A lot of people misunderstand "Might makes right." They think it means "Whoever is strongest is in the right." But that's not what it means. Might makes right means, whoever is the strongest makes the rules and shapes the lens through which everything is viewed.
Right or wrong, power carries the day. All must be as powerful as reasonably possible to protect their country, citizens and interests. Pie in the sky, naive, liberal perspectives, ALWAYS ends in conflict.
Law and order, legality, is a power, enforced by the police within a country. Humankind took this step forward at national level and avoids anarchy or unchecked crime. It would take a paradigm shift, but who's to say the world one future time might not take that step, otherwise staring annihilation in the face. The world is too small, the weapons now too destructive, to go on with wars thousands of years into the future.
Joseph. As heirs to the mongols rule of power, the Russians don't need to listen to Mearsheimer for wasn't the quote Genghis Khan's that if you can't defend it, you dont deserve it? Something like that. However people do defend what is theirs even in the face of seemingly overwhelming power. So how does that sit with you, you fascist?
Who is in charge in Afghanistan? Starts with T, ends with ALIBAN. Power, nothing successfully fails quite like it. The worlds greatest superpower, the USA hasn't won a war since WWII. And it needed help with that one. History, a great teacher if we only choose to learn from it.
Just make it the might the might of law. Might is not right in my country, individual power is held in check, the might is in democratic majority and enforcement of what is right by law.
@@davidhowse884 Always has been, always will be. Democratic majorities is a form of tyrannical leadership. Where 51% tell 49% how to live. In my country, we are a constitutional republic… as our forefathers intended it to be. Unfortunately our laws haven’t been enforced… sometimes selectively enforced for the last 30 years.
Joe is simply another fascist feeling that now is their time again. Mearsheimer fits into this perfectly. He's a former student at West Point and that flag draped flagpole has well and truly been shoved up his evacuation door.
@@davidhowse884The law only applies to the poor. Power is only checked by a more powerful faction. Democracy cannot exist without capitalism. Democracy is everywhere and always the rule of money.
@@davidhowse884 Might IS right in your country. In ALL countries. If you disagree, I challenge you to choose a law of your preference and break it. See what the state does to you afterwards. The State will very likely bring it's might down upon you to remind you of that.
Only sovereign ones. Colonies and puppet states do not enforce their interests, like Germany, Japan or Iraq they may sometimes invoke tough rhetoric, but nothing ever comes out of it.
Many people miss that realists and neorealists often see their assumptions, systems, and theories of international politics as simple fact qua reality (i.e., the anarchic international environment, methodological individualism and rational choice, the state as a the primary actor). This is what the neorealists cite as the conditions for the security dilemma (as expanded upon and popularized by Robert Jervis), "self-help anarchy" (as theorized by Kenneth Waltz), and great power politics (a recurring phenomenon often cited by Mearsheimer). However, they do not revel in this reality. They do not celebrate the possibility of- if not propensity for war. They simply understand war (if enacted successfully) to be the most drastic yet most immediate, aggressive, and effective (albeit cost inefficient) means of achieving an end, which is invariably the maintenance and expansion of power. Again, *this does not mean that (neo)realists are warhawks or pro-war.* They are simply observing, describing, and subsequently explaining the world around them. Of course, this has garnered considerable critique from constructivists and other non-rationalists.
@@tjrrind1452Again, because realism doesn't account for ideology, it's a failure. History is full of events that were driven by ideology. All of which realism fails to explain.
Einstein argued that there should be a higher power if the world is to live in peace. Yes, presently the UN has been sidelined, has been made irrelevant when it comes to its primary purpose of "preventing the scourge of war". Imo the Un needs reform, the Security Council is no longer fit for purpose, and I think this century will be a century of war and Russia wants a return to the age of empires. Within a nation, the use of law, legal procedures, enforcement of legal procedures, counters the otherwise alternative of anarchy. Einstein argued that the world should take this step at a global level. Maybe a disastrous nuclear war could push the world this step further, or just a century of wars could lead to the world being sick of wars and prepared to reform the UN or a similar body to follow "what is right" instead of "might is right". It has been achieved at national level, I believe humankind can make the paradigm shift at global level, but it might be centuries away. I do not believe war is a constant state of humankind, cultural evolution is a feature of humankind. Einstein was right, just the times were not right.
Having just read your statement I can only respond that if the 5 permanent UN members really wanted to reform the UN system they would have come to some kind of agreement & implemented it...Oppenheimer, Einstein and others understood the dangers of even a limited war using these weapons but they were told to get stuffed and here we are...
@davidhowse884 I also do not believe war is a constant state of humankind, and that cultural evolution is a feature of humankind. I personally believe annual general elections will be our next great leap forward - czcams.com/video/y1CFomzFZyI/video.html - happy to discuss further.
@@davidtehr2993 I watched your link. It looks somewhat national rather than international. I'm all for a country trying out different approaches to democracy, leading to evaluations and evidence. The world is on a pendulum swing away from democracy right now, even in the USA there is a risk of going down the dictatorial route. Back to the theme of peace and war, I don't see dictatorships wanting to try democracy of any form, unless countries collapse economically. The dictators and elites get very personally wealthy from autocracies. Putin is rumoured to be the world's richest man.
"Security Council is no longer fit for purpose". Security Council comprises of the states with the majority of the military power. The general assembly is the talking shop. The reason for the real politic nature of the UN is the perceived failure of the league of nations. If you had a single world government with actual power you would have created a nightmare not a dream. The individual would be defenseless against such power. Be careful what you wish for!
Prof. John Mearsheimer used concepts of Realism versus Liberalism. As the "Realism" is concerned for facts and rejection of impractical ideas, the "Liberalism" is a political philosophy based in belief in progress and the essential goodness of the human race. But from history we know that there are cases where we can't believe in the essential goodness of a ruling class of a state, and we need more facts to make a right decision or to reject an impractical idea. And we may conclude that in a non perfect world there are not perfect solutions.
I don't see Realism Vs Liberalism. Most people understand the reality but want things to change. So to me it's liberalism on top of realism. If you're a hardcore realist you're either a psychopath or you are useless to make the world better.
It does apply on an individual basis, but there is nothing that prevents individuals from creating alliances/coalitions to protect themselves. A state is a gang. And within each state are gangs(factions/parties).
What's missing here is the possibility that democracies and authoritarian states may define and pursue power in different ways. Building power through strategic and economic alliances has been more effective and sustainable than relying exclusively or primarily on a nation's own internal economic and military strength.
The conflict between democracy and authoritarian is a root problem. Authoritarians suppress, have the existential fear of the masses revolting. Authoritarians would prefer there were no democracies giving people the idea that things could be fairer.
As a (classic) Liberal, I don't agree with Democratic Peace Theory. I also don't agree that democracy is the opposite of authoritarianism. Countries with liberalized markets are far LESS likely to go to war because of their vested economic interest, but they still can. My problem with realists is that they have their "grand theory of everything" and work backwards from there. They don't want to look at the nuances of conflicts, how they started, or why in some cases they DIDN'T start, and when they have tonsee the nuances, they will do mental gymnastics to get to why it's still about security.
I've listened to John M. go into nuance and historical context all the time. You might be looking for historians. Besides, wars are won based on strength, logistics and industrial capacity not nuance.
You make a great point on democracy not being the opposite of authoritarianism - that is what far too many in the West don't understand. Any form of government, whether it is a democracy, dictatorship or something else, has the capacity to engage in authoritarian actions. One of the grave dangers of seeing the two as opposites is that it makes it impossible for people to conceive of democratic governments being authoritarian - i.e. acting in authoritarian ways - when in fact they often are just that.
Might may not be right but it can and will do whatever it likes; liberals just hope what the mighty like doesn't involve taking everything from them. It's OK being liberal when you also have the might to protect yourself. Risky if you don't.
@@rickrudd He could not be more wrong on all points. That's how the downward spiral into societal collapse and dystopia begins. Which two free liberal democracies have gone to war against each other? Does the English vs the Irish count? Remember America is not really a free liberal democracy, it is a republic, a conservative authoritarian one. Tyrannies devour themselves from within. The USSR ate itself and the USA is doing the same. Without a course correction the USA will be overtaken by its nearest rivals, China or India, in only a few decades. Military and economic power does you no good if you are a divided nation, standing alone against the world. If we learned anything from WWII, it's that no nation on its own is stronger than the rest. People who call themselves realists generally aren't, much like people who brag about their high IQ, who usually aren't that smart. The Nazis considered themselves realists, their actions driven by a cold, pragmatic, flawless logic, and they failed. It was their only defence at the Nuremberg trials, the world said "NOPE," and we marched them off to prison or the gallows. We get the lowest moral and ethical standards we are willing to accept. We must strive to improve the world to become the one we wish for, or we perish. No do overs.
And how do you suppose those morals and ethics are going to be enforced or adhered to without any force of power? Covenants without swords are but words.
My point was that regardless of the Allies fighting the Germans during WW II, we should NOT have including "Uncle Joe" as an ally. As well, once the Allies had defeated the Germans, we should have rearmed them and dealt with the communists.@@ThrillaWhale
Mearsheimer looks and speaks like one of those old-timers you'd find riding Jack Nicholson's bus in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next": czcams.com/video/OXrcDonY-B8/video.htmlsi=qTgQHwpLSD1Ub7Bl
@@davidhowse884 Definitely No. Tim is what I would say is an opportunistic Semi Neo Con / Neo Liberal. And he is not far more scholarly. Professors like John , Samuel Huntington , Kissinger , Kennan , etc etc is way way far ahead than Tim. Granted he is an Oxbridge Boy . But as we can see since the Oct 7 Israel / Hamas conflict.. a lot of intellectuals from Top Ivys and Oxbridges are becoming technically dense. Allowing emotions to create a veil on your faculties makes you banal 90% of the time.
@@chosk80 That's your world view. Remember in 2015 Mearsheimer told people in Chicago that Russia would not invade Ukraine. Timothy Snyder said long before the war Russia would invade Ukraine. Nothing opportunistic about making correct predictions. Putins economic adviser from around 2003 says Putin was planning to invade Ukraine from as far back as 2003. Fancy name calling mean nothing. Correct assessments tell a lot. Mearsheimer I listened to in earlier years. Imo now he is a charlatan.
I also disagree, not much said that isn't obvious and if its only a question of power and not ethics then why bother discouraging imperialists. I heard Mearsheimer defending Russia on the grounds that attacking Ukraine was in its best interests, but can make the same argument about smaller states uniting to defend themselves as in NATO or West providing arms to Ukraine. In other words "realism" explains everything and nothing and disregards that as well as the power to allow people to do things you also have a choice as to what you want to do. Have you noticed that the common excuse for doing evil is it was necessary and I had no choice.
Ok let's stick with realism as you suggest. Let's see what a classic of the realism - Makiaveli has to say. I quote from a memory - Ya can't be neutral if one kingdom wages war on another because after the war winner and loser will look at you with suspicion. You have to pick a side, and if it is much stronger state staking smaller you pick a side of the week. You don't know what the much stronger state will do after it will conquer a smaller one. So if it comes after you next at least you will have where to hide. (Not exact but something like that) So to apply it to today's situation we need to pick sides and support Ukraine in war waged by Russia even by Makiavelyan realism not just by "liberal ideals"
It is interesting, but not surprising. The biological default of humans is the tribe. Living in huge numbers requires socialisation, culture law and order. Ants, termites etc biological default is in millions. They get on very well with each quite naturally.
@@henrylicious: Then how do you explain Islam? It has not evolved since the 7th century, yet it has claimed 25% of the World's population to date - isn't that a valid contradiction?!!
Professor Mearsheimer's explanation suggests that Britain's last war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands was an example of a "realist" response entailing an "immoral" strategy.
@@cosimocub You are correct that the Falklands were never Argentine. And when France, a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, became the first country to establish a colony there in 1764, the Falklands were totally empty of native inhabitants. The British, also a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, first “landed” on the Falklands the following year (1765), “claimed” all the islands as theirs, but did not establish a colony in the Falklands until 1766. Spain, also a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, first “landed” in Argentina in 1516 but did not establish a colony in what is today Buenos Aires until 1580. Fast forward 236 years and Argentina “claimed” its independence from Spain in 1816. I mention all of the history because I’m guessing that you understood that I was implying that the Falklands once belonged to Argentina (which I did not imply), but also that you wanted me to know 1) that you agree with Professor Mearsheimer that Britain, like all nation states, is a “realist” country (which it is) and 2) that you believe that when applied to the question of who owns the Falkland Islands, Britain has a right to claim ownership of the Falklands because the "realist" application of the “finders keepers, losers weepers” idiom is not an “immoral strategy". And yet, me guessing all of that about you is something you could "realistically" interpret as me suggesting that you believe that “might makes right”. Do you? (By the way, I am from the United States (you know, from what were once 13 British colonies), not from Argentina, although I am a Hispanic.)
Captain John Strong, in 1690, landed on the Falklands, just ahead of the French in 1701. The people of that island are British and desire to remain so @@pncicitap2519
@@pncicitap2519 Liberating the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation was a moral response to an immoral act by Argentina to protect the Falkland Islander's freedom and way of life. We had not believed that Argentina would take the islands by force but once they had committed that outrage, we had to respond militarily and retake them. Fortunately we were able to do so and the added bonus was that the military junta in Argentina lost power. The sad and ridiculous thing is that Argentina still doesn't accept that they have no rightful claim to the Falkland islands 400 miles from their shore that they have never owned.
The reality is that because the "realist" prevailed the Americans did not join in WW1 until 1916 2yrs in and WW2 until 1941, prolonging the conflict. You have to do the right thing not just the "real" thing.Realpolitik is short term vision.
This makes a horrifying point: Do we realize how pathetic the US was in WW2 that it needed the biggest country in the world to defeat a country roughly the size of Texas? And if the US was so mighty in WW2 and couldn't crush Nazi Germany on its own, what have we to think about the US now, weaker than it was in WW2, in the event of an open confrontation with its once Sovie ally?
In 1916, in the middle of WWI, Australia had a referendum on whether to send conscripts to fight in Europe. It failed, the majority voted No. The referendum was repeated in 1917, the result was the same. These referendums are sort of taboo, they never get mentioned by politicians or in the media, 100th anniversary in 2016 was completely ignored. In 1999 we had another referendum, on adding a preamble to the constitution. The proposed text was terrible, it promoted and glorified war. This referendum failed in all states and territories (Aus has 6 states and 2 territories). Perhaps real democracies don't go to war.
Yes, real democracies like Australian allow other to fight their wars for them. Like generously allow the US to protect their beautiful country from the Japanese.
Maybe, but most democracies around the world elect representatives invested with the power to decide on their behalf, only a few places like Switzerland have regular referendums.
The defense of realism often comes from the pursuit of sectional interests, and then excused with the argument that morality is relative to the individual or circumstance involved. However, Morals are never relative... Good is good, evil is evil. And the simple way to judge the good and evil of an action is if you would want the same action done to you and your children. That is the golden rule of Christian Matthew 7:12, Islamic Hadith I3 and Kantian universal maxim. So it is very easy to claim to be a realist until your children are at the receiving end of the realistic policy or action that one excuses as realistic.
A realist will take better actions to protect himself and his family from the recieving end... your average "moralist" will hope that people will agree with his morality, that the state will protect him etc... its funny that you try to debunk realism by finding few flaws but then fail to realize that your view is even more flawed because its not even up to you but other people. Besides morality is very flexible due to moral dilemmas.
True but having the means is not the only consideration, you have to decide what you want to do with the violence. That's why Mearsheimer's explanations are inadequate.
Morals are always relative. As such might is always right. The corollary of this is that people naturally self interested and have in group preference. Once you come to this conclusion you understand why others can have in group preferences but not white males.
Good and evil are poles or at least regions on a spectrum, but what is good? What is evil? And above these, who has the knowledge to put good apart from evil and evil apart from good? We all have different cultural backgrounds. We are all biased and there is none above us all to be trustworthy enough to put good apart from evil unless we DO consider there is Something or Someone Who knows all of our strugles. With the science of today all by itself we cannot go any further than what we can observe and control, but it cannot tell if there is Something or Someone outside of our control. Here we find out why religions exist and will keep existing for a very long time and also why we may never agree as a whole on realism vs liberalism. A bit off-topic, liberalism seems to claim that the problem of morality is ours to solve while realism is more interested in how things are and will be than in how they should be. It is really interesting how liberalism is the one which cannot prove its point through experiments just like religions despite liberalism being mindful about isolating the state from religions.
One gets the feeling that Mearsheimer is frustrated that the Cold War ended and the bilateral 'balance of terror' ended. In his mind the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not a good thing.
Well there are also people human beings to consider. So Mearsheimer would think it fine for the empire to oppress and subjugate the lesser citizens. How many millions of Ukrainians were deliberately killed by Russians (of USSR)? How many artists and intellectuals were killed, disappeared, imprisoned, deported for thinking independently? Ditto citizens of other neighbouring Soviet Block regions. Right now the war crimes, the tortures, the mass destruction of of civilian Russian speaking homes all for a lie and pretext of defending Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine. Imo Mearsheimer is morally bankrupt to be defending Russian empire as a good thing. If he were around centuries ago he would be arguing the British Empire was a good thing and the US should accept that and not fight for independence.
@@thehturt5480 No, only the holder of a MA degree in political science specializing in Cold War studies, so I kinda understand the mentality. Remember the existence of the USSR gave the realists a level of global stability that made the realists comefortable, and it breakup / new unipolar world nervous.
John … again disappointed in where you appear to be now headed, dare I point out, in the service of transparency and perspective, that Mearsheimer is actually Jewish … and on the basis of his writings and his endorsements of the views of like-minded others (see the controversy surrounding his endorsement, on its dust jacket, of Gilad Atzmon’s openly antisemitic “The Wandering Who”) … demonstrably of an American East Coast radical Left diaspora aggressively secular self-loathing, anti-Israel, conspiratorial persuasion …
I would think a lot of liberals isn’t leaders - or see them as such. For them is not a big issue to say that the correct thing is the loosing path. Leader can’t really do that
He seems to be mearly describing the realist viewpoint and contrasting it with the liberal democratic viewpoint, he doesn't seem to be saying that it is how we should always strive to have our government to always be looking at every problem we come across as needing purely realist policy prescriptions. He seems to be saying realist analysis is a tool in our toolbelt, the libdem veiwpoint is another tool. They are both valid, but they have weaknesses.
Also it is often a good thing to look at something from a morally neutral perspective to see how it works. When you know how something works, you have a better idea of it's limitations and potential points of failure.
Because of these things, I get the feeling that your judgment of this individual is plausibly unfounded at least based on this clip. We don't have any good evidence of you claim unless I'm missing something.
@@matthewrawlings1284don't bother, the woke brain can't comprehend the fact the there's a certain logic to how things play out in the real world. They all live in fairytale land and when the real world comes knocking they act shocked asking how could something like this ever happen? Guess 20 years of signs were not enough to tip them off 😂
I am all about realism, btw. And realism suggests that West has all the necessary leverage to drive Russia to pre-February 2014 state, but it lacks political will to do that. Which is something we should reflect upon.
It's really underwhelming. The way of thinking Prof. Mearsheimer presents is not realism but nihilism. He's been harping on about it for at east 25 years. I cannot see the reason for giving him a platform on this outstanding channel.
I realize im not a realist after watching this video. I live in Canada and our country is not focused on power as a foreign policy alone. In fact, we largely dismiss power as a reason to do things and we focus instead on economy and health
A realist type will say that it is so (or seems so), because Canda is under the protection of USA sphere of influence. Functionally it is like another state inside the US.
The power of "The West" is money. To not pursue economic growth is suicide. Economic growth for the sake of economic growth is why there is mass-immigration, growing inequality, among other things. Canada is just as realist as everyone else. They are just a small country next to a gorilla.
@@sasgayableCanada does not seek power. We lost already to the US. Instead, we assume the US will never attack us and back us up. We know that we don’t need to be concerned with power
It is not that simple. We see it in Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and other major US failures. It is not just might, otherwise the strongest physically and dumbest people would have been on top of every human hierarchy. And it is not the case. You need not just might, but also reasoning, wisdom, justice and above all - goodness, spiritual nobility. Because, those who do not have God on their side will lose, no matter anything else. The US foreign policy is mainly dictated by arrogance and presumed might. We see the results....
I think he's talking about how power politics work in a global sense - that states compete for power. He is not arguing that it is good in any way. Just that it is the reality. And yes the US prioritises it's use of hard power quite often at the cost of soft power
Well, imagine a gang of caves men attacking a person who has a pistol. Might isn't just raw power the context of "Might makes right", but the sum of all the qualities that helped some people reach a point in technology, order, discipline and also numbers among many other things.
@@Hardcore_Remixer still not enough. There are too many examples in human history, when the more powerful does not always win. Life cannot be oversimplified, neither can politics.
@@lucasw7178 that still ain't true. Different countries have different doctrines and end goals. If you look at USA, that might be true (and it ain't working very well). But to say all do the same - this is wrong.
интересно рассуждает, про этику и мораль! а как в его голове стыкуется, помощь сша рейху, накачка его деньгами, продажа нефти германии? воюем против гитлера и в тоже время продаем ему бензин для танков и самолетов!
Soviet propaganda dies hard, which might be partly due to the fact that now it is picked by Putin. In reality, Soviet Union was Germany’s best ally from August 1939 and facilitation of starting WWII by joint invasion of Poland until June 1941. Soviet Union fueled German conquest of Western Europe by willing supplies of oil and raw materials. As for the US, it indeed provided supplies, but to the Soviet Union. Without them USRR would have collapsed, at least Stalin thought so.
Mearsheimer trying to claw back his relevance, before he passes from old age. If he had not been so thorougly debunked during the last two years he could simply enjoy his retirement.
Realism does not mean "might makes right". Any objective assessment of might would lead one to conclude that physics and geophysics are the mightiest forces we're dealing with. What realists are sensitive to is power. They're bullies and petty authoritarians. They'll bully each other into oblivion like dumb high schoolers. Which is why we don't like realists in charge. We like people that know how to use words to solve problems.
@@alanrobertson9790 The suggestion that words can solve problems when they often create them with the ambiguities in interpreting and applying DEI.I like Thomas Sowell's observation that the deadly sin of envy is now equated with social justice.
@@abazely2743 I also have objections to kangaroo courts in hr departments. Did sowell make the case that corporations are acting like sovereign states at this point? No, because then you'd also have to admit you're living in a corporate autocracy. You're going to need words to actually figure out how to govern, or really be left responsible for anything. Clearly not something you're mentally prepared for. Are you an actual adult? Just wondering.
No, realism, as used in this international politics Mearsheimer sense, is actually a kind of flight from complexity. It means sticking ones head into the sand to try to help oneself succeed in an effort of make-believe -- the effort to pretend that certain causally significant dimensions of reality don't exist.
His argument of democracy vs realism is funny because since ww2 Europe has been enjoying relative peace between the democracies while lowering military commitments. So he has more than 80 years of proof that the democratic theory has been working, but is still arguing for the realist perspective that Russia, Iran and China are operating on. In either case, when facing dictatorships armed to their teeth and who use a realist approach, there is no way a western diplomatic perspective can work. You can only answer a might is right mentality with even more might.
Military commitments in Europe were lowered only 30-40 years ago. The 40-50 years before that was the Cold War, which involved massive military commitments in Europe facing off with each other.
Both Yes and No Yes we have been living in peace in Europe for 80 years, but that is mostly because of two things. 1. Almost all countries in Europe are part of the same military alliance so it makes no sense to fight eachother. 2. Our memory of WW2 is still part of our collective memory so there is no reason to start fighting again. We know where it lead. So Mearsheimer is right. Might makes right on the international stage. Any nation in the West if they broke with NATO and attacked a neighbor would be attacked by all the West including the US. Europe and the US have used their hard power to coerce/threaten not Western countries for decades. That is might make right in action.
Western world has a higher power. It is called US. That's exactly what Mearsheimer is talking about. The world overall doesn't has a higher authority they can turn to. UN doesn't work. US on another hand does keep order in its sphere of influence. Only europeans think that europeans are independent.
John, because you are constantly bringing Professor Mearsheimer on as a guest, I'm unsubscribing. He is a vector of poisonous misinformation and hate. There is no excuse for him or for you to have him on so often. You do not press him on his views adequately and you haven't had Douglas Murray to challenge him either.
Oh God. Critiquing u.s. foreign policy doesn't equal support. I suppose you would have called people who were against the 2nd Iraq war "Saddam apologists". Even though that war was a disaster.
@@henryliciousIraqi war was not a disaster. In case you forget, the allies won with minimal casualties. What followed was a series of misguided steps due to misreading of the mood in Iraqi society and general wishful thinking about prospects of self rule in third world country.
@@henrylicious Odd how the irrational Anti-American biases comes out in your post as you seek to cover up Mearsheimer's clear preference for Russian fascism! And how strange it is that for a hard-core leftist like yourself that in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence of the torture chambers of the Saddam regime you are still trying to make excuses for it, as per your expression " the war was a disaster. " In 2024 with Iraq being a democracy, that war was not a disaster. It eventually gave those people freedom - a freedom Mearsheimer wants denied to the people of Ukraine and Russia -------- comrade!
A lot of people misunderstand "Might makes right." They think it means "Whoever is strongest is in the right." But that's not what it means. Might makes right means, whoever is the strongest makes the rules and shapes the lens through which everything is viewed.
Hence the importance of the value of: freedom of expression and of association.
You’re saying the same thing, but using different words
Dreamer vs doer, both needed, but too few middle ground, thanks To social media‘s feeds.
Right or wrong, power carries the day. All must be as powerful as reasonably possible to protect their country, citizens and interests. Pie in the sky, naive, liberal perspectives, ALWAYS ends in conflict.
Who's power, their power is your liability
Law and order, legality, is a power, enforced by the police within a country. Humankind took this step forward at national level and avoids anarchy or unchecked crime.
It would take a paradigm shift, but who's to say the world one future time might not take that step, otherwise staring annihilation in the face. The world is too small, the weapons now too destructive, to go on with wars thousands of years into the future.
Joseph. As heirs to the mongols rule of power, the Russians don't need to listen to Mearsheimer for wasn't the quote Genghis Khan's that if you can't defend it, you dont deserve it?
Something like that.
However people do defend what is theirs even in the face of seemingly overwhelming power.
So how does that sit with you, you fascist?
And that where alliances come in. Collective interests and collective power. @@helokitty991
Who is in charge in Afghanistan? Starts with T, ends with ALIBAN. Power, nothing successfully fails quite like it. The worlds greatest superpower, the USA hasn't won a war since WWII. And it needed help with that one. History, a great teacher if we only choose to learn from it.
Might is right. Always has been throughout history, always will be.
Just make it the might the might of law. Might is not right in my country, individual power is held in check, the might is in democratic majority and enforcement of what is right by law.
@@davidhowse884 Always has been, always will be. Democratic majorities is a form of tyrannical leadership. Where 51% tell 49% how to live. In my country, we are a constitutional republic… as our forefathers intended it to be. Unfortunately our laws haven’t been enforced… sometimes selectively enforced for the last 30 years.
Joe is simply another fascist feeling that now is their time again.
Mearsheimer fits into this perfectly.
He's a former student at West Point and that flag draped flagpole has well and truly been shoved up his evacuation door.
@@davidhowse884The law only applies to the poor. Power is only checked by a more powerful faction. Democracy cannot exist without capitalism. Democracy is everywhere and always the rule of money.
@@davidhowse884 Might IS right in your country. In ALL countries. If you disagree, I challenge you to choose a law of your preference and break it. See what the state does to you afterwards. The State will very likely bring it's might down upon you to remind you of that.
One of the best concepts to exist with security and dignity.
All states behave that way.
no, they do not
Only sovereign ones. Colonies and puppet states do not enforce their interests, like Germany, Japan or Iraq they may sometimes invoke tough rhetoric, but nothing ever comes out of it.
@@JamesSmith-ix5jd also wrong
@@moetocafeso that s your argument?
@@balazsszekely2132 well, just check the statement vs history and historical events, even recent ones.
Thank you Prof. John Mearsheimer for your honesty and clarity !
Many people miss that realists and neorealists often see their assumptions, systems, and theories of international politics as simple fact qua reality (i.e., the anarchic international environment, methodological individualism and rational choice, the state as a the primary actor). This is what the neorealists cite as the conditions for the security dilemma (as expanded upon and popularized by Robert Jervis), "self-help anarchy" (as theorized by Kenneth Waltz), and great power politics (a recurring phenomenon often cited by Mearsheimer).
However, they do not revel in this reality. They do not celebrate the possibility of- if not propensity for war. They simply understand war (if enacted successfully) to be the most drastic yet most immediate, aggressive, and effective (albeit cost inefficient) means of achieving an end, which is invariably the maintenance and expansion of power. Again, *this does not mean that (neo)realists are warhawks or pro-war.* They are simply observing, describing, and subsequently explaining the world around them.
Of course, this has garnered considerable critique from constructivists and other non-rationalists.
I.e. don't hate the player, hate the game.
truth be spoken
Then tension leads to inevitable change and change leads to inevitable downfall because might makes right. On and on
R.I.P. Gonzalo Lira.
Can you give examples of western democracies with common nonaggression treaties going to war with each other over territory?
Fantasy Land versus Reality Land.
And yet, realism is fantasy land because it ignores that humans don't always behave in realistic ways. That's when realism falls apart.
@johnc3525 Correct with a little clarification. Humans have free will to choose to live in reality or to live in fantasy.
@@tjrrind1452Again, because realism doesn't account for ideology, it's a failure. History is full of events that were driven by ideology. All of which realism fails to explain.
Great mind Prof J Mearsheimer ! fully agree on his view !
That's exactly what it means
Einstein argued that there should be a higher power if the world is to live in peace. Yes, presently the UN has been sidelined, has been made irrelevant when it comes to its primary purpose of "preventing the scourge of war". Imo the Un needs reform, the Security Council is no longer fit for purpose, and I think this century will be a century of war and Russia wants a return to the age of empires.
Within a nation, the use of law, legal procedures, enforcement of legal procedures, counters the otherwise alternative of anarchy. Einstein argued that the world should take this step at a global level. Maybe a disastrous nuclear war could push the world this step further, or just a century of wars could lead to the world being sick of wars and prepared to reform the UN or a similar body to follow "what is right" instead of "might is right".
It has been achieved at national level, I believe humankind can make the paradigm shift at global level, but it might be centuries away. I do not believe war is a constant state of humankind, cultural evolution is a feature of humankind.
Einstein was right, just the times were not right.
Having just read your statement I can only respond that if the 5 permanent UN members really wanted to reform the UN system they would have come to some kind of agreement & implemented it...Oppenheimer, Einstein and others understood the dangers of even a limited war using these weapons but they were told to get stuffed and here we are...
@davidhowse884 I also do not believe war is a constant state of humankind, and that cultural evolution is a feature of humankind. I personally believe annual general elections will be our next great leap forward - czcams.com/video/y1CFomzFZyI/video.html - happy to discuss further.
@@davidtehr2993 I watched your link. It looks somewhat national rather than international. I'm all for a country trying out different approaches to democracy, leading to evaluations and evidence.
The world is on a pendulum swing away from democracy right now, even in the USA there is a risk of going down the dictatorial route. Back to the theme of peace and war, I don't see dictatorships wanting to try democracy of any form, unless countries collapse economically. The dictators and elites get very personally wealthy from autocracies. Putin is rumoured to be the world's richest man.
"Security Council is no longer fit for purpose". Security Council comprises of the states with the majority of the military power. The general assembly is the talking shop. The reason for the real politic nature of the UN is the perceived failure of the league of nations. If you had a single world government with actual power you would have created a nightmare not a dream. The individual would be defenseless against such power. Be careful what you wish for!
Einstein may have been right. Naive, but right because at the end of the day who enforces international legal judgements? Martians?
A greater Power is outside this world…
That greater power is so far afraid to show its face
In a few billion years the sun will expand and bring peace to the earth.
Imagine the entire Universe squeezed into a soccer ball
How would you call that ?
Well, you say afraid and me? He doesn’t interfere in humans.@@genfiveten595
Might does not make right, but it gives you leverage to further your interests.
Might sets the law therefore makes right
Prof. John Mearsheimer used concepts of Realism versus Liberalism. As the "Realism" is concerned for facts and rejection of impractical ideas,
the "Liberalism" is a political philosophy based in belief in progress and the essential goodness of the human race. But from history we know that there are cases where we can't believe in the essential goodness of a ruling class of a state, and we need more facts to make a right decision or to reject an impractical idea. And we may conclude that in a non perfect world there are not perfect solutions.
I don't see Realism Vs Liberalism. Most people understand the reality but want things to change. So to me it's liberalism on top of realism. If you're a hardcore realist you're either a psychopath or you are useless to make the world better.
John if you are going to do podcasts can you put a bit of length into them. 5 min is painful.
If mearsheimer did not have a bias against israel he would say that based on realism, it is to be expected that israel will decimate hamas.
If might makes right then by this reasoning it could be applied on the individual basis.
It does apply on an individual basis, but there is nothing that prevents individuals from creating alliances/coalitions to protect themselves. A state is a gang. And within each state are gangs(factions/parties).
What's missing here is the possibility that democracies and authoritarian states may define and pursue power in different ways. Building power through strategic and economic alliances has been more effective and sustainable than relying exclusively or primarily on a nation's own internal economic and military strength.
The conflict between democracy and authoritarian is a root problem. Authoritarians suppress, have the existential fear of the masses revolting.
Authoritarians would prefer there were no democracies giving people the idea that things could be fairer.
Many people have the victims' mindset, so they become victims. We all need to rise above our difficulties.
"might always makes right" whatever ISM.
ps. δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν
As a (classic) Liberal, I don't agree with Democratic Peace Theory. I also don't agree that democracy is the opposite of authoritarianism.
Countries with liberalized markets are far LESS likely to go to war because of their vested economic interest, but they still can.
My problem with realists is that they have their "grand theory of everything" and work backwards from there. They don't want to look at the nuances of conflicts, how they started, or why in some cases they DIDN'T start, and when they have tonsee the nuances, they will do mental gymnastics to get to why it's still about security.
They are less likely to go to war with each other as they serve the same overlord.
I've listened to John M. go into nuance and historical context all the time. You might be looking for historians. Besides, wars are won based on strength, logistics and industrial capacity not nuance.
You make a great point on democracy not being the opposite of authoritarianism - that is what far too many in the West don't understand. Any form of government, whether it is a democracy, dictatorship or something else, has the capacity to engage in authoritarian actions. One of the grave dangers of seeing the two as opposites is that it makes it impossible for people to conceive of democratic governments being authoritarian - i.e. acting in authoritarian ways - when in fact they often are just that.
The funny thing is that their grand theory of everything fails often and they just shrug and say "at least my theory is simple".
The real issue is that both visions bring us to chaos. Are we doomed?
Realism + diplomacy is the only way. At least it makes sense and not some lala land thinking.
:P *generals gathered in their masses*
Yes.
We are mortals, so yes, we are doomed!! Don't blame me!!!:]
Yes we are 😁😆😈
I was just kidding, I really don't know what army is the strongest.
Mearsheimer is Chamberlain of ours time 🤯🤑🎭🪆🇷🇺
Might may not be right but it can and will do whatever it likes; liberals just hope what the mighty like doesn't involve taking everything from them. It's OK being liberal when you also have the might to protect yourself. Risky if you don't.
So much for morals & ethics…
We deal with the world that is, not the world that we wish we had. He's correct on all points.
@@rickruddyeah, in this world we live in almost nothing is "100% "
@@rickrudd
He could not be more wrong on all points.
That's how the downward spiral into societal collapse and dystopia begins.
Which two free liberal democracies have gone to war against each other? Does the English vs the Irish count?
Remember America is not really a free liberal democracy, it is a republic, a conservative authoritarian one.
Tyrannies devour themselves from within. The USSR ate itself and the USA is doing the same.
Without a course correction the USA will be overtaken by its nearest rivals, China or India, in only a few decades.
Military and economic power does you no good if you are a divided nation, standing alone against the world.
If we learned anything from WWII, it's that no nation on its own is stronger than the rest.
People who call themselves realists generally aren't, much like people who brag about their high IQ, who usually aren't that smart.
The Nazis considered themselves realists, their actions driven by a cold, pragmatic, flawless logic, and they failed.
It was their only defence at the Nuremberg trials, the world said "NOPE," and we marched them off to prison or the gallows.
We get the lowest moral and ethical standards we are willing to accept.
We must strive to improve the world to become the one we wish for, or we perish. No do overs.
And how do you suppose those morals and ethics are going to be enforced or adhered to without any force of power? Covenants without swords are but words.
My point was that regardless of the Allies fighting the Germans during WW II, we should NOT have including "Uncle Joe" as an ally.
As well, once the Allies had defeated the Germans, we should have rearmed them and dealt with the communists.@@ThrillaWhale
Mearsheimer looks and speaks like one of those old-timers you'd find riding Jack Nicholson's bus in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next": czcams.com/video/OXrcDonY-B8/video.htmlsi=qTgQHwpLSD1Ub7Bl
Mearsheimer's scholarship fills a much-needed gap.
Would very much disagree. I think Timothy Snyder is far more scholarly and accurate in his predictions.
@@davidhowse884 Definitely No. Tim is what I would say is an opportunistic Semi Neo Con / Neo Liberal. And he is not far more scholarly.
Professors like John , Samuel Huntington , Kissinger , Kennan , etc etc is way way far ahead than Tim.
Granted he is an Oxbridge Boy . But as we can see since the Oct 7 Israel / Hamas conflict.. a lot of intellectuals from Top Ivys and Oxbridges are becoming technically dense.
Allowing emotions to create a veil on your faculties makes you banal 90% of the time.
@@chosk80 That's your world view.
Remember in 2015 Mearsheimer told people in Chicago that Russia would not invade Ukraine. Timothy Snyder said long before the war Russia would invade Ukraine. Nothing opportunistic about making correct predictions. Putins economic adviser from around 2003 says Putin was planning to invade Ukraine from as far back as 2003.
Fancy name calling mean nothing. Correct assessments tell a lot. Mearsheimer I listened to in earlier years. Imo now he is a charlatan.
@@chosk80I don't think banal means what you think it means.
I also disagree, not much said that isn't obvious and if its only a question of power and not ethics then why bother discouraging imperialists. I heard Mearsheimer defending Russia on the grounds that attacking Ukraine was in its best interests, but can make the same argument about smaller states uniting to defend themselves as in NATO or West providing arms to Ukraine. In other words "realism" explains everything and nothing and disregards that as well as the power to allow people to do things you also have a choice as to what you want to do. Have you noticed that the common excuse for doing evil is it was necessary and I had no choice.
Where is democracy and freedom Mr. Mearsheimer ?
Ok let's stick with realism as you suggest. Let's see what a classic of the realism - Makiaveli has to say. I quote from a memory - Ya can't be neutral if one kingdom wages war on another because after the war winner and loser will look at you with suspicion.
You have to pick a side, and if it is much stronger state staking smaller you pick a side of the week. You don't know what the much stronger state will do after it will conquer a smaller one. So if it comes after you next at least you will have where to hide. (Not exact but something like that)
So to apply it to today's situation we need to pick sides and support Ukraine in war waged by Russia even by Makiavelyan realism not just by "liberal ideals"
divine central authority unity overcomes imposing of political government around world by two state solution at UN
Now do Anarchism 😊
it is interesting how Humans 'consciously' try to reason Human evolution . But fail to breakaway from 'Primal domination'.
That's part of evolution. Those that didn't evolve.m, don't dominate.
It is interesting, but not surprising. The biological default of humans is the tribe. Living in huge numbers requires socialisation, culture law and order. Ants, termites etc biological default is in millions. They get on very well with each quite naturally.
@@henrylicious: Then how do you explain Islam?
It has not evolved since the 7th century, yet it has claimed 25% of the World's population to date - isn't that a valid contradiction?!!
If realism means that "might makes right", then USA is the most realist state
Indeed. The problem is the hypocrisy trying to be the goody.
ps. Listen to them preaching "righteousness" is so darn cringe.
Lol
No, America is very benevolent compared to a lot of the authoritarian states like russia.
But Mearsheimer often says the US doesn't act realistically.
Professor Mearsheimer's explanation suggests that Britain's last war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands was an example of a "realist" response entailing an "immoral" strategy.
the Falklands was never Argentinian
@@cosimocub You are correct that the Falklands were never Argentine. And when France, a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, became the first country to establish a colony there in 1764, the Falklands were totally empty of native inhabitants. The British, also a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, first “landed” on the Falklands the following year (1765), “claimed” all the islands as theirs, but did not establish a colony in the Falklands until 1766. Spain, also a European country from far across the Atlantic Ocean, first “landed” in Argentina in 1516 but did not establish a colony in what is today Buenos Aires until 1580. Fast forward 236 years and Argentina “claimed” its independence from Spain in 1816. I mention all of the history because I’m guessing that you understood that I was implying that the Falklands once belonged to Argentina (which I did not imply), but also that you wanted me to know 1) that you agree with Professor Mearsheimer that Britain, like all nation states, is a “realist” country (which it is) and 2) that you believe that when applied to the question of who owns the Falkland Islands, Britain has a right to claim ownership of the Falklands because the "realist" application of the “finders keepers, losers weepers” idiom is not an “immoral strategy". And yet, me guessing all of that about you is something you could "realistically" interpret as me suggesting that you believe that “might makes right”. Do you? (By the way, I am from the United States (you know, from what were once 13 British colonies), not from Argentina, although I am a Hispanic.)
Captain John Strong, in 1690, landed on the Falklands, just ahead of the French in 1701. The people of that island are British and desire to remain so @@pncicitap2519
@@pncicitap2519 Liberating the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation was a moral response to an immoral act by Argentina to protect the Falkland Islander's freedom and way of life. We had not believed that Argentina would take the islands by force but once they had committed that outrage, we had to respond militarily and retake them. Fortunately we were able to do so and the added bonus was that the military junta in Argentina lost power. The sad and ridiculous thing is that Argentina still doesn't accept that they have no rightful claim to the Falkland islands 400 miles from their shore that they have never owned.
@@dacorum8053 You are correct. But it does not change the fact that associating "morality" with "realism" in essence involves religion.
Realism is "might makes it real".
Yes allied with Soviets and won the Second World War. So it is also morally plausible result not only strategically
The reality is that because the "realist" prevailed the Americans did not join in WW1 until 1916 2yrs in and WW2 until 1941, prolonging the conflict. You have to do the right thing not just the "real" thing.Realpolitik is short term vision.
So as soon as war broke out in 1914 you'd be drafting men in Kansas and Ohio to go and die in European trenches? What if they weren't keen to go?
This makes a horrifying point: Do we realize how pathetic the US was in WW2 that it needed the biggest country in the world to defeat a country roughly the size of Texas? And if the US was so mighty in WW2 and couldn't crush Nazi Germany on its own, what have we to think about the US now, weaker than it was in WW2, in the event of an open confrontation with its once Sovie ally?
Well doesn’t the history of the last 200 years support the idea that democracies don’t fight one another but solve their differences by other means?
In 1916, in the middle of WWI, Australia had a referendum on whether to send conscripts to fight in Europe. It failed, the majority voted No. The referendum was repeated in 1917, the result was the same. These referendums are sort of taboo, they never get mentioned by politicians or in the media, 100th anniversary in 2016 was completely ignored. In 1999 we had another referendum, on adding a preamble to the constitution. The proposed text was terrible, it promoted and glorified war. This referendum failed in all states and territories (Aus has 6 states and 2 territories). Perhaps real democracies don't go to war.
The U.S. is always at war. I think it’s clear we’re a military empire.
Nobody wants war except for the foolish and the elites who are eager to fill their own pockets.
Yes, real democracies like Australian allow other to fight their wars for them. Like generously allow the US to protect their beautiful country from the Japanese.
Maybe, but most democracies around the world elect representatives invested with the power to decide on their behalf, only a few places like Switzerland have regular referendums.
The defense of realism often comes from the pursuit of sectional interests, and then excused with the argument that morality is relative to the individual or circumstance involved.
However, Morals are never relative... Good is good, evil is evil. And the simple way to judge the good and evil of an action is if you would want the same action done to you and your children. That is the golden rule of Christian Matthew 7:12, Islamic Hadith I3 and Kantian universal maxim.
So it is very easy to claim to be a realist until your children are at the receiving end of the realistic policy or action that one excuses as realistic.
True
A realist will take better actions to protect himself and his family from the recieving end... your average "moralist" will hope that people will agree with his morality, that the state will protect him etc... its funny that you try to debunk realism by finding few flaws but then fail to realize that your view is even more flawed because its not even up to you but other people. Besides morality is very flexible due to moral dilemmas.
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.
True but having the means is not the only consideration, you have to decide what you want to do with the violence. That's why Mearsheimer's explanations are inadequate.
Morals are always relative. As such might is always right. The corollary of this is that people naturally self interested and have in group preference.
Once you come to this conclusion you understand why others can have in group preferences but not white males.
morals are never "relative" - this is the biggest lie of "modernity". Good and Evil are absolute poles, absolute Powers.
Moral of the Lion has nothing to do with moral of the gazelle. @@moetocafe
Yes, your morals are relative, but please do not generalize. In additions, most can built grammatical sentences.
The "lion" is NOT a lion forever. It does well never to forget that. In other words, strenght wanes.@@mikexhotmail
Good and evil are poles or at least regions on a spectrum, but what is good? What is evil? And above these, who has the knowledge to put good apart from evil and evil apart from good? We all have different cultural backgrounds. We are all biased and there is none above us all to be trustworthy enough to put good apart from evil unless we DO consider there is Something or Someone Who knows all of our strugles. With the science of today all by itself we cannot go any further than what we can observe and control, but it cannot tell if there is Something or Someone outside of our control.
Here we find out why religions exist and will keep existing for a very long time and also why we may never agree as a whole on realism vs liberalism.
A bit off-topic, liberalism seems to claim that the problem of morality is ours to solve while realism is more interested in how things are and will be than in how they should be. It is really interesting how liberalism is the one which cannot prove its point through experiments just like religions despite liberalism being mindful about isolating the state from religions.
One gets the feeling that Mearsheimer is frustrated that the Cold War ended and the bilateral 'balance of terror' ended. In his mind the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not a good thing.
Well there are also people human beings to consider. So Mearsheimer would think it fine for the empire to oppress and subjugate the lesser citizens. How many millions of Ukrainians were deliberately killed by Russians (of USSR)? How many artists and intellectuals were killed, disappeared, imprisoned, deported for thinking independently? Ditto citizens of other neighbouring Soviet Block regions. Right now the war crimes, the tortures, the mass destruction of of civilian Russian speaking homes all for a lie and pretext of defending Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine. Imo Mearsheimer is morally bankrupt to be defending Russian empire as a good thing. If he were around centuries ago he would be arguing the British Empire was a good thing and the US should accept that and not fight for independence.
👌👌✌️👍👍👍
Really?! Are You a mind reader?😁
@@thehturt5480 No, only the holder of a MA degree in political science specializing in Cold War studies, so I kinda understand the mentality. Remember the existence of the USSR gave the realists a level of global stability that made the realists comefortable, and it breakup / new unipolar world nervous.
I don't get that sense from his writing or speaking at all.
В США нет никакой демократии и никогда не было. Правильное название американской политической системы - олигархия.
Её нигде нет, элиты ставят того, кого они уже выбрали.
Baloney
@@JamesSmith-ix5jd Не все элиты олигархические
So today's students align with Adolph. Great job so-called intellectuals.
John … again disappointed in where you appear to be now headed, dare I point out, in the service of transparency and perspective, that Mearsheimer is actually Jewish … and on the basis of his writings and his endorsements of the views of like-minded others (see the controversy surrounding his endorsement, on its dust jacket, of Gilad Atzmon’s openly antisemitic “The Wandering Who”) … demonstrably of an American East Coast radical Left diaspora aggressively secular self-loathing, anti-Israel, conspiratorial persuasion …
I would think a lot of liberals isn’t leaders - or see them as such. For them is not a big issue to say that the correct thing is the loosing path. Leader can’t really do that
Wannabe Henry Kissinger. He isn't consistent in his principles; he's quite irrational. Don't know why anyone gives him air time, he's not worth it.
The man’s a moral and ethical vacuum.
He seems to be mearly describing the realist viewpoint and contrasting it with the liberal democratic viewpoint, he doesn't seem to be saying that it is how we should always strive to have our government to always be looking at every problem we come across as needing purely realist policy prescriptions. He seems to be saying realist analysis is a tool in our toolbelt, the libdem veiwpoint is another tool. They are both valid, but they have weaknesses.
Also it is often a good thing to look at something from a morally neutral perspective to see how it works. When you know how something works, you have a better idea of it's limitations and potential points of failure.
Because of these things, I get the feeling that your judgment of this individual is plausibly unfounded at least based on this clip. We don't have any good evidence of you claim unless I'm missing something.
Liberalism thinks it should run the world by Financial or Military means and claim its Moral
@@matthewrawlings1284don't bother, the woke brain can't comprehend the fact the there's a certain logic to how things play out in the real world. They all live in fairytale land and when the real world comes knocking they act shocked asking how could something like this ever happen? Guess 20 years of signs were not enough to tip them off 😂
I am all about realism, btw. And realism suggests that West has all the necessary leverage to drive Russia to pre-February 2014 state, but it lacks political will to do that. Which is something we should reflect upon.
It's really underwhelming. The way of thinking Prof. Mearsheimer presents is not realism but nihilism. He's been harping on about it for at east 25 years. I cannot see the reason for giving him a platform on this outstanding channel.
I realize im not a realist after watching this video. I live in Canada and our country is not focused on power as a foreign policy alone. In fact, we largely dismiss power as a reason to do things and we focus instead on economy and health
A realist type will say that it is so (or seems so), because Canda is under the protection of USA sphere of influence. Functionally it is like another state inside the US.
economy is power.
The power of "The West" is money. To not pursue economic growth is suicide. Economic growth for the sake of economic growth is why there is mass-immigration, growing inequality, among other things. Canada is just as realist as everyone else. They are just a small country next to a gorilla.
@@sasgayableCanada does not seek power. We lost already to the US. Instead, we assume the US will never attack us and back us up. We know that we don’t need to be concerned with power
If I could live my life again, I'd seriously consider emigrating to Canada.
He is a hypocrite, he abandons realism on Israel.
Do you guys in the west even debate things like that?
Do you mean west of Australia? Yes, both west and east.
It is not that simple. We see it in Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and other major US failures.
It is not just might, otherwise the strongest physically and dumbest people would have been on top of every human hierarchy. And it is not the case.
You need not just might, but also reasoning, wisdom, justice and above all - goodness, spiritual nobility. Because, those who do not have God on their side will lose, no matter anything else.
The US foreign policy is mainly dictated by arrogance and presumed might. We see the results....
I think he's talking about how power politics work in a global sense - that states compete for power. He is not arguing that it is good in any way. Just that it is the reality. And yes the US prioritises it's use of hard power quite often at the cost of soft power
Well, imagine a gang of caves men attacking a person who has a pistol. Might isn't just raw power the context of "Might makes right", but the sum of all the qualities that helped some people reach a point in technology, order, discipline and also numbers among many other things.
@@Hardcore_Remixer still not enough. There are too many examples in human history, when the more powerful does not always win. Life cannot be oversimplified, neither can politics.
@@lucasw7178 that still ain't true. Different countries have different doctrines and end goals. If you look at USA, that might be true (and it ain't working very well). But to say all do the same - this is wrong.
@@moetocafe care to give example? where the more powerful one doesn't win?
интересно рассуждает, про этику и мораль! а как в его голове стыкуется, помощь сша рейху, накачка его деньгами, продажа нефти германии? воюем против гитлера и в тоже время продаем ему бензин для танков и самолетов!
Soviet propaganda dies hard, which might be partly due to the fact that now it is picked by Putin. In reality, Soviet Union was Germany’s best ally from August 1939 and facilitation of starting WWII by joint invasion of Poland until June 1941. Soviet Union fueled German conquest of Western Europe by willing supplies of oil and raw materials. As for the US, it indeed provided supplies, but to the Soviet Union. Without them USRR would have collapsed, at least Stalin thought so.
@@pawelpap9 все действия СССР до начала ВОВ задокументированы, если захотите, можете их изучить! а то что вы написали, бред пропаганды запада!
Mearsheimer trying to claw back his relevance, before he passes from old age. If he had not been so thorougly debunked during the last two years he could simply enjoy his retirement.
Who debunked him?
Reality @@seetsamolapo5600
@@seetsamolapo5600 Doesn't matter. People saying he's been debunked is enough for him to be debunked. /s
@@seetsamolapo5600 The gammon's entire life-lie is full of holes.
Realism does not mean "might makes right".
Any objective assessment of might would lead one to conclude that physics and geophysics are the mightiest forces we're dealing with.
What realists are sensitive to is power. They're bullies and petty authoritarians.
They'll bully each other into oblivion like dumb high schoolers.
Which is why we don't like realists in charge. We like people that know how to use words to solve problems.
Words like diversity,equity and inclusivity.Where in the world does DIE hold sway without causing disarray.
@@abazely2743 I agree but wonder how you managed to sneak the DEI topic into this discussion.
@@alanrobertson9790 The suggestion that words can solve problems when they often create them with the ambiguities in interpreting and applying DEI.I like Thomas Sowell's observation that the deadly sin of envy is now equated with social justice.
@@abazely2743 I also have objections to kangaroo courts in hr departments. Did sowell make the case that corporations are acting like sovereign states at this point? No, because then you'd also have to admit you're living in a corporate autocracy.
You're going to need words to actually figure out how to govern, or really be left responsible for anything. Clearly not something you're mentally prepared for.
Are you an actual adult? Just wondering.
No, realism, as used in this international politics Mearsheimer sense, is actually a kind of flight from complexity. It means sticking ones head into the sand to try to help oneself succeed in an effort of make-believe -- the effort to pretend that certain causally significant dimensions of reality don't exist.
His argument of democracy vs realism is funny because since ww2 Europe has been enjoying relative peace between the democracies while lowering military commitments. So he has more than 80 years of proof that the democratic theory has been working, but is still arguing for the realist perspective that Russia, Iran and China are operating on.
In either case, when facing dictatorships armed to their teeth and who use a realist approach, there is no way a western diplomatic perspective can work. You can only answer a might is right mentality with even more might.
Military commitments in Europe were lowered only 30-40 years ago. The 40-50 years before that was the Cold War, which involved massive military commitments in Europe facing off with each other.
Are you serious? Have you not studied history or watched the news? There is currently a war in Ukraine, then there is Kosovo Bosnia, dozens more.
Both Yes and No
Yes we have been living in peace in Europe for 80 years, but that is mostly because of two things.
1. Almost all countries in Europe are part of the same military alliance so it makes no sense to fight eachother.
2. Our memory of WW2 is still part of our collective memory so there is no reason to start fighting again. We know where it lead.
So Mearsheimer is right. Might makes right on the international stage.
Any nation in the West if they broke with NATO and attacked a neighbor would be attacked by all the West including the US. Europe and the US have used their hard power to coerce/threaten not Western countries for decades. That is might make right in action.
Western world has a higher power. It is called US.
That's exactly what Mearsheimer is talking about.
The world overall doesn't has a higher authority they can turn to. UN doesn't work.
US on another hand does keep order in its sphere of influence.
Only europeans think that europeans are independent.
Europe has been enjoying relative peace because post WW2 the U.S. has created the environment for it too happen.
I really can’t stand the liberal baby boomer worldview. It’s quite nauseating.
John, because you are constantly bringing Professor Mearsheimer on as a guest, I'm unsubscribing. He is a vector of poisonous misinformation and hate. There is no excuse for him or for you to have him on so often. You do not press him on his views adequately and you haven't had Douglas Murray to challenge him either.
How is he hateful? What did he lie about?
@@henrylicious Davidgladstone doesn't like reality. I'm not terribly fond of it either, but it's better to know reality than to pretend otherwise.
Do you know what vector means?
Why is he hateful? Cause he doesn t repeat cnn ,,truth”?
Good. Unsub then if you can’t handle opposing views.
John has devoted more time to this Putin apologist. Gee John, why don't you have a Russian flag as a backdrop!
Oh God. Critiquing u.s. foreign policy doesn't equal support. I suppose you would have called people who were against the 2nd Iraq war "Saddam apologists". Even though that war was a disaster.
@@henryliciousIraqi war was not a disaster. In case you forget, the allies won with minimal casualties. What followed was a series of misguided steps due to misreading of the mood in Iraqi society and general wishful thinking about prospects of self rule in third world country.
@@henrylicious Odd how the irrational Anti-American biases comes out in your post as you seek to cover up Mearsheimer's clear preference for Russian fascism!
And how strange it is that for a hard-core leftist like yourself that in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence of the torture chambers of the Saddam regime you are still trying to make excuses for it, as per your expression " the war was a disaster. "
In 2024 with Iraq being a democracy, that war was not a disaster. It eventually gave those people freedom - a freedom Mearsheimer wants denied to the people of Ukraine and Russia -------- comrade!