“I think if you join an alliance with the Soviet Union to fight against Nazi Germany, it is a strategically wise policy, but it is a morally wrong policy. But you do it because you have no choice for strategic reasons.” Yeesh, arguing that the Soviets were actually worse than the Nazis means you are now to the left of American liberals.
Yeah he oddly seems pretty right about Russia/Ukraine but totally wrong about the USSR. His Wikipedia page indicates a fairly ghoulish past.
There is no reason to fear that Russia is going to be a regional hegemony in Europe. Russia is not a serious threat to the United States. We do face a serious threat in the international system. We face a peer competitor. And that’s China. Our policy in Eastern Europe is undermining our ability to deal with the most dangerous threat that we face today.
:sicko-yes:
does he think china is going to destabilize mexico the way the US destabilizes the neighbors of countries they don't like?
Honestly yeah. While his analysis of the current order is pretty good, I don't really think he is able to conceptualise anything entirely different from it. So he thinks that China is obviously going to attack either Mexico or Canada, since attacking and destablizing the neighbours of your enemies is one of the most tried and true tricks of the American Empire.
I don't think it's odd at all. The part you quoted is right after he talks about how, when the moral and strategic point in opposite directions, you go with the strategic. So it doesn't matter how crooked his moral compass is, because his advice is going to ignore it anyway.
And yeah, he's a total ghoul. You have to be a monster to understand the conclusions of realist international relations and not come out wanting to smash the state.
The bourgeoisie do this with economics as well. Many of these powerful people are idiots, but plenty of them (idk if it's a majority, maybe, maybe not) know what game is being played, just as well as we do.
That's the funny thing about arguing with libs about this conflict, half of their side's academic class fucking agrees with us, or at least agrees with some of our central talking points. Considering what a fucking hard one libs have for these dorks you think that would sway them a little but... nope.
We'll find some guy who was a fucking advisor to Clinton or something who agrees with us and suddenly he's a pro-Russia tankie.
Yeah he oddly seems pretty right about Russia/Ukraine but totally wrong about the USSR.
His entire schtick is that he believes the liberals were naive in marching NATO up to the Russian border instead of integrating Russia into NATO and making them a major partner in western hegemony, which was once on the table in the early 00s.
Mearsheimer has always been a sociopath American imperialist piece of shit, he's just smarter than most of the rest of them.
The funniest part of this is, Mearsheimer is very open about ‘democracy’ not mattering, and public opinion being easy to shape. And now he’s coming up against that machine, or at the very least, people who’ve been spat out by that machine.
___democracy’ not mattering, and public opinion being easy to shape
Where's the lie tho?
it's quite funny that the controversial Mearsheimer's take video is the reason why he get into trouble with the libs.
the most funny shit is that he gets interviewed regarding the ukraine's situation by CGNT (chinese state media) knowing full well that Mearsheimer's conclusion is that China is actually the real threat
why is a realist trying to push an idealist version of the bush doctrine here? :what:
I think he's saying that once you've won the realist struggle for geopolitical dominance for a time, you actually can pursue an idealist agenda. I'm not really familiar with his work though
