thoughts I've had for years, but was scared to say. Truly an intellect worth paying attention to.
Ukraine starts at 28:00
Thanks for that !
Thank you
Hero
Thank you!
A true realist. Total support from GREECE.
Total Support from USA. John Matlock, his age is a little "worse". But if anyone does not know John another great guy. There are thousands like John and John. These are not inaccurate or isolated ideas.
@@Tony_Indiana Exactly, I believe Matlock has inspired Mearsheimer.
Thanks Prof.Mearshiemer and the interviewer!
Terrific interview by Brian Lamb. Professor Mearsheimer deserves to be heard by as wide an audience as possible.
Thanks, great example of why Prof. Mearsheimer is such an important voice.
Well he didnt exactly nailed it or did he? ... Read Anne Appelbaum on Mearsheimer. Or go figure out why the Russian aggression turns to a disaster not only for the people of Ukraine but for the thousands of dead soldiers. Im sure Prof. Mearsheimers 19th century logic about "might is right" doesnt fit anymore.
@@Holzwache "Might is right" is not a moral theory. Realism is offensive beyond Mearsheimer.
@@Holzwache hope you're right
@@vrfvfdcdvgtre2369 couldn't agree more, hope it doesn't prove predictive
@@vrfvfdcdvgtre2369 Well we do have a lot of international insitutions and agreements and they work. One of of many problems Mearsheimer has is can't understand that several institutions are made to stop the kind of "realism" Mearsheimer suggest. You can argue if they always are work (Like the treaty in Budapest 1994) and I would say yes they in fact do. But a cleptocraty state with an auctorian leader who uses force and just don't care about agreements, then it is risking international condemnation - that's what happends right now. I would suggest this is more realism than Mearsbergers suggest with his pre-colonial way of seeing the world.
01:12 answer to why he enlisted in army....was only an alternate for WP.; 4:15 adversity at WP; :07:04 how JJM ended up in USAF.......7:50 JJM father was a reservist Colonel; 9:40 only performed well in last year at WP; //////////////. 15:59 Brookings boosted his confidence 17:11 2 years at Harvard, published book 18. ~ gratitude to his peers////////////////////////////// 18:45 who influenced ? Paul Kennedy British Naval decline theory if International Politics Waltz , K ; Jack Snyder; 21:30 bk Why Leaders Lie ; 23:35 leaders rarely lie to each other vs they lie to their populations far more often; 24:45 best liar was H ..very hard to read ...duplicitous eg Sudetenland /////////////////////////////
People like Mr. Mearsheimer , Noam Chomsky , Chris Hedges , David Wolfe , Yukon Huang and others ought to be in US Government posts , not ignoramous like the ones in Government presently.
Mearshimer and Chomsky would not tolerate being in the government and have spoken about that before. They can't tolerate being in those organizations.
Remove this Putin propagandist from the list. He is so wrong
Yeah, absolutely. American liberalism is just awful, look at the laundry list of atrocities it idealises: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
Thank god for the Mearsheimer world view, along with other critics of American liberalism. The list still needs Tucker Carlson though.
Agree, but somewhere else Prof Mearsheimer outright says he wouldnt ever work in and for the State Dept bcs it's all about kowtowing to others...
You sure about Chomsky? Be careful about what you wish.
Even his story telling is as real as it could. Great!
He is a lying piece of shit person. I have to agree he is very convincing. Russians are using his teachings to justify reaping women and kids in Ukraine. And this garbage of a human is not even sorry for that...
My grandfather was a locomotion engineer for New York Central Railroad in early 1900s. Arthur Garfeild Briggs was his name. He was from Chicago.
Extraordinary intellectual gentleman bound by honesty, truth and served by a brilliant intellect ..
He Is not only an outstanding scholar but an outstanding human being.
Absolutely, the oligarchs love this guy, he's great!
@@mechuniversal Yeh, the oligarchs "love this guy" because he is telling the truth, but America's ruling class hates him because he is telling the truth....
The portrait is hilarious! Keep up the good work Prof!
The best professor of international relations
More like the worst
Best Booknotes+ so far. Thank you Brian and John
36:00. After 36 minutes of listening to Professor Mearsheimer talk about his background and then articulate a view I have shared for 5 years with the sole exception of our disagreement about causes of August 2008 being 5 parts the massacre in Ossetia and 1 part the Bucharest statement, I find a tactical difference in the Professor’s arguments expressed. Not a strategic difference.
Which massacre? you mean Georgian people were massacred by Russians I guess? Cause South Osetia is not real state it is in reality Georgia, Tskhinvali Region.
@@ssoup7302 Me very wrong. You super right. Have a nice day. Enjoy your brand of insight.
Brian Lamb is a GOD! All my gratitude for your work.
wonderful interview - for some of his own admitted 'wrongs' like on NATO, I don't think it is a blot at all, anyway, he said what should be done but he is not in charge. Still I think he is absolutely right on NATO expansion.
It was the governments
and citizens of Warsaw
Pact countries that RAN
to join both the EU and
NATO. They were tired
of living with the Soviet/
Russian boot on their
neck!
@@here_we_go_again2571 sure buddy
@@АлексейГолуб-н7п
Those countries that
used to belong to
the Warsaw Pact
DID NOT GO TO
RUSSIA and SEEK
TO REJOIN --
DID THEY?
@@АлексейГолуб-н7п we know Russia. I think Russia has to be conquered and divide into smaller states. 100 years of occupation by nato and maybe the ppl of Russia will realise that the shithole of a country they lived in must be forgotten.
@@here_we_go_again2571 we re faaar better of being a part of the western World.
An Increíble and important conversation to have had ; Insightful .
Why isn't John Mearsheimer working for the government as political advisor. It would save a lot of lives.
U answer ur question :)
I don't understand why most always refer to Trump being a liar, when in reality, aren't most politicians liars and bullshitters by default? Yes, some are most honest than others but they pretty much all fall under the same umbrella regardless of their political spectrum. At least the is my view on that issue.
Because Trump lies so blatantly that it's easy to doubt him, which is why he is attacked and also why i like him.
In a way he is far more honest and far less hypocritical
I mean, ppl call him a baffoon and shit but I 'll rather pick him over the snakes any day of the week
Thank you for interviewing Prof. Mearsheimer. I want to read all of his books!
So many fakes and phoneys... John Mearsheimer is somebody who gets it.
In what way? Mr Mearsheimer is pretty alone, advocating for a world order were the imperialists has som fucked up "right" to attack their neighbors. Tell me about all the righteous wars Russia has been involved in since 1945 and how they turned out in Russias favour. You can start telling us about the body count, and the economic prosperity Russia gained from it.
Yes, well...Putin will not invade, Hillary over Trump...Mearsheimer is often wrong.
@@Holzwache The invasion is the Russian response to the Ukrainians wanting to enter the Nato Alliance which has been the USSR, now Russia's enemy for 45 years what is there not to get? Sure its wrong but why are the Ukrainians acting tough before entering the alliance. Now that they are getting invaded and Nato and the US is not helping them as expected who is to blame for not forseeing this situation.
@@Drunkendrakon exactly
@@Drunkendrakon First of all. Russia is not USSR.Russia signed the Budapest protocol together with US and more to guarantee Ukraines borders and integrity. Russia invaded Ukraine 2014. Then again 2022. I live in Sweden. Do you think we should to ask Russia before or after they invade us if its ok to join Nato? Truth is that no nation has the right to invade a neighboring country unless you find some immediate threat (not fake ones as you probably by now are aware of) or an act of genocide. Russia has proven to be an aggressor not for keeping peace or usher democracy but just to control its neighbors. Thats why Lavrov demands unconditional retreat from Russias neighbors. In what way should russia be treated otherwise than other countries? Because they are a "great power"? Well if you count missiles and nuclear weapons yes, but I do think you agreee that we don't want to live in a world where you count nukes and therefore benefit I from it by your fellow neighbors.
This interview was amazing, but the amount of ads is insane.
agreed .. the ads were driving me crazy
Great interview.
Great interviewer !!!
This just earned you another subscriber, this man is a legend
Yes. Too bad the American media and some "woke" students at the U of Chicago don't like him. He's a treasure, as was the late Stephen Cohen. I love his lectures.
@@PIANOSEEDS Yes this is so true...it seems that the majority of regular people today are actually realists and understand that nothing is ever what it seems in these situations...it is really sickening that innocents die while the elite get richer
The video shows how one makes a mistake and keeps makimg them because of pride.
Super interview.
What an awesome man!
23:30 "Leaders do not lie much to each other, they tend to lie much more to their own publics." - Mearsheimer
Great professor...
Mearsheimer you are the Man! Wish there would be more men like you!
You and Mike Pompeo are sure different as products of West Point.
By the way, no bad word about the speaker, he has a very clear view and I agree with most of his analyses :)
The host said the interviewer said Trump was the biggest liar. The guest didn’t say that, he said he was the worst liar. Other than that, great interview.
He implied it by saying that if you lie constantly then your lies become ineffective
Love him or hate him, Trump is post truth.
The washington post lie tracker for trump lists "We built the greatest economy in the world" as the number one lie (for him repeating it so often). Clearly this is a bogus fact check. I have no doubt trump lies, but oddly enough, the things the media told us he lied about, he was usually right about. My opinion on the worst liars are the lies that lead to war. The people claiming that Putin is trying to rebuild the USSR are just as bad as the bushies that lied about WMDs.
@@thoswallace Examine Trump from a 'realist' perspective. Look at substance and not only packaging. Trump was correct in what ailed the American voter and was not lying about the problems with China, stupid wars, deindustrialization. Take a bus ride from O'Hare airport to Southbend, IN and you'll see the 'carnage' that Trump talked about in his inauguration speech. My eyes watered in sorrow on that ride to visit my father at a Pascal seminar at Notre Dame as we passed the Chicago south side and Gary, IN. The tears did not stop until I saw the greenest corn I ever saw between there and ND.
I'm from the SF Bay Area and the people there are so bubbled. Get out and never judge a man solely by the packaging. Watch what they DO and understand their goals. Policy is paramount in the end. Results matter.
Worst liar is much better greatest liar.
How would he rate Hillary?
I'm retired CIA, 30+ years. In CIA, there are two foci of mission - collection of foreign intelligence and analysis of what is collected combined with whatever other intel is available. EVERYTHING CIA does is aimed at those two missions which really are just one. Billions might be spent on satellites and thousands and thousands of CIA personnel work at logistics, personnel, finance, travel, security, computers, etc. but all of that is to support the two points of the double pointed spear. Professor Mearsheimer is the analytical side personified. Without doubt, many CIA analysts are in his camp. I am an operations guy so I have no dog in the fight except to point out Dr. Mershimer's very strong emphasis on the GALACTIC power of nationalism in international affairs and how it REMAINS even in 2022 such a huge factor even after it nearly destroyed the world in WW One and Two and after so much progress has been made with peace in Europe for over 75 years (except for Yugoslavia and now Ukraine). Nationalism is the ethnic electricity of the people of China and it remains very powerful in Japan though it is rarely mentioned. Putin uses Russian nationalism to stay popular and it the main reason he invaded Ukraine - he KNOWS NATO would never attack Russia, that if Ukraine had been part of NATO it would NOT have been a threat to Russia and more than if Mexico became part of NATO would it be a threat to the USA. As the professor said, there is an element of radical uncertainty which I personally attribute to the behavior of people as human beings, people do things that are literally CRAZY. It's just the way we are.
thank you
Excellent questions! What is the name of the journalist?
Great interview
As a Kirk conservative, I really am interested in what this Mearsheimer guy talks about as I've always believed that prudence and courage are the two most important virtues. Prudence and realism is the way to govern and that includes foreign policy.
Is the interviewer Brian Lamb? He is a great interviewer.
Superb interview. Riveting.
Brian’s a fantastic interviewer. If he weren’t so committed to producing the most boring television ever conceived in the darkest depths of hell he could’ve been at least as big as Charlie Rose if not bigger. I say this as a lifelong CSPAN fan.
I understand John's point, but it doesn't address why didn't Putin do what the USA did during the Cuban missile crisis, which is to negotiate until the desired result is obtained? John never addresses why war was the only option for Putin. I have heard John talk about how you can't talk about rights regarding international relations, I would say that you can't talk about "hard proof" either.
Putin has been negotiating for the last 8 years? My guess is that he just got sick of it and choose force
He’s been trying to negotiate for 8 yrs and not been listened to indeed to rhetoric and actions from US administration and NATO has had become more belligerent and aggressive in military leanings by training Ukraine troops encouraging Zelensky to poke the bear
Putin is surrounded by yes-men and sycophants. Authoritarian regimes are notably bad at keeping their leaders informed because everyone is scared to tell the truth about shortcomings in their areas of responsibility.
Putin actually raised these issues when he came to power in 2000, then forcefully at Munch in 2007, then forcefully at Valdai in 2014, then forcefully again in 2019, then he raised the issue again in late 2021, seeking explicit guarantees.
last attempt of real negotiation by Putin was end of March, beginning of April 22 in Istabul. Biden and Johnson shut them down ..
Great interviewer!
15:59 Brookings boosted his confidence 17:11 2 years at Harvard, published book 18. ~ gratitude to his peers
Brookings ruined him as it has done to many before, and since. Terrible place.
Timestamps to the questions???
Sad that Mearshiemer is so brilliant that he doesn’t understand trump
Trump is a liar and a narcissist
Interesting interview, but I was a bit disappointed that the interviewer didn't press him on his views about attribution of responsibility in regards to the Ukraine situation and whether his views of attribution of responsibility have changed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
12:54 USC masters 1971-1974; 1982 taught IR theory at UC
NATO keep the peace in Europe? Sorry, but John skips over a horrific war fought over Yugoslavia by NATO. He also ignores the role of NATO in not keeping the peace elsewhere, such as Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
"a horrific war fought over Yugoslavia by NATO" well this is not true and you certainly know it. Don't try bias a complex civil war with 100.000s casualties were one of the offenders was involved in a prolonged ethnic cleansing this time in Kosovo. I do agree on many mistakes the US did especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you know as I that the main goal was to install some kind of democratic self governing institutions - that failed. Its a huge difference in Ukraine and if you can't see this, just look around. 140 nations has risen sanctions against Russia.
@@Holzwache Tell that to the dead civilians in Yugoslavia, which by the way included Chinese dead when their embassy was struck.
NATO leadership knew the war against Iraq was launched on the basis of lies. Even Colin Powell admitted that his lies before the UN were a "blot" upon his career, in fact, it should have earned him a rope necklace per Nuremberg Justice.
Another factual error you've made is the supposed number of 140 nations sanctioning Russia. The real count is that out of 193 countries in the world, only 41 are unfriendly to Russia and have imposed sanctions. Friends include China, India, Mexico, and nearly the entire Middle East, Africa, and South America.
@@TheSonicfrog The dead civilians in Yugoslavia due to the civil war 140.000 This was before Nato finally did something. the terrifying casualties (civilians) due to Nato bombins approx 500. Before that Mr MIlosovic caused 10.000 civilian deaths. The deadly air strikes stopped further killings. Milosovic was trialed as a war criminal. Dear Among Friends. I really feel sad for the deaths, but you have to understand what was going on. If you just learn to see what is happening in Ukraine with countless civilian casualties and the butchered soldiers on both sides - maybe you se where you are heading to.
Today me and som friends managed to get som shelter for some Ukrainain refugees - two young women and a cat A mum and her baby. They are totally devastated after their horrible expericence from Mariupol. But that's probably ok for you - Putin has got it right eh?
Do want to make something good of your life - stop reading fucked up propaganda from your Russian state channels, stop drawling to your nationalist serb propaganda and try to do something nice to your neighbours. Send some love and relief to the millions of Ukrainian refugees who just want to go home but can't because of the tyrant you currently support.
Im sorry but if you truly believe just 41 countries condemned Russia.... Im not sure what planet you live on. I Hope you find your way back to sanity.
Its hard to argue about the benefits of a neutral Ukraine ..
but are we going to reconcile them to a closed regime ,
or a liberal democracy...If the people have a vote will they elect a dictatorship?
And in march 27th 2022 has Putin become dumb enough to
self destruct Russia as you predicted in 2015.
Russia seems to want all the benefits of democracy without the democracy.
He went in because Zelensky wants to be part of NATO, heck he keeps asking for NATO’s intervention in Ukraine and Zelensky just acknowledged Azov forces to be allies (yeah the fascists ones). Living next to a super power you must become a good neighbor or you are going to get wrecked. I live in Mexico and if Mexico’s leadership was pursuing a military alliance with China there’s no scenario where the US would allow it. Is in the interest of Mexico’s Leadership and Mexico’s people to be in good standing an try to be good neighbors to the US. That’s a fact.
@@makisjnx007 I agree with you. But then why did Putin make up all that mierda about the Ukraine government being run by Nazis? Everyone (except the Russian people) know that’s not true. Why didn’t Putin just tell his people the truth? Why the lie about ‘denazification’? And that tiny Azov militia doesn’t run the government, not even close. Putin lies as much as trump.
Mearscheimer is a national treasure
col macgregor also
He is a national treasure to you Russians only.
I have to say, I am really impressed at how many of you have come out, with western RUclips handles, and decent English, to throw your support behind this man. So much praise but they all say the same thing - “living legend”, “national treasure”, all these vague compliments without any specifics. You overdid it, comrades. That said, I have nothing against the Russian people, I hope this is over soon without much more bloodshed. Ukraine will never surrender, so it’s going to be up to your dictator president to know when to quit.
@@Rocket_scientist_88 i just cant understand you and most western peoples mindset. why you want ukraine so bad in to nato that you are willing to fight for last ukraine. that is just non sense. i live in finland and if my goverment say that we are going to nato and russia attack and say no to nato. im not going to fight for nato mebership. that is just nonsense. they who want in to nato they can fight, but leave rest of us normal people alone.
@@AmisCorolla they’re defending their hegemony over the world and can’t believe that someday it’ll end
@@AmisCorolla you might check the press as it was mentioned that both Sweden and Finland are looking into NATO membership. 🤷♂️..don’t know what more to tell ya..
I have a question after listening to a few of Prof Mearsheimer's talks. I hope someone can help me figure this out: why is Ukraine's choice a failure? Cuba turned to USSR during the cold war because they fear America. And just recently the Japanese leader was inviting the US to install nuclear warheads on their soil because China makes them nervous. Seems like if you live next to a neighbour that scares you, it's almost conventional to seek alliance with a distant great power. It worked in the past. Why doesn't it work for Ukraine?
they should not be afraid russians. media has been black mailed them and all of us whole time. its old and deep problem. after soviet union collabsed it made very unstable time for ukraine. this is very complicated thing. if you look ukraine voting rating and things what happened in 2014. Some are pro russia and another are pro ukraine/west minded. And that started war inside ukraine they have been fighting 8 years themself, both partys has their own interests, there is language war also. then there is geopolitic defense problem between russia and west usa/nato. There is also trade political problem between russia and ukraine and between ukraine and Eu. So there is 3 big problem to solve, there has been negotiations 8 years now. war is political tool also to get peoples make some tought decisions. both russia and west has their points but also dirty game. i think usa is equally guilty of this mess. hope we find some solution to this. i think ukraine should stay independ country. make relations ships between west and east. it is not a bad thing. i live in finland and eu is not best thing for us all the way. same thing with nato. i think best thing is to be independent in every way, food energy, money.. make your own laws and things. now nato and eu says us what to do. and there is good and bad. it is also strange that you need some kind of nato member to have friends who deffend you. instead of making enemys and buying protection we should start making friends with our neighbors. when you are friendly, independend but not naive you should be fine.
Bcuz Ukraine is a large country that borders Russia n seeking help from the US n NATO is an existential threat to Russia
It did not work for Cuba, because that invitation led to the missile crisis and the Russians where out. Because of the Monroe doctrine, the USA forbids countries on the Western hemisphere to seek alliance with distant foreign powers. This means that the sovereign choice that we grant Ukraine is not granted to all countries on the Western hemisphere. So in short: it works if the big neighbour is not the USA.
It hasn't worked out for anyone, ever.
The Serbs tried it with Russia, and it led to a world war, and they got yugoslavia.
The Czechs and poles tried it with the french, and got stabbed in the back.
The Cubans tried it with the soviets and it nearly started another world war, and the soviets backed off.
And now we have Ukraine.... who the west encouraged to go poke the russian bear and now they're getting curb stomped.
It literally just leads to wars and getting your ass kicked. It has never worked, and will never work. you either get along with your neighbours or one of you stops existing. Calling in a bully just delays the inevitable, and might spark a war.
it did not work for Cuba(cuban missile crisis, not even 60 years later would the US lift the sanctions ) and it will not work for Japan(which still has not taken place)
Why don’t we hear from David Satter? Satter exposed the shocking circumstances surrounding Putin’s rise to power in 1999 and was the first Western journalist to be expelled from Putin’s Russia in 2013. Satter also began reporting from the Soviet Union in the 1970s for the Financial Times and later the Wall Street Journal.
he is biased as hell
@@xiangli2452 The evidence that the FSB planted bombs in the basement of an apartment building in Ryazan is overwhelming. Russian citizens including Duma members who investigated this have been murdered. Satter has been saying this for 20 years and Russians also know the truth.
@@xiangli2452 What do you mean?
@@xiangli2452 lol. You pl listen to morons like this proffessor m. And think Putin is a irdinary western like politicians Lol my ass.
West Point used to be on the honor system .... don't know if that is true any more though.
Question, professor. Why should the US contain China and why is the US threatened by China? Can only have one tiger on the mountain, not two?
One reason is a social credit system that against everything the West has traditionally stood for. Most Americans DO NOT want to be in a matrix of China's slavery as they are the most racist and xenophobic country on the planet. They simply are not anywhere near ready for world leadership and certainly not with their hyper-bigotry and only one race that matters.
Maybe he became a realist after he was exposed to the economics department at the University of Chicago (Milton Friedman)
Sure, but is far more likely to be a realist coming from a socialist/leftist/communist economics dept. after those disasters of the 20th century.
@@SapwolfThanks for your reply.
If I understand you correctly you claim socialism was a bigger economic failure than neoliberal economics?
I recommend you listen to "The bad Samaritans" Audio book on RUclips by some Korean author (economist). How have rich countries became rich, a study. The common thread industrialisation through tariffs/protecting your own economy.
Concerning the USSR, read Revolution Betrayed first chapter (or just take my word for it) -Russia went from a 3rd World country to being number two in terms of GDP in ~30-40 year's, at a huge human price, no question (don't defend Stalin). How was it possible for USSR to achieve an unprecedented increase in GDP and why aren't we told about it in school?
Compare Cuba before and after the Revolution!
China post 1949, hundreds of millions lifted from poverty.
Countries who can't develop independently are forced to accept neoliberal/IMF economics (austerity).
I say neoliberal economics is junk economics. The politicians who advocate for it never follow it (free trade, the market is God, privatisation etc) themselves. They do however want others to follow the doctrine. Ronald Reagan said government was the problem. What did he do? Increased the spending and imposed tariffs!
Capitalism today in the US is Public RnD/investment - Private profits.
+Recycling surpluses from other countries.
Tell me if you think I'm wrong!
redline: why did the us provoke russia into invading ukraine? to what end?
Sell weapons? Make another ISIS, continue global hegemony, ground up civilians? Take your pick.
Because we saw NATO expansion, EU expansion and the "color revolutions" as part of our effort to spread our glorious liberal democracy around the world. Russia saw it as an existential threat which, of course, it was!
Because America will fight Russia until the last Ukrainian
@@EricNeilson_ mine are hegemony (US default move) and weapons (US pulling out from the middle east made the blob restless).
Reason would be to weaken Russia, because they have too much power in the eyes of the west. The war in Ukraine will be very, very, very hard on Russia economically and militarily. However, they don't care about military losses because to them this is an existential conflict, they loose if they go all the way but they loose more if they give up. Think about it - if they give up and retreat it shows weakness - heck they might as well hand over all the nukes with Putin in top for that matter. If they push this to the end they loose their whole army, their whole economy. I know one thing about people living in -50C - they don't EVER do is show weakness. What they do show is ironclad resolve in any circumstances. Even the worst ones that they are in right now. Just to make it clear, my opinion is that everyone will loose in Ukraine, there is no victory for anyone at this point and this is an unnecessary conflict.
31:14 what M thinks of NATO? 34:04 who pays for NATO budget; 51:35 portrait
Whoa I found this early
who is an interviewer?
Sounds like Brian Lamb. Unfortunately, the host did not identify himself and I didn't see a host name in the description.
Anyone who knows the Russians has probably heard similar stories about their homeland. That the Americans are plotting, the "collective West" is aggressive, that Moscow just needs to defend itself somehow. Even the attack on Ukraine is explained by the necessity of taking care of security. On February 20, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke in a similar way about his country:
We remind you that Russia has never attacked anyone in its history. And Russia, which has survived so many wars, is the last country in Europe that even wants to say the word "war"
Russian propaganda, and the Soviet one before that, told its people the same. A peaceful nation, a fight for peace, a desire for nuclear disarmament, arming only in fear of external aggression. Bad NATO bases in Poland, bad NATO enlargement, it's terrible to think that Ukraine is joining the European Union - all against a helpless Russia surrounded on all sides.
And conspiracies - the world continues to persuade itself to follow the idyllic Slavs around Moscow. Jews plot, Americans plot, Poles are very intrigued (until they became negative heroes of one of the national holidays) - today, before the war, and in the 19th century, so peaceful thanks to several European empires. The Jesuits also conspired - until they entered folk proverbs. In his old age, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn saw Jewish conspiracies in the communist project - it was not Russians, but Jews, also other nations, that were tormenting peaceful compatriots - Russians.
From this sense of hurt that Russian culture tends to its recipients, a desire for revenge is born. Just as the social margins and the losers in life blame the rest of the world for their failures, Russia, in its poverty and internal disasters, takes its peculiarly understood justice from rape and robbery. Just like the last degenerates, who have nothing to lose, rationalize their cruelty and bestiality, those who supported the Bolsheviks in 1917, feeling that "their time has finally come", because they will finally make up for their unjust failures and fortunes, so all of Russia in the course of history it became a failed project of civilization.
Teacher's Unions have US messed up
Nice straw man: Mearsheimer claims that the "Western" position is invalid because Mearsheimer's position implies that the West is culpable, a conclusion that is unacceptable to those who hold the "Western" position.
That's the stupid kind of reasoning that a rookie debater. but not all "realists," can see through. On the other hand, Mearsheimer's deep insights earned him the 2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow, so he must be doing something right.
If Ukraine has no right to join NATO, even if the majority of Ukrainians want to join, how does Russia have a right to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Where does this right come from?
Hi from Russia. Ukraine have a right to join NATO, no doubt.
NATO have no obligations to accept new members, though. Russia express desire to join NATO twice, with no result.
---
We not fight Ukraine. We fight West. Ukraine not a prize, its a battlefield.
Our demands to NATO from December 2021 includes clear statement about "military measures", if talks fails.
So, once again - its not about Ukraine at all. We simply don't have other option to bring our army to NATO borders. We not go for Ukraine, we go THROUGH Ukraine. Our talks with NATO postponed for now, because we need our army free from other tasks prior another round of negotiations. Once we park our tanks on Polish border - you will have one more chance to adress situation peacefully.
Cuba crisis is the answer as well as the Monroe doctrine .. would you think that USA will tolerate military alliance with Mexico or Canada ?
The problem with the 'Realist' view of world relationships is that it locks into all future scenarios the 'Might is Right' maxim. The post war paradigm, of relations between powers based on mutual territorial respect, a product of the self-examination midst the ruin of the WW II world, is an opportunity to break out of that cynical and fearsome cycle. In fact, if we fail to embrace a new world order, then we cannot break the war cycle. Mankind is not bonded to the 'might is right' philosophy any more than we were bonded to the slavery model of economics.
It troubles me too that Alexsandr Dugin quotes Prof Mearsheimer as justification for his fascist worldview that has propelled Putin to conduct his wars. I'm not blaming Prof Mearsheimer. Simply showing that the "Realist' philosophy is embraced by the most dangerous men on the planet. One point that I fully agree with Prof Mearsheimer is the problem of China and if we buy into 'might is right' then we are doomed to armed conflict with them too. Whereas, if we embrace the modern mutual respect paradigm, we could avert that future crisis. He would term me naive. Better naive and hopeful than 'realist' and nihilist.
Lol he kept calling Paul "Brian"
Sounded like Brian. Either way, I wished the host would identify himself or put his name in the description.
Just read an article in the newspaper. Just wondering if John sees Putin as having the right to spread pain and destruction in a world where most would just like to keep a bully in his place? Like Trump did.
Ukraine was fine until the US backed Maidan coup. That's when Russia took Crimea as a response. That's far from bullying, it's common sense to not let warmongers surround you from every tactically signifcant patch of land
Your are a loser. America was 100 percent better when Trump was President..
Sorry but the rest of the world doesnt see things your way. What kind of wonderland are you living in right now?
@@tad8582 No, you are not alone, and I'm a very prudent nationalist and American myself. Globalism vs Nationalism is an axis that is not the same as good vs evil, law vs chaos, or capitalism vs socialism.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite agree.
The Soviet Union has been falling apart since 1991. The former Soviet states have understandably sought rapprochement with the EU and NATO. Since Russia no longer has anything to offer the remaining countries, it is logical that these countries also want to isolate themselves from Russia. It is only a matter of time until the other remaining countries such as Georgia and Chechnya will want the same. And it is too easy to say that Russia has every right to build a line of defense around itself. Surely they will have to give something in return to the countries they want to use for that.
remember Cuba crisis
Great American
"Leaders do not lie much to each other." Unless, of course, you're Vladimir Putin.
“Russia is not going to attack anyone. It's not like that.” -- Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin. 2021-11-23.
sounds like the prof is recommending a war in asia.
Exactly, Im sure Mearsheimer would see Taiwan as a legitimate target for China. In his point of view "might is right". As if nothing has evolved since the Cold War era.
@@Holzwache Where does that idea not apply?
@@Holzwache Might IS right. Why do you think the US is allowed to invade and bomb other countries without repercussions?
@@Holzwache "As if nothing has evolved since the Cold War" my friend the US committed genocide in the middle east after the Cold War ended. Nothing has changed except that imperialism is now labeled "freedom and democracy"
I don't agree .. Professor is just basing his thoughts and predictions on the theory of "The tragedy of Super Powers Politics" and the fact that US will go to great length not to tolerate any other Super Power in the system .. hence the expected Security Competion between China and USA that is unfolding and is expected to intensify.
A Bernie bro that identifies as a realist... I wonder how he reconciles that.
... I would put it (to you) that it may be impossible to be a Right academic - because the moment the Right ideologue enter the intellectual world, the Right will find out that it cannot maintain reality & intellectual consistency.
... Left Bank (Rive Gauche) of the Seine are the academies, intellectuals ... it’s where they say that Paris “learned to think”.
He blames NATO expansion for the Ukraine war. But Russia gives the reason why NATO membership is necessary: to join together & protect countries from Russia. Every NATO country is today breathing a sigh of relief that NATO exists.
That is the logic that drove Poland to join: memories of Katyn. But if you arm yourself against your neighbour then it is axiomatic that your neighbour will see you as a threat. Then they will arm against you and hence back to the arms race.
Meanwhile the arms race in Asia is likely to be lost, for precisely that reason. So while it is wise for Poland, it is not wise for the USA. This is the point he is making: not that the European NATO members made the wrong decisions for themselves, but that his own country USA (and the Ukraine) made decisions that are wrong for them.
Too much defense (Nato involvement in Ukraine) leads to offense in both senses of the word to Russia.
There is certainly a case to be made for a great power to be "realistic" in terms of zones which another great power declares to be of critical security interest and in which it will intervene if need be. Cuba is an example. Ukraine turns out to be another.
Which brings up Taiwan. It's really indefensible, and it insists not only on its sovereign freedom but also on the expectation that the US would stand by it. I'm not clear where Mearsheimer stands on US action. Should the US apply his realism doctrine in this case?
The primary lesson, I think, is to be learned and observed by the lesser powers. Depending on their neighborhood, they should take nothing for granted.
He's explicated this in other talks, and his view is that the US should defend Taiwan militarily if China invades, and do everything possible to deter Chinese invasion.
This is very much linked to his views on Russia. Russia, in his view, is a great power in decline in the midst of a long-term population and economic crunch, and thus poses no threat to the United States. China, in spite of its internal issues, is a nation economically and militarily on the rise which could threaten to become regional hegemon of East Asia, becoming free to project power into the Americas, violating the Monroe Doctrine. So establishing a front for fighting Russia is a foolhardy and counterproductive distraction while establishing one with China is necessary.
His basic view has actually been (along with historian Steven Cohen) that the US and Russia have many common interests which they should pursue together, among them containing China which threatens to encroach on Russia's influence in Central Asia with the One Belt, One Road initiative. In his view, the US should have pursued a policy of rapprochement and cooperation with Russia in the post-Soviet era, but has instead driven them solidly into the Chinese camp with its foreign policy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
I think the argument is compelling. Always possible Russia would have stabbed us in the back, but it's hard to say. We'll never know now.
@@nathanhopkins7976 But Taiwan is not defensible, even under the best of circumstances. There is no amount of conventional US force that could defeat China if China decided to invade Taiwan. And no one would want to escalate beyond conventional, I think we're agreed. So there is no "deterring" China if China decides it needs to take that step.
Like Ukraine, it's really up to Taiwan how things turn out. In Taiwan's case, in order to avoid a Ukraine scenario, it needs a non-conventional arsenal.
As to Russia being "squeezed", it is still up to Russia to decide between a EU alignment, a China alignment, or to attempt a neutral stance. It's not really the US, it's the EU that's become the local hegemon. It's disconcerting to any Russian leadership that after 300 years of looming over Europe, Russia has become a client-state of the EU. The EU has very adroitly employed NATO as its ultimate insurance as it has expanded to become 10x bigger economically than Russia.
A smarter, forward-looking Russian policy would have embraced a close relationship with the EU, perhaps using Ukraine as a bridge to build that partnership. It could have completely sidestepped NATO. But the past glory was too strong a memory for the Russian leadership to overcome.
As far as the US is concerned, the EU is, and will remain, its most important partner in every sense of the word. The EU is a friendly, dependable regional hegemon. The Russians have, so far, not understood the role they can play, the security they can assure for themselves, because their past gets in the way.
In any case, the US is in no way threatened by any power. A quick glance at a map will confirm that.
@@hc8379-f4f I disagree on your assessment of Taiwan, but I don't want to get too in the weeds. Suffice to say, Taiwan is self-evidently much more defensible than Ukraine. If the PRC is willing to pay any price, they can invade and occupy Taiwan. But if the US is unwilling or unable to directly defend Taiwan then it is in for a long, protracted struggle with China in the Pacific.
Vis a vis Russia, I think you are underestimating the role the US has played. It is self evident that both the Russians and many European countries like Germany did desire a very similar cooperative arrangement. It is why Nord Stream 2 was built. It is also worth noting that France and Germany have been the main forces pushing back on US escalatory moves with Russia. That was true in 2008 when they objected to the addition of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO at the Bucharest summit, it was true before Euromaidan (when they tried to negotiate both a 3-way trade deal with Russia, Ukraine and NATO), and afterward when they pushed Ukraine to enter talks in Minsk and implement the Minsk II agreement.
The major countervailing force to this has been the US. It was the US government and state department which materially supported the 2014 Euromaidan revolution (see the Nuland-Pyatt phone call in which US officials discuss who to staff the new government with in Ukraine while saying "Fuck the EU," all the democracy promotion money flowing into Ukraine). It was the US which pushed most fervently for NATO expansion. It was the US who first began selling weapons to Ukraine while countries like Germany refused to do so. For his part, Putin was generally always amenable to working with Western countries, but not if they crossed certain red lines in countries like Ukraine. It is remarkable to me that Putin did not become more overtly hostile to us sooner than now.
I will say one more thing, which is that I think US-EU interests are far less aligned than you allude to, and the US should have no interest in a competing European superpower. We fought in two world wars to prevent a united Europe, and with good reason. It is, after all, against European colonial powers that the Monroe doctrine was articulated.
In particular as your perspective indicates (as I guess you are European, I am American myself) the interests of the EU, insofar as it can be thought of as a block and not an inhomogenous confederation, are very much as odds with US (as well as Australian and British interests) on China. The 1B1R initiative is a ploy by China to cut US dominated naval shipping lanes out of the global economy, mainly to reach European markets. This is also what Taiwan and the South China Sea conflicts are about, controlling global trade. As a block of countries which trade much more extensively with the Chinese than even we Americans, it is easy to see why European countries are far less concerned about China, who does not really challenge their interests. For the US, these changes to global trade and being cut out of Asian markets are critical concerns, not to mention that a Chinese navy free to roam to Pacific is a potential direct threat to our homeland.
I don't mean to exaggerate. Of course you are right that the US is probably the most defensible country in the world. But it did not become defensible by neglecting to pursue strategies aimed at preserving its advantages. We have also seen from the collapse of the Soviet Union that superpowers can still fall, and that economic factors like participation in global trade are critical to maintaining the existence of nations. If the Chinese succeed in their ambitions, they will isolate and contain the US just like we did with the Soviet Union. We will become a declining power festering away alone in the New World until we lose our political cohesion and break apart, a fate far more devastating in the nuclear age than any invasion with conventional weapons could produce.
Perhaps that is inevitable, but for us, we must try to avert this situation at all costs. At present, we are not doing a very good job.
@@nathanhopkins7976 Good discussion, Nathan. I appreciate the exchange of ideas. I'm Brazilian, btw, living in Cda for fifty years, trained in American universities, so I kind of know all 3 worlds. Actually, Canada is the most defensible country in the world. Not only defended by the US, but also by all those European countries, and by its fortuitous geography.
As a S. American, I can tell you that the Monroe Doctrine has been meaningless to the region. It was Castlereagh and Canning that kept European powers from restoring the Spanish colonies to Spain.
But the basic thing is that the Mearsheimer thesis, while sounding good as a basic principle of foreign policy, I believe is misapplied by him operationally. It's overweighted. Many events are chancy: sometimes the US succeeds, sometimes not, but it's circumstancial, and not real determiners of increased or decreased state of US security. Vietnam, a supposed disaster, turns out to want a firm coordination with US policy.
We don't really know where Iran will go in the future, but I can see the US threading the needle between S.A. and Iran in the future. Cairo was a solid USSR ally for a long time. No more. India is now a near-ally. Circumstances, particularly the rise of China, change US prospects and alter policy.
But Mearsheimer also goes wrong, I think, in minimizing the importance of liberalism -- understood as representative government, freedoms of the individual from state or elite oppression, a fair judiciary, the primacy of the common man, market capitalism. The kind of messy democracy practiced by the US, modern Europe, Japan, SK, even Brazil or India, is what people want. It's what scares the "ruling party" the most, and it's what made the entirely fake USSR constitution so untenable.
In the case of Ukraine, you give the US too much credit. Ukrainians wanted to be part of the EU. Germany (that definitely wants NATO to continue) was the major investor in Ukraine. The EU, by virtue of its economic strength, was always going to test whether it could peaceably incorporate Ukraine. If not peaceably, then, well, maybe there will need to be a conflict to show Putin that his power is more limited than he thinks it is.
I predict there will be a change in Russian politics. Russians are basically Europeans, socially, culturally, politically. Russia's future lies in a tight partnership with the EU. But it needs to transition to a messy democracy at the same time.
In short, US foreign policy can't tie itself to some overriding "security" algorithm as prescriptive as Mearsheimer proposes. There needs to be ample room for supporting the democratic "drift" which has been making the rounds since 1789.
@@hc8379-f4f Not with external military forces. China is already at war with the USA for many years. I was in Milpitas, CA in the 1990's when the Chinese bribed the city council there to REPLACE the US flag flying at city hall with the Chinese communist flag for a long three day weekend. I did not see it at the time because I had not driven by that intersection those particular days. But if I had, my brother would have helped me shimmy up that pole and rip that flag down.
Could you imagine a chinese city flying the US flag at their city hall any days ever? No. This war is not recognized by Americans much and yet it rages on.
He actually said he voted for Bernie! For someone as smart as J. Mearsheimer that is pretty amazing. Just goes to show how people will ignore everything else and vote their pocketbook.
It was Ukraine to decide to join Nato, much more than Nato decided to include Ukraine. Unfortunately, Nato showed a green signal to Ukraine, but took no real actions for more than a decade, finally allowing aggressive Russia to unleash the war. And what did Nato do then? They started repeating again and again that we won't interfere, even when they were not asked, thus giving more and more green light to the aggressor for further aggression. That's how it looks from Ukraine.
Please tell me if I'm missing smth.
C-SPAN: fewer commercials, stop trying to make a buck off a genius, your interlocutor added NOTHING to this but a guttural former NYC detective's voice doing an "interview."
He's right about NATO expansion, however both Ukraine and Georgia have the right to join NATO as democratically the majority of their population wanted to be part of the west and not under the influence of Putin's Russia. So It is Russia's fault for disrespecting Ukraine's self-determination and for violating international law by invading a sovereign nation.
This is so true. So when it comes to China, the mainstream media and government in the US keep criticizing China not to condemn the war😂😂😂
Cuba in 1962, as a sovereign country, had the right to deploy Soviet missiles on its territory. But the United States did not like it and they almost brought the matter to war, which would have ended in a nuclear catastrophe.
@@НиколайИванов-ф4ж I see your point, but the difference here is nobody was threatening the existnece of Russia nor anybody can since they're a nuclear power. It's just that Putin is losing his sphere of influence, and he then used force instear of using energy nd diplomacy. It's gonna cost Russia a lot
@@kemalsalic3521 Putin's diplomatic efforts in the case of Ukraine lasted 8 years, the Ukrainian side and the West could not agree with Russia. The West continued to supply weapons to Ukraine, Russia was simply running out of time when military force could be used. We see that Ukraine, thanks to the help of the West, is already effectively fighting. What would happen in a few years, when its rearmament was completed and Ukraine itself could attack? If the escalation continues, it will cost everyone dearly.
True countries have the right to sign military agreements but NOT at the expense of another country's security.
It maybsound cliche but what I'd China 🇨🇳 placed 300k troops and missiles in Cuba to ensure the security of Communism in the Western hemisphere. Would that fly?
Probably not.
Cannot pick an issue I disagree with Prof Mearsheimer. Didn't know of him till recently, and presently confess being captivated by his systemic grasp of political essence, in international politics.
coming from the Baltics, I am disheartened by this professor. Yes, "Might makes Right", but to me it appears that Russia is probably the last of the colonial Empires of the last century and is going the same way as the Great Britain did some 70 years ago. It is putting up a fight, but I think that Russia is not mighty at all (it is not a world power, but rather a regional one, by GDP and otherwise) and it is about to lose Ukraine for good, which probably could be compared to Great Britain's loss of Ireland (or India)?
@Deanthony Melton Russia is not a world power, and it will go the same way as Ottoman or British empire. Intimidation against Ukraine's NATO membership was just a red herring in an effort to keep the empire intact, IMHO.
@Deanthony Melton by GDP Russia is on par with the Netherlands, Ukraine is not far behind. Moscow is losing to its colonies, like the UK lost the US in 1812, IMHO
I observe, and i think every person in history up to the future subconsciously knows, "where" realists are really coming from (And i observe this is what the likes of mearsheimer don't really realize). If you and they really think deeply about it, they (realists) are actually really coming from the LACK OF COURAGE,... to be IDEALISTS....
(and they, realists, justify it - realism - with all kinds of "acrobatic" reasoning).
Most of them voice out their realpolitik viewpoints in the safety of their privileged circumstances - like Nicollo Machiavelli himself. (That's why he, mearsheimer, always say, not verbatim: "I'm very happy I'm living in (the most powerful) liberal democratic country - which ironically is a product of idealism, ...but when it comes to international relations...- he's a realist)
His and his et al's IR Old World 19th century Machiavellian realpolitik viewpoint...
...actually HAS to die,...
... WE, THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE ALL KNOW IT IN OUR HEARTS IT HAS TO DIE, "YESTERDAY", hundreds, even thousands of years ago...
... And I think deep inside his (mearsheimer et al's) heart he knows it. But like all (socio) realists, he doesn't have the COURAGE to admit it...because he doesn't have the courage to BE against it (human CONSTRUCTED reality)... And his realist thinking is greatly influenced by his privileged personal situation: a legal citizen of the most powerful nation in the world, and all the privileges and personal SAFETY, it entails.
What differentiates a realist from an idealist?
COURAGE and Empathy for the rest of YOUR human race.
Courage to DESIRE, ENVISION AND USE YOUR GREAT MIND, to PERPETUALLY make things better than what they are, than JUST cowardly accept the social constructs that our physical/biological/historical reality socially CONSTRUCTED for us.
Clue: if it's constructed, it can be DE-constructed or changed.
27:54 Ukraine
Realists have been proven right
I enjoy listening to Mearsheimer up to a point, but he is blinded by theories and is pretty much wrong on everything that matters--starting with his exaggerated assessment of Russian strength.
The place where you can see Mearsheimer's Ukraine blindspot most clearly in this interview, is when he characterizes "conventional wisdom [about Putin] in the west and certainly in the United States... as that putin is a revanchist... interested in either recreating the soviet union or... in creating a greater russia that looks like the former soviet union, and what's going on in Ukraine is the first move in that direction."(c. 28:30) But that is simply not true. No actual Western leader thinks that way.
At any rate, no leader in the West is concerned about the resurgence of the Soviet Union. The West is concerned about expanding markets and securing resources for its huge and efficient economies. So, for that matter, are the Chinese. Russia is a problem, not a power. It is a weak state with the recklessness of the weak. A blackmail state, influential in the same way that Saudi Arabia is.
It would be an enormous mistake to treat Russia like a functioning state that can actually benefit from military victory. Russia cannot hold what it conquers. It is hard to see it as a great power in any meaningful sense, because--as we are seeing in Ukraine--Russia is oil fields, a bunch of nuclear warheads, some poisoners, barrel bombs and artillery shells aimed at schools and hospitals. Someone should ask Mearsheimer what he means by a "great power" and why he still insists on referring to Russia as a great power.
I don't think Mearsheimer views Russia as a superpower like it was as the Soviet Union.
I personally view Russia as being a great power inheriting alot of things from its past such as its large quantity of Nuclear weapons (not exactly conventional military might but still a very dangerous weapon which we should never downplay/forget about) as well it's influence over it's neighbours. Also it's geographical position will help keep it relevant as a global player.
I am not sure if a formal definition of 'Great Power' exists but agree it should be clarified.
You have no idea what Western leaders think to them selves.
If you have more nuclear weapons than America, you are per definition a great power, and if you don't think so, drop a nuclear weapon on Russia and wait say 30 min
For a country with that many nukes, they are a great power.
I dont think they’re talking about the soviet union but something like a greater Russia.
But ur right in a sense that i dont think most of them actually believe that. Because Putin isn’t interested in that and they’re not that stupid.
He actually was not talking about leaders but the west in general.
26:37 unconvincing liar ? DJT
Clickbait headline by western media tomorrow: “‘Hitler is the best!’ Says Mearsheimer.”
What a shame. I was looking to listening to Prof. Mersheimer. We are interested in his perspective, not his personal biography.
Much too much personal stuff. Remember the headline: "John Mearsheimer on Ukraine, International Relations, and the Military". Yada yada yada.
The realist human view of people like him make me cringe and vomit. Instead of them realists using (their vast knowledge of) realism to envision, theorize, support, attain, maintain or improve on idealism in the world, they don't have the desire, enough love for the Others, imagination or courage to do those but just instead treat (social CONSTRUCTED) reality and realism as the be all and end all and the indomitable end in itself.
They're like the people hundreds of years ago who strongly believed that abolishing state sanctioned slavery or a national leader that was not a king/queen, were impossible.
Plenty of blame to go around, but the lion's share is the western global dominance strategy. I can't blame the Ukranians for wanting to join the EU, and I prefer liberalism by far to autocracy and want that for others (though arguably we have an anarachic semi-illiberal imperialism at best), but we can't expect to be the world's only power to enact doctrine along our borders (at any stage in development...that western idealism has progressed doesn't mean it has time to proliferate appropriately)
I've heard John say that ultimately he would probably bet on Frank Fukiyama, but perhaps the winds are far more turbulent. That is a supercrude paraphrase with some of my own words after the comma. I feel like the "dialectic" between the two would be resolved by asking the question: how long might the end of history take? or might major roadbumps like total thermonuclear warfare, issues with WMD proliferation, rampant nationalist conflicts, or global trade and peace turn the trend more into a sawtooth wave of liberal progress over decades (other fractions of centuries or millenia may be just as appropraite to reference)
As someone trained in environmental science, chemistry, and engineering with siblings in Philosophy and Public Admnistration these time frames ARE important whether or not individuals can honestly confront or resolve them, and the whole reason these two are SOOOO important to the political portion of my studies (we need to be informed by history, this wind at our backs stuff we find in the sustainability movement is counterproductive).
The world is a circus, the strength of John's impact on me are identifying structurally what is going on, and having the empathy to ponder other's sincerely held beliefs or mere desires (generally informed by trends in history and thought).
John does stand on shoulders living and dead, but for sure anyone who comes after will have to take a ride on his back.
Well, I gave this interview a try in listening to a far left guest. It didn't work.
This guys literally says the same thing in his every speech. Hear it I’m telling you. It’s always the same thing
John Mearsheimer either forgets or ignores that the majority of Ukrainians
would like to belong to the EU not Russia's Eurasian Economic Union. The
leadership of all of the post-Soviet satellite states wanted to join the EU
and NATO, as did most of the citizens (They had had enough of the Soviet/
Russian boot on their necks.)
His views are not based on what "should" happen ideally, but what realistically will happen and how great powers actually operate. Ukraine is in a situation were they are forced to pay close attention to what Russia wants from them, and what we are seeing now is what happens when they chose something that does not align with Russia's interests. In an ideal world - Ukraine could chose whatever they wanted, but in the real world - they have to pay attention where competing interests/threats are.
I am Ukrainian and you are wrong! Majority of Ukrainians didn’t want to be in EU and especially NATO! We never had a national vote about these matters, it’s our elites that decided we should be there. And also our economy was working towards Russia’s economic Union, that’s why our president Yanunkovich didn’t want to sign association with EU. Ukraine’s economy simply couldn’t compete with EU, and at the end our industries were destroyed. Don’t talk about something you don’t even know.
@@skiddilydooin the ideal world we were a neutral country with much better economy then now until your Barack Obama with Joe Biden decided to come and bring their fake “democracy” just like they did to Syria, Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone in the world knows your “democracy” only means stealing resources and destroying countries. And under Soviet Union Ukraine was a great agrarian nation with lots of factories, and jobs everywhere, and unlike in US people in USSR owned their apartments and own to these days and to these days we don’t have ghettos in Ukraine and neighborhoods where police is afraid to come. If you have never been to Ukraine don’t analyze what you don’t know.
@@hardshell9236
What about the
pro-Putin elites
who supported
Yanukovych?
Ukraine is a divided
country beset by
massive corruption.
@@skiddilydoo ah yes the classic she was wearing a miniskirt victim blaming. It all have been inevitable since 2005 when putin wrote essay on how ussr collapse was the great tragedy. We the Ukrainians knew since then he will try to recreate ussr2.0. We could have just rolled over and fetched the branch like obedient vassal dogs or resisted empires like Ukrainians did with various levels of success for last 600 or so yesrs
Anybody who identifies Trump as the greatest liar gets multiple high fives from me.
I just "love" how Americans speak about countries such as Ukraine as if it's just a chessboard, completely ignoring the historical background between Ukraine and russia, completely ignoring the wish of Ukrainians to have nothing to do with russians and their self-proclaimed dictatorship, which has always been a dictatorship, democracy is not really popular among russians at all, they choose not to have an opinion. Ukraine doesn't want russia at their border, that's it!