Prof. John Mearsheimer ANALYSES the Current World Affairs 2024
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 05. 2024
- Please remember to like, subscribe, and click the notification bell to stay up to date on all of our new videos.
Join us as renowned political scientist John Mearsheimer delves into the intricacies of war and international politics in this comprehensive video. Mearsheimer, a leading figure in realist theory, explores the dynamics of great power competition in our multipolar world and the decision-making processes that lead states to war.
Key Points Discussed:
The Unipolar Moment: Analysis of the period from 1991 to 2017 when the United States was the world's sole superpower.
Transition to Multipolarity: The emergence of the US, China, and Russia as great powers, reviving security competition and making the global landscape more complex and dangerous.
Realist Perspective: Mearsheimer’s take on how war is an integral part of international politics, influencing state interactions and strategic decisions.
Nature of War: Discussion on preventive wars and wars of opportunity, highlighting the strategic calculations behind these conflicts.
Modern Warfare and Escalation: Insights into how wars escalate and the critical role of nuclear weapons in contemporary conflicts.
Cooperation Amidst Competition: Examples of state cooperation within the context of intense security rivalry, emphasizing the realist view that survival and security often outweigh economic cooperation.
Conclusion: Mearsheimer underscores the endemic nature of war in international politics, emphasizing that states must always be prepared for conflict to ensure their survival. This lecture provides a deep understanding of the limitations of ethical and legal frameworks in preventing wars and highlights the enduring relevance of power politics.
Watch the full video for a detailed exploration of these critical themes and more.
Rejoignez-nous alors que le politologue renommé John Mearsheimer explore les complexités de la guerre et de la politique internationale dans cette vidéo complète. Mearsheimer, une figure de proue de la théorie réaliste, examine les dynamiques de la compétition des grandes puissances dans notre monde multipolaire et les processus décisionnels qui mènent les États à la guerre.
انضم إلينا حيث يتناول عالم السياسة الشهير جون ميرشايمر تعقيدات الحرب والسياسة الدولية في هذا الفيديو الشامل. يستكشف ميرشايمر، الذي يعتبر شخصية بارزة في نظرية الواقعية، ديناميكيات تنافس القوى الكبرى في عالمنا متعدد الأقطاب وعمليات اتخاذ القرار التي تقود الدول إلى الحرب.
به ما بپیوندید تا جان مرشایمر، دانشمند برجسته علوم سیاسی، پیچیدگی‌های جنگ و سیاست بین‌الملل را در این ویدیوی جامع بررسی کند. مرشایمر که چهره‌ای برجسته در نظریه واقع‌گرایی است، به بررسی پویایی‌های رقابت قدرت‌های بزرگ در دنیای چندقطبی ما و فرآیندهای تصمیم‌گیری که کشورها را به جنگ می‌کشاند، می‌پردازد.
Присоединяйтесь к нам, когда известный политолог Джон Миршаймер углубляется в сложности войны и международной политики в этом всеобъемлющем видео. Миршаймер, ведущая фигура в теории реализма, исследует динамику конкуренции великих держав в нашем многополярном мире и процессы принятия решений, которые приводят государства к войне.
Únase a nosotros mientras el renombrado politólogo John Mearsheimer profundiza en las complejidades de la guerra y la política internacional en este video completo. Mearsheimer, una figura destacada en la teoría realista, explora la dinámica de la competencia entre grandes potencias en nuestro mundo multipolar y los procesos de toma de decisiones que llevan a los estados a la guerra.
Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
#usa #china #russia #iran #israel #gaza #palestine #taiwan
*John Mearsheimer is always talking about war. He is very American.*
My general view of humanity is that most good people aren't ambitious, so they rarely enter politics and this competitive cycle is driven by those who want power. You can't have a peaceful society when those in charge are ambitious. This is our biggest failure as a species. We let the bad ones take charge.
Obviously I understand this is a generality, which is why I said its a general view. I understand ambition isn't exclusive to bad people. But I don't think ambition is a virtuous trait because its a search for success over cooperation, which is not for the greater good. It's a very American trait, and while it may seem good for you if you happen to be lucky enough to gain power, most don't make it and their ambition is crushed. They live hopeless lives which are controlled by the lucky ones. And I won't hear this nonsense that everyone has a chance to make it. Stop fooling yourselves. That's clearly false. Every time you see someone who "made their way to the top," just remember that there are hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of others who worked just as hard or even harder. It's not about effort and its not about motivation. It's about money, luck, and timing.
I also understand some good people go into politics. I'm talking about systems and evolutionary structures. These are way bigger concepts then the minutia replies are getting into.
Agree. We have a society that values competition over cooperation.
You realize that narcissists and psychopaths are attracted to sources of power?
I think thats a rationalization of a copout of our responsibility for our participation and support of a system which enables such monsters.
@@user-ev7vh2is6b I think its unavoidable unfortunately. And I'll just point to Mearsheimer's argument in this video for the reason why.
You are arguing for an ineffective system, that gets nothing done since war is too high of a price to pay for ambitious policy makers. You also believe that humanity can collectively gather to shut down evil politicians. You seem to hold strong to your beliefs, not everyone will agree on everything. Either every person agrees with you or businesses as usual, competition is built into the system, not everyone will agree on your idea of evil example (abortion, gun rights, freedom of speech, climate change, religion)
When leaders tell you that war is inevitable it's time to get new leaders. Simple.
I'm sure there are plenty of Russian citizens that wish Putin wasn't their leader. But the guy spends his time mostly in an underground bunker, and there haven't been a meaningful election in Russia since Putin took office. The last one was around 2012. Yeah, not many elections happen in Russia. And certainly not any elections where the people have a say about things. The entire world needs new Leaders. Personally though, I have to say Zelensky may be one of the best keeping his small country together and keeping Russia fighting to a stalemate. Finland has a good President. But the good ones are few these days. It's terrible. It really is embarrassing Biden is even the President. No country respects America right now except the British, and that is only because they have to. lol
@@johannjohann6523perhaps but Trump will not be a President again. Mark my words.
@johannjohann6523 Agreed... The whole world 🌎 needs a fresh set of leaders... At least, of a younger generation pool, enough of the baby boomer bunch 🤷🏽♂️ Pray for the best 🙏🏽
Good luck, USA 🇺🇸
@@johannjohann6523Zelensky is a disaster for Ukraine.
Make sense. That's the reason why there is no US president who was able to start and stop one war in the history.
I am a Chinese. I respect John Mearshiemer because he seems an honest man. He insists that the US cannot guarantee China will rise peacefully so it has to be contained and surpressed. This I disagree on. I do not want my country to become a bully. I do not want Chinese young men and women stationed in other countires and meddle with their affairs. I want respect, development and dignity, so I assume people in other parts of the world want them too.
It's not what you want, it's what ccp wants
You want that. Xi doesn't. sadly.
There is no evidence the CCP or Xi wants military confrontation with anyone. None.
@@Buzzle420lol man so effing brainwashed to demonize China.
@@EnglishFuture-xg1gwtime to turn off your war mongering media which keeps telling you that it's the other side that wants war. Seriously what's your ÎQ
Prof. Mearsheimer has been one of the most outpspoken and effective critics of Israel's sadistic campaign in Gaza. He called it a genocide and he did not stutter for a split second. Reality can be morality.
Interesting how antisemitic folks like yourself decry Israel's actions of self-defense despite the countless attacks Israel's civilians have endured since 2014. Here's a pro tip: Study recent history.
The loss of power and prosperity in the Western world that accompanies the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order is not significant enough for ordinary citizens to go to war for. I will not risk my own life nor the lives of my children just so that some super rich can keep their privileged status.
More than half of people are choosing not to have children. Their selfish Gene is at max and can't sacrifice for others.
True but the sacrifice also became bigger & bigger. People struggling with two incomes, getting a home, basics in life outrageously expensive and top that off with environmental challenges. I mean it isn’t just spoiled brats. People very well know what is coming. By now Everybody Knows
I have been saying much the same. Keep spreading the message. We have to keep up the momentum.
Only wars that have been started by ordinary citizens are civil wars, and not all of them. All regular wars have been started by the elite.
We keep making the choice you mention … to “risk my own life and the life of my children just that some super rich can keep their privileged status” by continuing to participate in our hierarchical capitalist market based bourgeois consumer-culture society that we accept as normal and acceptable as part of the “normal” conditions we associate with our democratic society.
The neoliberal, free-trading world order demanded by the capitalist buys us (the bourgeois middle class domestic citizens that share the country with the rich capitalists) off for a time while they look to expand outward and create “new markets” elsewhere.
Well … now the most successful members of those new markets are ready to go to war with the leaders who first introduced them to capitalism and free markets (yes … that includes China .. they’re not communists in any traditional sense of the word at all) and some of those most harmed by the capitalism that came to their country decades ago are now the migrants flooding across our borders looking to get away from the horrific treatment of THEIR capitalist bosses to places where they know they will have a better chance of living a slightly less physically perilous life due to a better legal system than the brutal one they have back home. The capitalists say they help spread democracy and freedom and rule of law, but they do not. They spread profit over people; and if the the native system of law supports the interests of the ownership class and permits brutal treatment of their workers they look at this as a benefit to doing business there, not something that must be remedied.
Now the richest 20th century capitalist oligarchs have created a world so perilous for us there is nowhere safe for working people to be. There is only one obvious solution; rid the world of the rich oligarchy and their capitalist philosophy wherever it is found. Return the hoarded wealth to the working people who created it and form healthy middle classes again. Support democracy, NOT capitalism everywhere we go. Identify the rich as enemies of the people; there is no good rich capitalist. They have made this happen.
This man here calls himself a “realist” and he’s in the tradition of Kissinger and Machiavelli and traces his thinking back through Bismarck and Metternich and others back to the famous Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which cynically decided that there is no right and wrong in politics, only “interests” and that foreign affairs should be settled by balance of power agreements.
This worked for a time. Now capitalism has created a world in which there is an end in sight and it’s going to be caused by the prominent belief system of the worlds preeminent world power. And this man still counsels us to negotiate in a way as if there is no need to significantly change our own political point of view to create a BETTER WORLD for everyone. He’s fundamentally a conservative by trying only to balance our own “interests” against those of “others”, without EVER asking what exactly “our interests” are. He will tell you that “our interests” are identical with those of the rich ruling class of Americans that are currently ruining our working class lives, polluting the planet, driving the desperate populations of other more brutal capitalist countries to our doorstep, and driving us into a competitive global war with other nations in a test of who has the right to control the world’s resources.
Be very careful of the hidden assumptions in this old fossil’s “common sensical” sounding “offensive realist” arguments. Like most capitalist neoliberals he believes the world is essentially chaotic and needs powerful aristocratic leaders to give it order, and that these leaders behave in unpredictable ways competing for power. He pretended capitalism and communism and rich capitalists and the working class they dominate aren’t fundamentally artificial states of affairs yet the primary means by which the world today is organized economically. Beware of this kind of cynical analysis these old “realists” propagate … they will do nothing to stop this ruination of our lives by the rich, as they continue to assert their “natural right” to drive us to the precipice.
The old colonial masters will not let everything go without a fight.
You understand America exists because the old colonial masters lost grip of their power enough to form the Constitution, as a new foundation of rules determined by understanding the old rules of oppression - and there is still a battle for control vs. freedom - in America and the greater Western values? The hydra's heads are nearing a point of devouring each other - the snake eating its own tail.
While you sloppily blow the new colonial masters. nom nom!
You are a simpleton with a simpleton's understanding of history and current affairs.
The old ‘colonial masters’ have been dethroned in the 1940s!
What does that even mean?
I always like to hear from Prof. John Mearsheimer and Prof. Jeffrey David Sachs because they talk based on facts and no beating around the bush!
"In the nuclear world, the true anemy can't be destroyed because it is the war itself"
I doubt that.
"In a nuclear world, the nuclear option is the last resort to keep control over chaos in a situation in which the power that providers order loses control and chaos and destruction breaks out" ...
... this "nation states" / "competition of great superpowers" layer is not the tip of the pyramid...
@@cbdc4ai Well, look at Russia and Belarus right now. They are sorrounded by wannabe anemies. If those anemies decide to go for it, Russia can't take them on the field, it's just too much. They gonna have to use nuclear weapons. That's the poit, you can naver win with nuclear nation because just like an animal being pushed into a corner, they will have their last bite. Obviously nuclear power is here to stay, so are nuclear weapons. That's why we have to learn to live with them because we clearly don't know how to do it yet. In your mind war looks like in the movies. Brave and smart leaders and even braver soldiers. It's not like that at all. People are incopetent, corrupted, crazy or just bad, you have acces to media, you've seen american administration, it's a fucking freak show. Do you trust Kamala Harris with nuclear weapons? I wouldn't let her watch paint dry.
And that can be prevented by pious platitudes?
Well, nuclear war. We have a dozen conventional wars raging at any given time.
Even a dolt like me understood (most of) this lecture. Credit to the manner and style of Prof. Mearsheimer
Dolt person will never admit that he’s dolt. So you’re not one for sure
Professor M is a great communicator of his perspective.
Mearsheimers logical reasoning is rock solid.
there are several books to read, but most important among them are Michael Parenti's "Against Empire," David Swanson's "War is a Lie," and "Howard Zinn on war"(2nd Ed).
the established socio-economic system has reached the end of its lifecycle - so we can see it all (if we are willing to) at least since the c-actions in spring 2020 that "they are all in bed together". So yes: these wars are a lie, they are initiated to keep certain things running that ensure order and control over the masses.
However: without an alternative / without an other "framework that provides order" we are running into chaos and destruction - with a high potential to ending civilisation in most areas of the world (spreading out of the mega cities and bringing chaos and destruction to those who are busy with providing food... )
I'll add Ophuls' "Immoderate Greatness".
Those empires vanished eighty years ago. Maybe it is time to stopping bitching about them and facing up to the reality of global jihad which is acually happening now. Today. In this reality.
It'll be nice to have someone like john to describe what's happening as the 18-wheeler flattens us. He can remind us that once an 18-wheeler gets going, it'll probably continue to go, and whatever is in its path is likely to come in contact with it, and the result of that contact may well be a destructive one.
Mearsheimer is an old-time antisemite. His world view is a perversion of Cold War mythology.
Having been born under a dictatorship and lived under two dictatorships( bothcivilian and military) , I am realistic enough to know that there will always be conflict between military and civil administrators regarding war .
To a military administration , war is the only way to enforce political dominance ;whether it is a. civil war , or an international one .
One factor which must NOT be forgotten is the possibility of a nuclear war .
Nuclear deterrents have been effective ever since the US used nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 .
Although the leader of the US at the time , Harold Truman ,really DIDN'Tconsider the ramification of being the first country to use nuclear weapons in a world war , it didn't stop creating the fear of a response by the enemy as retaliation.
As a result of a lack of foresight by the United States of America, it started a cold war of nuclear deterrents which have endangered the future of our world!
Politics vs. War - During the most part of my life and in my country, war was the failure of politics. I consider that period as one of the rare relatively sane periods. We called it the cold war. I hated to be scared. But I hate it even more to be resigned.
War is when two parties do things to each other that will either be the reason for the next war or that will eventually lead to the idea that there was no good reason to make each other suffer. The last war will lead to silence.
If that makes any sense, then war is never the continuation of politics (or diplomacy), it's can only be its ultimate failure. If you understand that, you don't have to ask yourself when an escalation went too far.
Nuclear war is different in that is has no winners. That alone should show that war is always a crime, that a though school should not call itself realism if it considers wars of any kind as justifiable.
I don't deny the right or maybe even the necessity of self defense, individually or on the level of nations. But that's not a decision, defense is part of war, not its trigger.
Ukraine war started in 2014.
but it was as he said a preventive war, that's why they immediately seized control over Crimea and the Sevastopol Naval Base they did not want NATO to show up there one day, it was clear way before 2014, Putin said this basically from 2008 what they will never let it happen no matter what
2004 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
Prof. John Mearsheimer has some great ideas and he certainly understands history. Unfortunately, he is not well-versed in the geopolitics of the east.
I have a lot of repect for prof. John Mearsheimer!
most people in the global south still can see the sense of western entitlement in Mearsheimer's voice, as if his way of realistic thinking is the only way, trying to paint all countries like the neo colonial US
@@thewanderingh3rmit299 His thinking applies to all great powers. Mostly based in human nature.
@@Chabbrik with US and the colonial europe as his prime examples ....pretty pathetic for a man of his stature if he cannot even draw parallels since no other countries have colonial hegemonic ambitions such as the west
@@thewanderingh3rmit299Mearsheimer doesn't differentiate between western and non-Western countries, between democracy and non-democracy. Cultural and historical uniqueness of different country doesn't include in his IR theory, hence making his theory doesn't entangled with cultural, ideological & historical bias
@@Mmzk155 exactly my point his view is of a western view of international relations specifically a post neocolonial view, not the entire view of human race.
Why doesn’t he talk about war and bankers?
Because he values his job.
Because the one that initiated war among country from Mearsheimer's analysis is country leader, politicians, policy makers etc. Not bankers.
That's very loud and clear from his lecture. Not because Mearsheimer value his job so he stay silent about bankers
Quite clear that politicians are controlled by bankers or do you think someone like Biden is capable of getting the most powerful position in the world?
Because that would piss off the oy vey crew.
Bankers don’t really want war. It’s the arms dealers, and weapons manufacturers, natural resource extraction and their connections to the pentagon/congress that push for wars. Finance is too busy making money out of thin air on Wall Street to worry about messy wars.
People who want power ... this is a symptom of a deeper problem, psychological fixations. No country, no culture, male or female, young and old, no one is immune to psychological fixations. Fixations are a two-edged sword. Positive fixations lead to creativity and productivity; negative lead to destruction and suffering. The challenge for negative fixations is integrating them so they no longer have a magical hold over consciousness. People fixated on certain ideals try to maneuver themselves into positions of power to enact those ideals. Thus, wanting power is a deeper symptom of a psychological fixation on certain ideals. Once those fixations are removed, the desire for power evaporates.
Mearshiemer's been saying war is coming for his entire career. It's his thing.
Normally he's on point but here confuses why theres war from who's actually fighting.
War is either ego, profit, and sometimes leaders make it seem as if your life depends on war.
War is made by one's who'll never fight it.
Listening to acclaimed scholars involves the risk of imagining that what they put out is both original and absolute. This common illusion is fostered by the popular flair of those scholars for rephrasing and rewording, often in a way too vague to laymen to discern. Stating that waging war is subject to political consideration whereas its "escalation" is self-reinforcing is not an original argument. The belief that once it breaks out, war acquires its own dynamic is a well-known theme in IR literature. I should not understate Mearsheimer's quality of works. I am an author but a novice one, therefore, should not allow myself to judge renowned scholars. It is just a passing thought that props up in my mind every time I listen to a renown scholar.
U rite gud...
Hot air from the UN never prevented anything. UN is a kind of Disney Land for people who believe Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative" is a generally accepted guide to morality.
I have been (re)reading the Illiad, and it gives a very good description of war and the nature of war as a result of politics, honour, gain and loss. It explains the why's how's of war and battle, the role of honour, and of loss and gain, and ultimately the results and consequences (for Achilles, Odysseus, Menelaus, Hector and Paris, etc).
Get ready to melt like hot chocolate
Like the bad guy in Indiana Jones 1
Try watching : Ghost Rider : Slade's Last Ride
The war on Ukraine initiated few years before 2022, when Russia took Craimia
Actually before then when the C1A organised a coup in Ukraine...
Americans, no more wars for Israel!
When did America fight a war for Israel?
@@arktseytlin 😂
@@thisisit9829 No seriously, please name one. You can't because there never was.
@@arktseytlin Iraq. Just Wikipedia surf Project for a New American Century.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIlIlIlIIIII nope, that was George W. and neocons initiative after 9/11. Israel had nothing to do with that
John should study civil war rather than state war
He has, he's just not talking about that here.
The esteemed professor john mearshiemer. Always speaks logic and realism
He is logical as a Westerner. The rest of the World does not think like that. BTW He said that we are not in a constant state of war. I disagree in the case of US.
@@cosmicdancer exactly his view is of a realist westerner, more like a realist yank not a international realist .... at every moment he tries to fit china in US morals and ambitions which the old fool fails to realize anyone with half a brain can make the distinction china is not
Except he simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
His knowledge of russia for example is came from comic books or something I guess.
@@cosmicdancerconstant state of war in Mearsheimer lecture basically about great power war. So yes, great power war is not constant or always happened
@@user-cu7ig6bf1x Agree. He understands the West very well. I applaud his achievement. However, his theory is based on Western history. Such a theory cannot be applied to the entire World.
For the Western world, war is not about politics but another mean to acquire wealth.
Agreed, and from this perspective, there is no great power conflict today. There is conflict between colonism capitalism and indigenous capital.
So today, it's all about dollar colonialism. The British colonialists had boots on the ground. Now the USA has computer money.
You believe this is unique to the West?
That's the core of politics 😅
I think you misunderstood about Mearsheimer's point about relation between politics and war. What Mearsheimer said in this video is about how politics (leader, politician etc) is the important variable to understand what & who initiated war among state. The one that initiated war among state is country leader, government etc., not big company, capitalist, bankers etc.
Terimakasih Professor John, sebagai akademisi anda telah mencerahkan warga dunia melihat secara seimbang geopolitik saat ini dan dampak kedepan.
Failure of the human imagination will forever doom our species.
Reminds me of my days attending the Navy War College 30+ years ago.
EU 450 million people $19 trillion GDP, 6,000 military aircraft, 1500 military ships, not a great power according to Prof John Mearsheimer, Russia 148 million people, $2 trillion GDP 1,800 military aircraft zero tanks, 200 military ships is a great power
Just because EU doesn't have its own policy. EU is just an American puppet
Professor is so great at explaining geopolitics
How come our leaders don’t listen to him and Sachs ? They are two of our brightest minds right on the issues and it’s like they are mocked and laughed at by the elite
bright minds are not required for politics
What Mearsheimer has not said is that, to maintain economic advantage, US uses its capitalistic hegemony by leaning on its military power. Our inept politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are US imperialist fanatics hence the reason the US spends billions in weapons with no limit. The inherent competitive nature of Capitalism is one of the major culprits in creating wars and the US is the worst offender.
Spoken like a true marxist...
A really intelligent and knowledgeable person to learn from.
War is not what most people think it is.
This is only true as long as realist thinking prevails. And realist thinking has many critics and counterpoints. I'm against any ideology that claims it's established and formed from 'nature' as nature itself is an unanswered question
Very impressed with how Mr Mearshiemer takes complex issues and explains them in understandable ways, but think with the Russian invasion of Ukraine he may be oversimplifying. There is potential interplay between an opportunist Putin wanting to invade Ukraine for gain of power and a preventative war to stop Ukraine joining NATO. If Ukraine joined NATO that would make a opportunist attack from Putin harder (nigh on impossible) so he needs to attack before that happens, a preventative attack to achieve his opportunist desires. Also why would Ukraine want to join NATO, because maybe the fear of an opportunist attack from Putin. There is interplay between the two. Without the fear would Ukraine be so eager to join NATO. If Ukraine rejected NATO would Putin have seized upon that as his opportunity to attack a lone therefore in Putin's eyes vulnerable country.
The problem with the "just war" idea is the historical fact that no country/army has ever gone into a fight thinking that its cause was unjust!
Vietnam war? Iraq war? Any other war that US has ever been in? US soldiers knew very well that it was unjust. But it's called military service for a reason. They served to their country.
@@MrZlocktar No. That generation of soldiers (I knew some of them) wrapped themselves in the American flag ie patriotism. Same with the US military in Iraq. What America wants is just. I referred to armies and states. Don’t confuse the protesters with the soldiers and the political leaders ie the state. The 2 current wars are classic examples. The IDF and Hamas both think their cause is just. So do the Ukrainians and Russians. Even Ghengis Khan believed he had the Mandate of Heaven.
@@JulianMalins-qu9gn "What America wants is just.": its leaders are messing around with the whole world and acting deranged, out of their fear of communism. The US hegemony is the true cancer of our planet.
@@JulianMalins-qu9gnthat's by design, soldiers are specifically trained to never question authority no matter how absurd and illogical their demands and to shut off any critical thinking skills . Not all causes are equal some are more just than others . In the end tribalism will justify and rationalise any atrocities.
@@macro8236 That is correct though the argument did not find favour at Nuremburg. But my point is different. In the Christian world, the just war idea was invented to deal with the obvious fact that Christ taught that one should love one's neighbour and turn the other cheek etc. That commandment from Christ, unless modified, rather inhibited Christians from fighting - hence the "just" war solution to that theological problem. Whatever the reason, patriotism, training, duty, brainwashing, propaganda, the actual fighting troops always "believe" in their cause. In Orwell's 1984, Oceania, with its wondrous ally, Eurasia, could be happily fighting Eastasia on Monday and then on Tuesday, just as happily fighting Eurasia with its wondrous ally Eastasia. That is correct. Either all wars are just for both sides or no wars are just for either side because the issue of justice is both irrelevant and entirely subjective depending on your point of view (ie which side you are on as a soldier). So the only utility of the "just" war concept (other cultures/religions etc have a similar concept) in the Christian world is for Christians to persuade themselves that they are still Christian (despite Christ's clear commandments) because they are fighting a just war.
The confusion vanishes once we remember that every war is accompanied by war propaganda.
And the power of war propaganda is weaken given the development of communication technology of the last decades.
Except in China most Chinese only access Chinese media. I’ve lived in China over ten years, I know how it is here. Your point doesn’t apply to Chinese.
@@bathhatingcat8626 got it. I guess the conflicts the prof is here addressing pertains rather the west.
@@alexanderpeca7080 agree
A problem I have with lectures like this, is the assumption that political and military leaders will behave rationally. Once a nuclear war starts, and millions of your citizens have been fried to death, can anyone remain calm and rational?
this is a must-watch for understanding what's going on in the world today! The Professor's comments on Rwanda - although bleak - is a good framework in understanding why the US stood by and did nothing.
Cheerfully announcing that war is inevitable.
From what I'm remember, Mearsheimer said war is endemic in international politics, not war is inevitable. Moreover Mearsheimer from another lecture said that "security competition" is inevitable between great power, not great power war
In the current system, it is. International politics is anarchic because there’s no authority above the level of sovereign states. If there was such an authority, war might be eliminated or at least cabined to a point where the laws of war didn’t affect civilian populations. But this idea may be Utopian.
war is god
@@elliottcovert3796 Alternatively, if there were no states, no authority. But that's unlikely to happen at a global scale any time soon.
wonderful to see his passion for teaching!
Sure, if teaching is lying
If teaching is provoking wars?
2003 Iraq invasion?
1998 Serbia bombing?
2011 Libyan bombing attacks?
Meirsheimer arguement falls flat
Who defines the survival then? Would Brit’s consider not a survival empire after they lost so many colonies?
"It´s gonna be there forever."
In ancient times, people called that phenomenon a god.
“This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”
After reading Dr Antony Sutton’s three books on how the West supported the USSR. Also Solzhenitsyn’s speech on the topic that the West should stop economic support of the USSR. I came to the conclusion it was all theatrics.
what books ?
Only animals manifest empathy . This planet is in free fall.
Even a watch tells the correct time twice a day.
Politics is about power. Control and wealth are about power. Politics is about control and wealth. Joe/Jane Schmo can believe whatever they want.
Genius. There's so much gold in this lecture.
The last war in which the Chinese government was involved was the Sino-Vietnamese War, which took place from February 17, 1979, to March 16, 1979. Since 1980, the United States has been involved in numerous military engagements, including:
Lebanon (1982-1984)
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Gulf War (1990-1991)
Somalia (1992-1995)
Haiti (1994-1995)
Bosnian War (1992-1995)
Kosovo War (1999)
War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Iraq War (2003-2011)
Libya (2011)
War on ISIS (2014-present)
Yemen (2015-present)
Interventions in Syria (2014-present)
In China, there is no military-industrial complex influencing government decisions. Frequent wars can benefit the military-industrial complex but are not advantageous for taxpayers.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊
DANGEROUS WORLD GOING TO GET WORSE. ASK SWEDEN ABOUT THAT? ASK SWEDEN TO TELL THE TRUTH AS TO WHY THEY JOINED NATO?
Arctic resources
Scary China joining Russia. I recommend you to google translate some of the Chinese comments 😂 If China and India didn't produce so many cheap stuff for the west it would be so easy to engage those two overpopulated middle power poses against each other into disaperance 😅
For the $$$
@@RS-vu4nn Sweden does not have the "Resources" to develop the Arctic compare to....
@@Angelicaarchangelica “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” ― Sun-Tzu,
More wars were started by imposing one’s moral compass upon its adversaries.
Realist’s decision black box has one input-national interest, and more specifically, current national interest.
The three powers problem : chaos.
Your description of human war is not much different to how Lions behave in the sense of eliminating competition. It explains the focus on power. The realist sees that is the case. However human evolution compared to other animals was to develop intelligence and higher consciousness as our physical body was weak compared to other animals. So we have created this world full of technology and power. But sadly we are behaving just like animals. However our new found conscience is a power we must not ignore. This I would argue is the point of human life and we forgo all the energy and effort to get here if we ignore this and continue to behave like animals.
It is our moral duty to keep the flame inside us alive, the flame of truth and sincere consciousness.
@@cygnusghedepereu6885 interesting that Mearsheimer states he is a realist as there is an anarchic structure to nations yet his analysis of the Ukraine war is from a moral stance. Even in an unstructured system we can have a loving and just actions if the actors behave as one.
Well, we are animals. The most powerful of animals, but still animals. Our mistake is to believe that we're not.
An incredibly American viewpoint.
You listen to the Mersh!
A good military leader must also be a good politician.
Thanks to Russian military power, China's relatively massive productive force and a declared 'no limits' Sino/Russian partnership, American aspirations of becoming the hegemon in a 'unipolar' new world order are already dead in the water. The best political and economic course now for the U.S. is for wiser and more realistic future administrations to learn how to participate in and contribute to an emerging 'multipolar' new world order, with a view to being a 'regional hegemon' among others of similar regional status; including but not limited to China and Russia.
I with I could ask Professor Mearsheimer if he thinks in the case with either GAZA or Ukraine, the US Pentagon/State Dept is actually advising on targets to Israel and Ukraine??
You should check out his live sessions with Judge Napolitano, he appears there once per week or so to discuss mostly Ukraine and Gaza.
He's said in other lectures that he thinks the US is making a massive strategic mistake and should be focusing on China, rather than being pinned down in the current wars.
@@miguelangelrojas1947 he's right. Putin just visited Xi and both came up with a new world order proposal based on equal rights, depolitization of the United Nations and other international organizations. and they want india as a permanent security council lol. the western hegemony is over
The US weapon industry is rejoicing
Were already at war since 2 years, with subterfuge and undermining going on for the past 20 years...
We would have done the same thing if Russia was building bases in Mexico
100%
You guys are beyond help, they weren't building bases Ukraine. If there was any evidence of that Putin would show it to the world.
Russia is a dying empire with geographical security flaws, so it attacked.
If you don't realise this you just are simply a shmuck
Good example is/was 1962 Cuba Crisis
Silly, no. If mexico joins Brics, no one is going to invade, and recount stories of historical American borders
BS The US is not claiming that Mexico is or should belong to the US..
Only country who's survival is at risk Ukraine. Don't ever tell me that pre-Invasion Russia's survival was at stake. Pure BS.
Yes, but your perception is not what matters. What matters to a realist is that Russia DOES feel that way about Ukraine. Of course Russia's survival is not threatened in the short term, but long term? Imagine if Canada decided to ally with China, and built Chinese military bases on Canadian soil. Does that threaten the survival of the USA? Not immediately, but quite apart from the increased military threat, it would give a base for China to culturally subvert the entire West. Do you seriously think the USA would tolerate that kind of crap? Nope. Far from increasing Canadian autonomy, it would put Canada in immense danger. THAT is what happened to Ukraine.
Russia always needs excuses and feels proveked. We owe Russia nothing.
@@andyjones1982 Your whataboutism is invalid. USA is a good neighbor unlike Russia so why would Canada do it? Nato is an excuse. Ukraine is not even Nato country and had no chance to join. Putin invaded because he could invade non Nato Ukraine only. He wants Ukraine.
This is a very important talk and a summary. It reminds everyone of Hobbs philosophy and the "state of nature" that countries exist in.
I have a feeling that if the world went to war this guy would probably survive it.
As an overarching analysis, it stinks. As an insight into US strategic thinking, it is brilliant.
I think that as an overarching analysis, it's brilliant, and that the stinky US strategy we know and love fits well into it. It assumes that the liberal worldview most societies have adapted post-Cold War is not the only philosophy adhered to by governments, which is true, and has been true for most of history
It's an amoral analysis. I think that's a good thing.
The overarching analysis is human nature. Are you stupid?
What funds war? BANKING
What funds politics? BANKING
Follow the smoke and you’ll discover what’s causing the fire.
who owns BANKING?
BlackRock , Vanguard , State Street , AIG etc. :)
@@baton5 The quick answer:
A Hierarchy of private individuals that form the octopus head of the
Bank of International Settlements and the IMF. These two entities form the
World Bank, which controls The foreign exchange system (currencies), and funding of governments around the world.
@@baton5 Agustin Carstens seems to be a high up boss in the World Banking System.
From Ghana 🇬🇭
I like the direction of your Chanel. Keep up 🤝🏾
Why shouldn't we remove war from international politics? 300 years ago, during the Thirty Years' War, religion was a reason for war. Today, we wouldn't do that. Nor do we have any wars (as far as I know) between the states that belong to the so-called West, i.e. Australia, Japan, Europe, USA. For us in Europe, this seems to be the way out of the dilemma, a Pax Americana, because if we, humanity, don't get this problem under control, the problem will eliminate us. The abolition of war is the only way to survive, if we don't manage that, the war will wipe us out. Perhaps Mearsheimer should incorporate this into his realism - the aspect that no one will survive if his view is really correct.
Japan, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and France _each_ have larger economies than Russia. So what's with the "There are 3 great powers today: the US, China and Russia"? As much as I agree (or want to agree) with Mearsheimer's analysis of current events generally, I have always had an underlying feeling that he was making Russia out to be more significant than it is. Hearing him say that the US, China, and Russia are the world's 3 great powers basically confirms that. Sad to say, Mearsheimer is probably doing PR for Russia. He overplayed his hand, most likely on bad instructions.
Because its not all about economics, and even economics is not all about GDP. Russia's military industrial complex is outproducing all of them plus the USA combined, particularly in artillery shells. Japan, Germany, UK and France are unable to act independently of the USA, to the point of being embarrassing, and India does not have the technological edge that Russia has.
@@andyjones1982 According to Wikipedia, Russia's military expenditures in 2023 was $84 billion which is quite high for a country where the average yearly income is $15K (half of the US average). The US has slated $825 billion (10X that of Russia) for military in 2024. Russia is not outproducing. I'm no fan of American imperialism or our cruel support for Ukraine, but it's just a fact that Russia is not a leading power in the world. They have the bomb and, probably, a willingness to use it, but the glorious Soviet days are over. The US (and, of course Europe who depends on us) are treating Russia in a contemptuous way and you can't blame them for sticking up for their dignity. The US is really being an a**hole when it comes to Russia. That's what Mearsheimer should just come out and say, instead of BSing us about how great Russia is.
@@workingTchrproduction and budget are different things. Russia nowadays really outproduces all the west in shells. It doesn’t mean that it spends more overall, it means that it sends its money to war production (which is understandable). A lot of US’ budget goes to production, yes, but I bet even larger chunk goes to support all those overseas bases in supplies, salary, operations and maintenance costs.
The Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was only about 13% of the US GDP but it was still a super power and a peer competitor to the US. Economic and military might do not necessarily go Han in hand. The British military is no longer considered a tier 1, Germany is only rearming now after 70 years of basically being dormant and Japan doesn't even a military in the traditional sense and most importantly even if they are that powerful they all basically vassals of the US in all but name. So yes, Russia is amongst the most powerful great powers of the world with the capacity to be a significant opponent to the US led order. This is what Mr Mearsheimer is talking about.
@@abdullahialiyu2687 They got the bomb and they can destroy the world with it if they choose. If that makes them a "super power", I agree they are a super power.
Russia is a great power? Not sure about this statement.
Great power is a country which can afford to dictate the rules of the world order.
So far Russia has been pretty successful at doing exactly that: we will draw the borders as we please, not as what the UN or anyone else tells us.
@@traumvonhaitiUkraine should have declared neutrality. It's not as if the Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO until after 2014, when the country was torn apart by a violent ultranationalist coup.
@@hazelwray4184 Nice try ivan. Now go get your 15 rubles - you deserved it.
Lots of "from the outside looking in" perspectives here...however; the elephant in the room was completely overlooked: PROFITS! It is well known how hugely profitable war is for the weapons' manufacturers, how immensely profitable war is for those that come in and rebuild all that war destroyed. That would be a 3rd reason for war. Within the world's military-industrial complex exists more than sufficient monies to manipulate, entice, the political elites to bring about war.
Among the military-industrial complex exists a cadre of uber-wealthy who as a matter of principle insulate themselves, and their families so well that even catastrophic nuclear war's impact will at worst only graze them. They will continue, they will rebuild their industrial base, and all the necessary secondary-tertiary industry to support their base, themselves, their closest family and allies. These people do not care a whit about "civilization", about billions of lives lost..theirs won't be. Yet this class of people seems exempt from your arguments...sadly.
his theory is honest and precise, it should serve as warning not mantra, that's his virtue.
Master
Like what Lee kuan yew said' america is too young to understand how to be wise and thinking in the long term.
This time when the great empires fall they will take the planet with them.
what a great lecturer
hmmm sounds lik a war salesman i don't trust him , he makes war seem specifically "The nuclear option" exciting
Yeah, he is all about might makes right.
@@davidcottrell1308 But that is not a logical way to run sociaty , in my humble opinion this is why i believe this: 1950 to 2008 the old world and the old way but we did not live in a global socity , it's better to be loved than feared as fear only last so long till people get tired and just do not deal with you at all, EG. what would happen if the china russia iran exc..exc.. Sanction the US or worst just eliminate the relationship all together. does that sound practical you would have 12% of the global population for and 88% of the global pop against see what i mean its better to be loved than feared. Say what you want about china from what i see in the past 40 years they waisted alot of time showing thier population how to be engineers .. just saying we have to move causionsly at the end of the day we are all on the North American Continent would you like to send your kids to die?
The US wasn't wanting Japan just to surrender, they demanded *unconditional* surrender and that was because officials wanted "decisive victory". So if you were the Japanese, you would think that could mean the end of your state. The US also wanted to use their new tech as well. If Japan had been told we had succeeded in developing atomic bombs and were going to use them, there is a good chance they'd have unconditionally surrendered (or at least done so before Nagasaki) because surrender was already being hotly debated. They had their own atomic bomb program so were aware of the potential devastation. In some way Japan, was lucky because the Soviets were planning to invading Japan and took some land. The Soviets, unlike the US, would have not returned the land to Japan as the Russians have not returned any of the land they took.
Could you remind me, who is current governer of the most western russian province - Berlinska Oblast? Since the russians took it in 1945.
Russia is going to demand unconditional surrender in Ukraine.
There were Japanese who wanted to continue the war after the first bomb was dropped.
wrong. Japan did not surrender after the first bomb, so you theory goes up in smoke. You say Japan was conducting atomic bomb research. Really..never heard that one. Citation, please.
The bombs were dropped as a demonstration. Why and for who? Nothing to do with Japan at all. Soviet Russia ended the War that was designed to crush them (not proxy Germany) so that the Anglos could walk in and gather up Soviet Russian spoils. The Allies needed to do something that would give the Soviets something to think about. Hello Nukes. (Russia doesn't start Wars, Russia ends Wars.)
From a "realist perspective", should we not be concerned that if Russia took as much of Ukraine as it wants (i.e. all of it), they would then do the same thing they have done in Belarus - put nuclear weapons in an adjacent state and aim them at NATO. Russia has done this in Belarus not so much for nuclear security strategic reasons as to give them an excuse to send in a military force if an election went against them (as the last election did) on the grounds that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of those who oppose Russia. Russia would put nukes back into Ukraine precisely to give them the same excuse to remove a government they couldn't rely on to be loyal. The 1991 agreement that removed nuclear weapons in exchange for sovereign independence and security guarantees would have been completely reversed - and NATO would face an increased threat. I do not support NATO putting nukes in Ukraine, but if Putin feels Russia's very survival is threatened by Ukraine joining NATO, why shouldn't NATO feel equally threatened by a Russian takeover of former Soviet Republics?
It's too hard and unrealistic to distinguish a preemptive war or preventive war, how to define a situation when missiles are fully loaded and targeted around your borders. As to the Ukraine war, someone admitted he thought it's a civil war in the interview
西方人习惯从原罪论上推断别人的意图，认为只要自己做过别人就一样也会这么做。但是中国人的哲学并不是这样，我不想这么做但是你再三逼迫我的话~那我只能不得不这么做了，所以才有了中印和中越这两次快速结束的局部非占领性质的战争。同样的，如果美国不断地用原罪论推断已经具备战争能力的中国一定会发动什么战争来彰显权威，并且根据这个论断不停地挑衅和逼迫中国不得不用武力来解决问题，那么中国也会准备好与之对应的确保能战胜你的实力来回应你的挑衅，打一场我们认为合适的战争让你见识到中国的恐怖，让你后悔自己为什么要不停挑衅中国（就像你们在朝鲜经历过的一样）。相信英语区的朋友们都看过成龙和李小龙的电影，没错~他们的电影就是东方对使用武力的经典哲学表达，我们会一忍再忍直到忍无可忍的时候就会拼尽全力确保我们一定会战胜，最终我们中国人民还是希望全世界的人民都能越来越相互理解并且避免战争悲剧，我们也和你们一样不希望有一天在战场上对任何人开枪，不论对方是什么人种与肤色的人。
If you interested about Mearsheimer's paper for this lecture, you can download the paper here ndisc.nd.edu/assets/554790/01_30_2024_john_mearsheimers_read_ahead_war_international_politics.january_30_2024.pdf
This is how deterrence works. It is highly unpleasant but still a lot more humane, economical and efficient than actually fighting an actual war.
Even more efficient would be diplomacy e.g. via the UN.
你們跟大多數美國人犯的是一樣的錯誤：覺得自己方對的。美國人有american exceptionalism，中國人則有chinese exceptionalism。事實上你們根本就半斤八兩。
@@user-bf9ur1hq6v 中国人坚持的是和平共处五项原则，又一个典型的立足于原罪论思维的推断，傲慢且幼稚。
@@user-sy4ep1np7w 中國人自稱的"和平"就如同西方人自吹自擂的民主自由價值一樣虛偽可笑又骯髒，一派謊言
5:58 War is an extension of the heart that resembles and embodies the fires and chambers of the heart of mankind.
If you live long enough you will see it happen !
32:22
"We are all moral and have a moral compass"
But do they all point in the same direction? Is all morality the same? Obviously not!
If you're going to argue for morality, you need to define the morality you're arguing for and against.
I keep thinking Lewis black is talking.
Better 3 polar than bipolar.
War should not be the dominating factor in international affairs. Prof. Mearsheimer is wrong in his perspective.
I don't think he said that. He said that there always a danger of war in the background. Morality, economic considerations, and international law normally deter war, but when survival is threatened, there is danger of war. Survival trumps morality, economics and law. So it is necessary to be very cautious about threatening another nation's survival.
@@johnwsimpson3153 Prof. Sachs says the same thing about Mearsheimer who is always talking big power adversarial relationships. China wants to compete with the U.S. but it doesn’t want war with the U.S.
It is, and countries and alliances are continously "tested".
- For weakness
...
Once in ..."special operation" escalate...
@@agabrielian And China and the US want to compete with each other on economics and morality, and according to international law. Those are the primary factors. War would be the ultimate factor if one threatens the other's survival. And since both are nuclear powers, war between them would be suicidal, so they don't threaten each other's survival.
@@johnwsimpson3153 Well, the US doesn't want to just compete economically with China. It wants to sanction China and prevent it from competing with the US. It cannot deal with fair competition. The US just is not capable of competing with China. Everything that the US has tried has backfired. So, it wants to bully China.
Can you live without war !!???
Great presentation Prof. John J Measheimer .
Russian attack on Ukraine was only preemptive. Preemptive because this war is in much bigger context than Ukraine and Russia themselves. I am pretty sure that if Russia was stayed silent and allowed Ukraine to enter NATO, when time is right, NATO would attack Russia.
Ukraine wasn't supposed to attack Russia, they were supposed to provoke them. Defensive lines in Donbass are proof of that because defensive lines are used for defence, not for attack.
They needed to provoke Russia (by attacking Russian people in Donbass) to enter the war and Ukrainan job was only to withstand until economic sanctions do their job and destroy Russia. That was plan and there was no plan B. Everything we are looking today is erratic behaviour of colective west because they were 100% sure that sanctions would break Russian economy and consequently Russian government.
You are missing few points here. War in Ukraine started not because of Ukraine, but because Russia attacked them and took over their teritory so its obvious that Ukraine would take it back at any point possible. Its not „Russian people on Donbas”. Its Russian army and traitors. Second point is that its not possible for NATO to attack Russia because in western countries it would provoke mass protest and here, voice of people matters and politicians would immediately loose their power if they would try this because noone here wants any war. We want to work, learn, travel, spend a good time, not fight in the trenches. The first one who would say „lets attack Russia” would be out of business forever. And the last one. Russia even if has less conventinal and economical capabilities than NATO is still a nuclear power so we are not suicidal.
@@user-nx3zm3ln7m An unjust but deliberate undemocratic coup (remember the cookies?), eight years, two Minsk agreements, fourteen thousand Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens murdered and a Ukrainian force building up to strike within days. Russia and innocent Ukrainian citizens were being abused by NATO/Ukraine for years despite diplomatic efforts on the RF side. At the end and only at the end, RF struck first when conflict was building and inevitable. (If conflict is inevitable, strike first, suddenly and hard). People choose to ignore that Sevastopol/Crimea is essentially Russian and RF's warm water port. Ukraine is being used as NATO's foil. The attack is on Russia, by NATO, thru Ukraine. It is not Ukraine vs RF. It strikes me that it is you that is missing a few points here
@@user-nx3zm3ln7m The goal was to use your country as scapegoat in order to impose sanction war against Russia to defeat it economically. Your president which is soon will be considered as usurper by international law btw (after 20th May 2024) - has taunted Russia on 19 February of 2022 when he announced that Ukraine will be running nuclear program to get weapons against Russia. For Russia that was the last fucking straw. Putin admitted that this was incredibly stupid and dangerous announcement in the same day. And then war started. Your country was supposed to drop a gauntlet, provoke Russia to war by basically forcing Russia to a wall by a nuclear program announcement leaving for Russia no choice but to immediately start invasion and all that was planned in order to impose the most pathetic 16,000 sanctions pack which were so badly though out and so poorly implemented that Russia is now number 5 economy of the world even surpassing Germany. And that is happening during war against 52 countries. And these are numbers according to Lloyd Austin's words. 32 NATO countries and 52 countries in total are allied in a military coalition against Russia in a war that has been since unanimously called as
THE WAR TO THE LAST UKRAINIAN LEFT STANDING
What you are saying is just bs russian propaganda. Nobody in their right mind would attack a country with 6,600 nukes.
@@user-nx3zm3ln7m There is no Ukraine after february 2014. At least no independent Ukraine. On so called "Maidan revolution" CIA took thier sovereignty and put it into US weapon against Russia. To be clear, it started in 2004 with "orange revolution" but it wasn't successful.
Everything after 2014 are just consequences of reckless post-imperial mindset of United States.
And no, voice of people matters almost nothing, you just have illusion of being asked for something.
Prof Mearstheheimer does not bring to fore the actual arguments presented by Russia when initiating this war, which is very sad. Russia invoked s. 51 of the UN Charter, as intervening in Donbas, which was about to be invaded by Ukrainian army, already mobilized in the area and already subjecting the two separatist areas with increased shelling, as reported by the OECD observers in the area. Same case as US / NATO made when invading Serbia in 1999, avoiding the mass killing of ethnic Russians in Donbas.
Yes, it's a pity that the ethnic aspect has been suppressed in the Western media and by Western academics. It was just so annoying at the start of the conflict when CNN kept interviewing Russian-speaking Ukrainians who nevertheless "support Zelensky" because "they are Ukrainians". This was a form of lying by omission because they simply brushed over the fact that while some Russophones do self-identify as Ukrainians, there are also a large number (10-15 million) who see themselves as ethnic Russians. This kind of intentional muddying of the waters by CNN and the BBC has certainly not helped people in the West to understand this key aspect of the conflict.
This lecture is not focused exclusively on Russian decision to attack Ukraine, it's focus more generally about war in international politics and it's different form based on realist perspective and just war theory
I am concerned that climate change / global heating is going to be its own extra cuase of wars in the future as resources start to dwindle due to cliames that have become too unstable and warm to sustain plants and animals, including us.
The 'war is coming' plastered on the title page doesnt seem to reflect his message. 'War is an ever-present possibility and may indeed come at some point in the future in a multipolar world' seems better.
It's click-baitey and unnuanced, but it's not entirely wrong. War is inevitable, also in a multipolar world.
@@ximono Please expand at great length
@@mikeharbour6345 I'd rather not :) I agree with the last part of your comment.