Ukraine/Russia and "offensive realists" like John Mearsheimer

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

John Mearsheimer provides a fresh perspective on the Ukraine crisis and on America's relationship with other geopolitical actors. Egotist in over his head or not, there's an important place for the likes of him in the important debate on geopolitical issues.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Egotist in over his head or not, there's an important place for the likes of him in the important debate on geopolitical issues.

This actually seems like a fairly important assessment that you should not hand-wave away. Surely you should not be listening to egotists in over their heads — by their very nature they have nothing valuable or important to contribute.

This assumes that someone being an egotist with self-pretensions makes anything they might say worthless. I didn't say he was an "Egotist in over his head", I said that whether or not he was would be irrelevant.

I have to disagree entirely with that seeming idea of yours anyway. I think Meclazine hit nail on the head when he said, "It's just good to see another perspective on the situation." You seem to think that he fitting certain negative frames makes him someone with nothing interesting to say - I don't, and I must say, I never will.

Moreover, intellectual curiosity and open debate, thought-provoking things, are very important, particularly in these sorts of fields. I'm glad Mearsheimer speaks his mind on these things, and in that way he advances the entire craft. Reasonable people can disagree on Mearsheimer, but he certainly is not someone 100% wrong on 100% of things, if Red Velvet's post is anything to go by.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Egotist in over his head or not, there's an important place for the likes of him in the important debate on geopolitical issues.

This actually seems like a fairly important assessment that you should not hand-wave away. Surely you should not be listening to egotists in over their heads — by their very nature they have nothing valuable or important to contribute.

This assumes that someone being an egotist with self-pretensions makes anything they might say worthless. I didn't say he was an "Egotist in over his head", I said that whether or not he was would be irrelevant.

But it is relevant. If someone is in over his head, that means he's in a situation beyond his understanding and ability to analyze. Such a person cannot provide valuable analysis — that's the meaning of the idiom.

You could rephrase as, for example, "whether he understands the situation or not, there's an important place for him in this debate." That obviously doesn't make any sense — someone's ability to understand what's going on is intimately related to whether they have something valuable to say.

I have to disagree entirely with that seeming idea of yours anyway. I think Meclazine hit nail on the head when he said, "It's just good to see another perspective on the situation." You seem to think that he fitting certain negative frames makes him someone with nothing interesting to say - I don't, and I must say, I never will.

Moreover, intellectual curiosity and open debate, thought-provoking things, are very important, particularly in these sorts of fields. I'm glad Mearsheimer speaks his mind on these things, and in that way he advances the entire craft. Reasonable people can disagree on Mearsheimer, but he certainly is not someone 100% wrong on 100% of things, if Red Velvet's post is anything to go by.

I am saying that observing that someone has a different perspective, without showing any sort of curiosity about what that perspective is, says absolutely nothing. I can babble incoherently on the internet — the mere act of speaking does not make something a valuable contribution.

So what do you think, Tim? Is his "fresh perspective" one that you agree with? What is the value of offensive realism in understanding current global conflicts?

Maybe "in over his head" was not precisely what I meant. I think I had the photoshopping of him over Machiavelli in mind when I wrote that. He's got interesting things to say. But he's not Machiavelli. Of course, few of us can ever really hope to be on par with Machiavelli's genius.

As for his views on the Ukraine crisis, I think his fresh perspective has some element of truth in it and explains the thinking in the Kremlin quite well. But it's not without flaws either. As it is, no theory can ever explain geopolitics all by itself, though I do agree that over time, I've drifted more and more towards the realist school. I would say I currently favor liberal internationalism driven by institutionalism, advanced using broadly realist geopolitical theory.