https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/piers-morgan-vs-john-mearsheimer
I have a reasonable amount of respect for John Mearsheimer, and his "realistic" take on geopolitics, particularly his prescience re the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
However, I have to say he's sometimes rather slow on his mental feet in debate - there was a debate on Youtube about the Ukraine war may be now eighteen months ago, where he was debating on one side and his opponents, US American and Ukraine warriors were advancing the war agenda. Mearsheimer managed to convert a majority opinion of the audience which was on his side prior to the debate, to a majority opinion (quite a large swing) to the hawks on the other - so not a good result. He just wasn't effective'
I think with this interview too. He made some decent points, but he did allow Piers to make some contentious statements without challenging them very effectively. For instance, if Ukraine were in NATO sooner, Russia might well not have invaded. Sorry, John, that's ridiculous. First, NATO's own rules were have not allowed this, there was a civil war in Ukraine, and problems on its borders with a nuclear armed Russia. Complete no-nos to joining. So the question is illogical Secondly even if Ukraine were part of NATO, Russia might have been willing to call the bluff. Exactly how would NATO effectively mobilise and counter Russia, particularly if Russia's aims were modest, jut to annexed the Donbass. Russia was already in control of Crimea. Not an easy job for NATO to fight here - and all Russia has to do is say, sorry old chap, if you invade Crimea, we will consider this an existential threat and we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons.
I mean it is this total lack of thought in all these wars "What happens next?" and was my original criticism of Putin's invasion in the first place. Putin, "what happens next'?
The other point is the obvious one and that's Mearsheminer's unconditional support of military action over Taiwan and the treatment of China as an existential threat to the US and large parts of Asia and the Pacific. The most serious issue facing the US, he claims. No mention that the US's most serious issues might lie internally, its politics, its economy, its social disintegration.
If Mearsheimer keeps claiming that there's no evidence Putin wants to invade Europe then what evidence can he provide that China wishes to invade half of Asia?
Taiwan is a special case, and Mearsheimer should be much more nuanced as to how we should deal with this. The US/West increasing bellicosity in regard to Taiwan is dangerous. Is the present geopolitical situation perfect? Of course not, but perhaps a continuation of the imperfect is preferrable to a total catastrophe. Mearsheimer, your "reality" here needs some serious revision.
Responses