Ukraine/Russia and "offensive realists" like John Mearsheimer

[LostFellow]

For the Russia-Ukraine geopolitical situation, Johns Mearsheimer is known for writing "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault. The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin" in Foreign Affairs back in 2014, and doing various talks with the same focus at universities over the next few years.

On March 1st, the New Yorker published a recent interview with him:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

From my reading, it honestly just sounds like he's either a closet tankie, or just being adamant on not admitting he was wrong. In this excerpt Mearsheimer seems oddly defensive:

Interviewer: I thought you said that he was not interested in taking Kyiv.

Mearsheimer: No, he’s interested in taking Kyiv for the purpose of regime change. O.K.?

Interviewer: As opposed to what?

Mearsheimer: As opposed to permanently conquering Kyiv.

Interviewer: It would be a Russian-friendly government that he would presumably have some say over, right?

Mearsheimer: Yes, exactly. But it’s important to understand that it is fundamentally different from conquering and holding onto Kyiv. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Interviewer: We could all think of imperial possessions whereby a sort of figurehead was put on the throne, even if the homeland was actually controlling what was going on there, right? We’d still say that those places had been conquered, right?

Mearsheimer: I have problems with your use of the word “imperial.” I don’t know anybody who talks about this whole problem in terms of imperialism. This is great-power politics, and what the Russians want is a regime in Kyiv that is attuned to Russian interests. It may be ultimately that the Russians would be willing to live with a neutral Ukraine, and that it won’t be necessary for Moscow to have any meaningful control over the government in Kyiv. It may be that they just want a regime that is neutral and not pro-American.

Interviewer: When you said that no one’s talking about this as imperialism, in Putin’s speeches he specifically refers to the “territory of the former Russian Empire,” which he laments losing. So it seems like he’s talking about it.

Mearsheimer: I think that’s wrong, because I think you’re quoting the first half of the sentence, as most people in the West do. He said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart.” And then he said, “Whoever wants it back has no brain.”

It continues to get worse... (in my opinion at least):

Interviewer: He’s also saying that Ukraine is essentially a made-up nation, while he seems to be invading it, no?

Mearsheimer: O.K., but put those two things together and tell me what that means. I’m just not too sure. He does believe it’s a made-up nation. I would note to him, all nations are made up. Any student of nationalism can tell you that.

Mearsheimer then suggests that Russia is a better ally than Europe against China or something..?

Interviewer: What do you think our policy should be in Ukraine right now, and what do you worry that we’re doing that’s going to undermine our China policy?

Mearsheimer: We should be pivoting out of Europe to deal with China in a laser-like fashion, number one. And, number two, we should be working overtime to create friendly relations with the Russians. The Russians are part of our balancing coalition against China.

Is this just the exemplifying the stereotype of an academic who's been proven wrong? Interested in what others think on this.

[Roll Roons]

I took one of JJM's classes in college. He's a great lecturer, but well-known academics like him tend to be very full of themselves. I wish I was making this up, but his faculty webpage literally has a picture of his head photoshopped onto Machiavelli: https://www.mearsheimer.com/

I think you're right. He knows that he's been wrong about Putin but is choosing to dig in rather than admit it.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Mearsheimer needs to seriously f**k off and just keep f**king off and when he has f**k off as far as he can possible go he then needs to f**k off even more

[CumbrianLefty]

I think you're right. He knows that he's been wrong about Putin but is choosing to dig in rather than admit it.

Whatever else NATO has done, they didn't write Dugin's wretched hate screed.

[Aurelius]

I think you're right. He knows that he's been wrong about Putin but is choosing to dig in rather than admit it.

Whatever else NATO has done, they didn't write Dugin's wretched hate screed.

FWIW, Dugin is a pan-Eurasianist whereas Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire. Dugin actually has very little influence over Putin, and Russian nationalists generally hate him for his view of ethnic Russians as being merely one equal partner among the various groups that would compose his idealized pan-Eurasian continental empire.

[KaiserDave]

Self important bloviating idiot.

[Zinneke]

Academic tunnel vision, believing that states act in international models to the tune of "laws of IR" in the same way planets obey the laws of physics in the solar system. This is why any IR "grand theory" that proclaims itself to hold the keys to understand how a system as complex, and crucially as open, as that of International Relations, needs to be retired. That's not to say we shouldn't look for frameworks of undestanding - but it does mean that we should recognize they evolve.

Incidentally (and Al put the following into better words than I can on AAD), it is becoming tiresome this way some people are now justifying Russia's actions as part of the laws of geopolitics and that that somehow makes it acceptable. Values do matter. What the Ukrainian people think does matter. Denying this enters Putin's world view, which we are fast seeing is nigh-on apocalyptic.

[DavidB.]

He was always full of it.

[BlueSwan]

Mearsheimer makes the classic mistake of assuming rational actors and Putin is not acting rational.

[Coldstream]

I had to study him at university and hated him then, hate him even more now.

[Red Velvet]

Good to have a major important voice that is free of American nationalism bias like you see in all the mainstream media that just keeps repeating same narrative. His lecture posted on YouTube is viralizing on a global level, I received it from my father who doesn’t even follow politics that much.

Many of his arguments are pretty reasonable and this being said just after 2014 is completely mind-boggling people who thought Putin took out the “neonazi” narrative out of nowhere. You can argue it’s not valid argument as it’s a fringe movement to invade Ukraine for regime change (and I agree with that), but the fact is that the West has been backing these groups a long time now for the sake of their anti-Russia stances. That is provocation.

And like Mearsheimer points out, that’s something that touches on historical Russian traumas. There are no innocent sides on this and again, Russia naturally loses all its reason when they step into Ukraine. But all this conflict was already predicted even by US academics long ago if you watch the lecture and people knew there was a peaceful solution to this but they chose to double down and provoke. Mearsheimer didn’t predict future by accident.

He even said that doubling down on provocating Russia would push them to China as their only option and he was correct about that too, as we’ve seen with their new special relationship. In alternate universe, Russia and US would’ve been great friends and allies if people’s nationalism and historical feuds didn’t actively work to undermine this.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's just good to see another perspective on the situation.

The "Errmmageerd. Putin Bad" TikTok and Twitter posts every 15 seconds have two problems:

1. It borders on attention seeking;
2. It's full of fake news and propaganda.

We have 240 pages of it.

Someone in the Ukraine thread posted people throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks pretending to be Ukraine and it was fake. So the conclusions dictated the evidence on which further analysis was made.

Thus poor analysis is leading us to poor conclusions.

Logically, a fresh analysis is always welcome if it creates a thought process leading to a better understanding of reality.

[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.

[WMS]

I know very well that Russian elite opinion (and somewhat Russian public opinion, although that’s never been easy to accurately measure) thinks they have the right to abuse their neighbors FOR ALL TIME because of “muh spheres of influence”. And make no mistake, “abuse” is the accurate word. I see that Mearsheimer and Company believe this is right and good.

I just oppose this type of thinking body and soul - check out my Foreign Policy score on that resurrected test and note the 0% I agree with Realism. I consider it an insult to the millions upon millions who suffered under Russian/Soviet rule. And far from being some “attention seeking” behavior, I have been opposed to Vladimir Putin and his resurrected Russian Empire for a very long time, at least 15 years. Heck, I opposed the Russians in Moldova back in the 1990-1992 timeframe. I find it morally offensive to glibly throw millions of people back in chains because Russia is butthurt about not ruling an empire anymore. Maybe if Russia/the U.S.S.R. would’ve acted more like a civilized country and less like the fucking Congo Free State towards those they ruled, their neighbors wouldn’t be trying to escape their reach at any cost.

But that would require considering the hopes, dreams, and lives of those millions upon millions of people living in Russia’s “near abroad” to have worth, meaning, and agency on their own merits. Mearsheimer clearly doesn’t. Kissinger didn’t. But I do, because not everyone is a goddamned sociopath.

[Donerail]

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.

[LostFellow]

Many of his arguments are pretty reasonable and this being said just after 2014 is completely mind-boggling people who thought Putin took out the “neonazi” narrative out of nowhere.

The interview I'm quoting was published on 3/1/22, not back in 2014. The annexation of crimea and supporting separatist movements in the Donbass can be passed off as "great power politics." The current situation, along with Iraq 2003, are the worst nation-against-nation adversarial actions in the 21st century.

[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.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Good to have a major important voice that is free of American nationalism bias like you see in all the mainstream media that just keeps repeating same narrative. His lecture posted on YouTube is viralizing on a global level, I received it from my father who doesn’t even follow politics that much.

Many of his arguments are pretty reasonable and this being said just after 2014 is completely mind-boggling people who thought Putin took out the “neonazi” narrative out of nowhere. You can argue it’s not valid argument as it’s a fringe movement to invade Ukraine for regime change (and I agree with that), but the fact is that the West has been backing these groups a long time now for the sake of their anti-Russia stances. That is provocation.

And like Mearsheimer points out, that’s something that touches on historical Russian traumas. There are no innocent sides on this and again, Russia naturally loses all its reason when they step into Ukraine. But all this conflict was already predicted even by US academics long ago if you watch the lecture and people knew there was a peaceful solution to this but they chose to double down and provoke. Mearsheimer didn’t predict future by accident.

He even said that doubling down on provocating Russia would push them to China as their only option and he was correct about that too, as we’ve seen with their new special relationship. In alternate universe, Russia and US would’ve been great friends and allies if people’s nationalism and historical feuds didn’t actively work to undermine this.

[Donerail]

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?

[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.

[Duro]

Putin will show you all Kuzkin's mother

[Meclazine for Israel]

Putin will show you all Kuzkin's mother

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzma's_mother

[Aurelius]

There is now a petition circulating at U of Chicago demanding a Maoist-style public denunciation of Mearsheimer. Make of that what you will.

[Donerail]

There is now a petition circulating at U of Chicago demanding a Maoist-style public denunciation of Mearsheimer. Make of that what you will.

there is no such thing

[Person Man]

I listened to some of his lectures a few weeks ago as the situation was becoming more visible, and they left me unimpressed. That his lectures have many more views on social media than those of other scholars discussing the same subject ought to raise eyebrows. "The medium is the message."

With that said, if our detoriating relations with Russia ever result in a nuclear war, he will have some claim to vindication. His argument relies on the implication that placating Russia is the most reliable strategy for preventing global catastrophe. Admittedly, that is a good-faith interpretation of his views that many of those now making this argument do not deserve.

Blanche Carte Appeasement is never the answer. Period.