I didn’t write a full newsletter today. I’ve been busy preparing for Passover and it felt like a good time for a break. But we do have a Zoom guest this Friday at Noon ET. (Paid subscribers will get the link this Wednesday and the video next week.) Our guest is the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, perhaps the most controversial scholar of international relations in the United States. He was controversial fifteen years ago when he co-authored
I have heard Mearsheimer’s thesis on Ukraine and in fact at the beginning I bought into it. I also objected to our expanding NATO to the east in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. I think we should have created a Marshall plan for Russia at the time. Hope we may get to that that after Putin’s departure (in tandem with reparations to the Ukraine).
But any reading of Putin’s plans for Ukraine, including that little faux pas of showing the Russian forces plans to go to Moldova in a presentation by Belarus’s leader made clear that Putin is about Russia’s glorious past, such as it was and not an obsession with NATO.
In fact, it is interesting to note that Putin had his useful idiot Trump work hard for four year to dismantle NATO in preparation for this attack.
Also, I need to correct you on Israel’s stance in the aftermath of 9/11. Israel clearly counseled the US to go after Iran and leave Iraq alone as such an attack on Iraq would destabilize the Middle East.
Finally the notion as Mearsheimer wrote in the past, that the Jews control American policy is also without calling it what it obviously is a crazy idea. The British too thought the Jews and Jewish bankers controlled the world and thus engaged in producing the Balfour Declaration, through which they hoped to unite the Jews and Jewish money behind their cause in WWI.
For crying out loud if Jews had or have so much power why go to Israel? I think New Zealand or Canada would be a much better idea especially if we controlled the financial universe.
I think it's great that you are having Mearsheimer as a guest this week. Personally, I go back and forth daily -- sometimes several times a day -- as to how much weight to give his explanation for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I tend to seesaw between 50% -- 80%, depending on whose persuasive argument I read last (Timothy Snyder, e.g.). I'm not particularly proud of my indecisiveness, but I can't fathom actually blaming Mearsheimer, as Anne A. and other Neo-Con's do.
One doesn't have to subscribe to the Every-Global-Problem-is-100%-America's-Fault default position of a Chris Hedges or Aaron Maté to understand how culpable the US is in the current Ukraine crisis. I heard eye-opening (separate) interviews recently with Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's chief of staff for a dozen years) and Chaz Freeman (retired diplomat who served in the US Foreign Service, the State and Defense Departments, including as Assistant Secretary of Defense). Even if one doesn't agree 100% with either of their assessments, they give details that can not be ignored, and are in line with some of Mearsheimer's reasoning.
I never seem to be available to watch your Zoom interviews live, so I won't get to ask questions; but I'll definitely watch the recorded version.
I don't agree with Mearsheimer on everything by any means, particularly his version of realism. But he is far better informed than almost all of his critics and cites specific data and sources which can be verified. History as well as the present are both important in analyzing causes, and condemning, as everyone should, the Russian invasion and the human rights violations perpetrated by Russian forces since the invasion, should be not inconsistent with taking a hard look at the underlying causes rooted in U.S. assumptions of a right of "defense" which requires total U.S. military dominance around the world. Also to note, from an African or other position, this looks a awful lot like another "white man's war" in which all of the contending nationalisms are rooted in rule by oligarchs and white supremacy. Not the say they are all the same; at least in the USA there are dissenting voices on at least on domestic racism and oligarchy even if not on U.S. exceptionalism as the one country regarded as having the right to military dominance everwhere.
There is no doubt at all that Russia was provoked by NATO expansion. We know the US would not allow foreign forces and nuclear weapons in North or South America. So it looks like one rule for the US and a different rule for Russia.
That said, Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine, he is a tyrant, a despot, a dictator. Also, the Ukraine leadership must bear some of the blame.
Looking forward to Peter’s debate with John Mearsheimer, hoping it’s as good as his grilling of Ehud Olmert.
If it is aimed at helping Ukrainians, then a diplomatic solution might figure more prominently. But, for a diplomatic solution, Zelensky would need to know that the US, NATO and the EU "has his back" because any such solution will be fiercely opposed by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, including by a few who have threatened to kill him if he concedes too much (or anything at all).
Mearsheimer’s biggest mistake is from the point he seems to think the problem began. It started before NATO or EU consideration, it started when George H.W. Bush dissed Yeltsin and continued to dawn over Gorbachev. Russia wanted to be treated as an equal, wanted respect, and needed a Marshall Plan. It got nothing. Arrogance is the foundation of the war and the establishment of Putin’s Russia. It is Putin’s war, but to some extent, it was US policy that opened the door to Putin’s reign
Peter's comments on Mearsheimer are altogether solid, thoughtful, and I agree with most all. Want to also point out Mearsheimer's prescience about Putin. In an interview available on YouTube from 2014 he predicted (in that historical context) that if Putin invaded Ukraine he would "wreck it." Every word he said on that interview fooled me into thinking he was talking about this present moment, but actually it was 6 years before. I think Peter might give Mearsheimer even more credit - amazing guy, careful scholar, and quite courageous in the annals of academia, especially the field of political science (to which, sadly, I belong).
Since Mearsheimer is so keen to take Russia’s “security concerns” seriously, I wonder why he is so reluctant to do so for Israel, which would be left with essentially negative strategic depth if a Palestinian state were to be formed in the West Bank. I’m not saying either country deserves such charity, just wondering about the discrepancy (and I think any serious commenter on I-P such as yourself should do the same). The idea that his theory is purely descriptive doesn’t seem consistent with his public statements at all.
"As full of shit" was so out of character for you but so right. Our role in the assassination of Allende comes to mind. However, the Biden administration and the cold war establishment have sided with Ukraine in the current crisis. Liberals and leftists need to appreciate their support and live in the present.
I have heard Mearsheimer’s thesis on Ukraine and in fact at the beginning I bought into it. I also objected to our expanding NATO to the east in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. I think we should have created a Marshall plan for Russia at the time. Hope we may get to that that after Putin’s departure (in tandem with reparations to the Ukraine).
But any reading of Putin’s plans for Ukraine, including that little faux pas of showing the Russian forces plans to go to Moldova in a presentation by Belarus’s leader made clear that Putin is about Russia’s glorious past, such as it was and not an obsession with NATO.
In fact, it is interesting to note that Putin had his useful idiot Trump work hard for four year to dismantle NATO in preparation for this attack.
Also, I need to correct you on Israel’s stance in the aftermath of 9/11. Israel clearly counseled the US to go after Iran and leave Iraq alone as such an attack on Iraq would destabilize the Middle East.
Finally the notion as Mearsheimer wrote in the past, that the Jews control American policy is also without calling it what it obviously is a crazy idea. The British too thought the Jews and Jewish bankers controlled the world and thus engaged in producing the Balfour Declaration, through which they hoped to unite the Jews and Jewish money behind their cause in WWI.
For crying out loud if Jews had or have so much power why go to Israel? I think New Zealand or Canada would be a much better idea especially if we controlled the financial universe.
I think it's great that you are having Mearsheimer as a guest this week. Personally, I go back and forth daily -- sometimes several times a day -- as to how much weight to give his explanation for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I tend to seesaw between 50% -- 80%, depending on whose persuasive argument I read last (Timothy Snyder, e.g.). I'm not particularly proud of my indecisiveness, but I can't fathom actually blaming Mearsheimer, as Anne A. and other Neo-Con's do.
One doesn't have to subscribe to the Every-Global-Problem-is-100%-America's-Fault default position of a Chris Hedges or Aaron Maté to understand how culpable the US is in the current Ukraine crisis. I heard eye-opening (separate) interviews recently with Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's chief of staff for a dozen years) and Chaz Freeman (retired diplomat who served in the US Foreign Service, the State and Defense Departments, including as Assistant Secretary of Defense). Even if one doesn't agree 100% with either of their assessments, they give details that can not be ignored, and are in line with some of Mearsheimer's reasoning.
I never seem to be available to watch your Zoom interviews live, so I won't get to ask questions; but I'll definitely watch the recorded version.
I don't agree with Mearsheimer on everything by any means, particularly his version of realism. But he is far better informed than almost all of his critics and cites specific data and sources which can be verified. History as well as the present are both important in analyzing causes, and condemning, as everyone should, the Russian invasion and the human rights violations perpetrated by Russian forces since the invasion, should be not inconsistent with taking a hard look at the underlying causes rooted in U.S. assumptions of a right of "defense" which requires total U.S. military dominance around the world. Also to note, from an African or other position, this looks a awful lot like another "white man's war" in which all of the contending nationalisms are rooted in rule by oligarchs and white supremacy. Not the say they are all the same; at least in the USA there are dissenting voices on at least on domestic racism and oligarchy even if not on U.S. exceptionalism as the one country regarded as having the right to military dominance everwhere.
There is no doubt at all that Russia was provoked by NATO expansion. We know the US would not allow foreign forces and nuclear weapons in North or South America. So it looks like one rule for the US and a different rule for Russia.
That said, Putin was completely wrong to invade Ukraine, he is a tyrant, a despot, a dictator. Also, the Ukraine leadership must bear some of the blame.
Looking forward to Peter’s debate with John Mearsheimer, hoping it’s as good as his grilling of Ehud Olmert.
Is US policy devoted mainly to helping Ukrainians, or rather to "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia"? https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
If it is aimed at helping Ukrainians, then a diplomatic solution might figure more prominently. But, for a diplomatic solution, Zelensky would need to know that the US, NATO and the EU "has his back" because any such solution will be fiercely opposed by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, including by a few who have threatened to kill him if he concedes too much (or anything at all).
Mearsheimer’s biggest mistake is from the point he seems to think the problem began. It started before NATO or EU consideration, it started when George H.W. Bush dissed Yeltsin and continued to dawn over Gorbachev. Russia wanted to be treated as an equal, wanted respect, and needed a Marshall Plan. It got nothing. Arrogance is the foundation of the war and the establishment of Putin’s Russia. It is Putin’s war, but to some extent, it was US policy that opened the door to Putin’s reign
Peter's comments on Mearsheimer are altogether solid, thoughtful, and I agree with most all. Want to also point out Mearsheimer's prescience about Putin. In an interview available on YouTube from 2014 he predicted (in that historical context) that if Putin invaded Ukraine he would "wreck it." Every word he said on that interview fooled me into thinking he was talking about this present moment, but actually it was 6 years before. I think Peter might give Mearsheimer even more credit - amazing guy, careful scholar, and quite courageous in the annals of academia, especially the field of political science (to which, sadly, I belong).
Meirsheimer confuses explanation with justification, or at least sounds like he does....
Since Mearsheimer is so keen to take Russia’s “security concerns” seriously, I wonder why he is so reluctant to do so for Israel, which would be left with essentially negative strategic depth if a Palestinian state were to be formed in the West Bank. I’m not saying either country deserves such charity, just wondering about the discrepancy (and I think any serious commenter on I-P such as yourself should do the same). The idea that his theory is purely descriptive doesn’t seem consistent with his public statements at all.
"As full of shit" was so out of character for you but so right. Our role in the assassination of Allende comes to mind. However, the Biden administration and the cold war establishment have sided with Ukraine in the current crisis. Liberals and leftists need to appreciate their support and live in the present.