It worked out great in the past because of a post european bloodline connection and feels. And maybe the voices of connectedness in our heads are fading away. Knowing how the world works is something I just can't comprehend. Nah, just kidding its the silly Freemasons again The show must go on, lol
@@coronaphone710 How do you reconcile it being European bloodline connections and feels when you consider Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc. - maybe it can explain why it stayed post cold war. Imo its no tangible security threat to EU nato countries, a vassalised status for Europe esp in foreign policy that in large part goes against European interests (R U war itself being a good example) and reduced US Interest in power projection/wanting to reduce overseas spending. I also don't believe security competition between European nations post nato is a factor, the % of global population that is based in Europe, % of global gdp and relative military strength compared to the rest of the world feels like they are an order of magnitude smaller than the e.g. 500 years of European history pre WW2 which will heavily push the Europeans to stay as a bloc, and previous basises for conflict in the region are no longer present/factors/relevant.
"The goal is NOT to win these wars. The goal is to use the wars to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and out of the tax bases of European countries and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. THAT is the goal. To have ENDLESS wars, NOT SUCCESSFUL wars." ~ Julian Assange ~ Stop the War Interview - 8 October 2011
Britain has been a friend of the USA for a very long time. Henry Kissinger was not serious about his comment. When he was executing the Vietnam War he propagated the Domino Theory. That means, if the Vietnam goes out of the US sphere then the other countries would come under the communist influence. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, proved that to be incorrect as well.
right, in the grand scheme of things it is fairly peaceful and orderly...I think something big is coming though within the next 10 to 20 years though...
Maybe... I'm definitely not sure about this, but MAYBE the world might not have been a mess at the tail end of one of the big plague-pandemics. But whenever we humans have the power to do so, we piss in our neighbours' mailboxes and spread rumours that they stink. Non-human emergencies is the only thing that makes us not stir shit up.
The Russians have tried to split the North Atlantic community for decades. That would be a “realistic” point of view. Agitation, subversion, delegitimization; it’s really all the Russians have.
That’s a twisted mindset. America is extracting huge amounts of wealth from the European continent. It provides security for its own interests not for European states per sé. It’s like saying British troops provided security for the Indian states under the Crown rule of India. No! They provided security for British interests.
How is America extracting wealth from Europe again? The US is 30 Trillion in debt, the trade isn't in America's favor. Of course, a state will provide security for itself first - but that is not to say that a state can't also provide security for others, too. India's initial infrastructure looks oft English. And to the point of the video - providing the security (to some extent) makes it the US' And yet, America pays for that security... It's not Americans whose interest is in Ukraine -- it's the Intel Community, War-Machine, & Globalists (+BlackRock)
@@EnduringLight America is extracting massive amounts of wealth through the global energy and broader resource trade. In the case of Europe, also through the means of political pressure and coercion in matters of trade, politics, media and security arrangements. No European nation with the exception of Russia and France have their independent foreign policy and look how American elites feel about those nations. Look at how Americas attitude was towards the UK the 1950s when they still had their own empire and ambitions. Lastly America is active on the European continent since over 100 years, white almost all modern European Nations being (re)created as a result of US politics. The Europe you know is pretty much a product of the US. Don’t get me wrong, the US is a wonderful place, but it is also a global empire.
Actually America is trying to extract all those nations profits out of Europe. As J.D. Rockefeller once said, "Competition is a sin.". We are in the global rape and pillage business today by the monopolists who have bought off all the formerly semi-democratic governments. Fascism reigns.
Hes delusional, Europe help US on so many levels that the US must ponder what happens if EU/US telations deteriorate, all generals in pentagon knows how dependent US foreign politics are with allies in Europe
@@AnaG-pd3ym Definitely not. Power lust is not limited to the trait of a nation, but to the basis of group ethics. The current situation will remain the way it is until we figure out how to work with one another.
@@AnaG-pd3ym If the US didn't meddle in the affairs of my country we would still be a communist dictatorship. So no. Definitely not. 100% not. The US has been a blessing to the world. Yes, their democratic crusade went too far when it tried to go into the middle east, a region of the world which seems entirely unprepared for democracy. But on balance the US has been a force for good, without a doubt.
@@vladsirin You are right. The hegemony of the US has run its course. It is the "new world" order. Financial power has been given to the "New world", but effectively to the US, and other countries are trapped into this order because of markets and economical reasons. Now the US is taken down and power is shifted to Asia, China, India and many other nations, but no one realises this fact. Things will stay the same. There will not be any "paradise" as long as the ruling class has their way.
heh, don't kid yourself too much it's always been dangerous to be alive. The main difference today is that you've been educated to think it is not dangerous and that dangerous institutions and people will make you safer. @@griffinsalmon5798
Avoiding war and conflict requires a multifaceted approach: Diplomacy: Encouraging open dialogue and negotiations between conflicting parties. Economic Development: Addressing poverty and inequality can reduce tensions. Education: Promoting understanding and tolerance through education. International Law: Strengthening international laws and institutions that resolve disputes peacefully. Disarmament: Reducing the number of weapons can lower the potential for armed conflict. Conflict Prevention: Identifying and addressing the root causes of conflict before they escalate. These strategies require global cooperation and commitment to peace.
I believe a very sound analysis. We in Europe have to free ourselves from the US asap. I believe this for decades. We in Europe are too different. The current EU will not now and not ever work. It has grown too large with too many totally different cultures that will never merge. And the transfer of money from the rich to the poor countries in the EU is unacceptable.
I like how ppl need experts like this guy to say that when you live off robbing, cheating, stealing and killing others, things must go bad for you eventually....
There has never been consequences for such actions on any level. Of course people don't understand consequences. No nation has ever been punished for this. No small time local crook ever gets more than a year or two in the extremely rare case of a conviction.
@@NJIT22 yes of course ... most major islamist criminal leaders are secret allies of the West... to fuel their war machine ...the Sahel states kicked out France because they found out that France are supplying terrorists and thats just one of many examples
You came here to listen. Others came here to listen. They don't need him to explain it they enjoy hearing his perspective on the situation they came here because they already know.
Shows the level of immaturity among Europeans. They seems to be carrying resentment for each other while they collectively or mostly resent Russia. Yet have no problem compromising everything for the United States who will sacrifice Europe at a heartbeat.
There are two enduring trade embargoes inflicted by Europe for generations, one against North Korea, the other against Australia. In the meantime the Europeans insist on trading with Russia. Utterly moronic.
@@seanlander9321 It was Europe who created the problem with Russia. They had a good thing going an ALL Putin wanted not no threat near his border which ANY sane country would ask for. The problem is USA has no respect for any other country and think its powerful enough to dictate to every country in the world. Countries are sick of it and just want to trade and get on with life.
We don't collectively resent Russia. Diplomatic relationships between Europe and Russia were improving until the US destroyed NordStream 2. The pipeline would've increased interdependency between the EU and Russia and prevent conflicts. This is why it had to go, as Biden promised it would. It was a threat to the existence of NATO.
Something like an American would say. You prolly don't even have a passport. Come over here and do learn about the world, and escape the 20th century american thinking.
@@seanlander9321 there are currently 20,000 sanctions on Russia and over half have been in place since the Russian revolution. Just let the adults make the comment small fry 🤫🤫🤫🤫
@@kangtaum1588 Aye, it was never ideal, never perfect, but you can't possibly claim that a debate between Trump and Biden is on the same level as that between Kennedy and Nixon?
What's wrong with this analysis is that it focuses on state geopolitical competition and ignores culture. Europe has historically been the cultural center of western civilization while the United States has focused more on economic development and materialism. Now we see the US in steep cultural decline and Europe importing Africa of all things. This makes no sense. Ukraine could have been a nice cultural transition state between east and west after the fall of the Soviet Union had the US not interfered exerting pressure on Europe. The great fear of course is that Europe and Russia with all its resources would become an economic block rivaling the US. So rather than try to fix its own problems, the US seeks to divide and conquer. Pathetic.
As an European living at the heart of the EU in Brussels, I can indeed confirm that Europe position across the globe is weakening. But the USA should also not exaggerate that Europe is going be whipped from the world. The world that we know as the PAX America is done and i doubt that the usa can survive without importing cheap goods of china of oil from other countries. I also doubt that the USA would like to see Europe having it's own global army outside NATO. Since this would also mean a loss of influence in Europe and money that's going to American arms manufacturing. Europe could decide to put sanctions against Israel or even revive diplomatic relationships with Iran. Lets also not forget that Saddam Hussein was going to sell oil in Euro's in the 2000's. If Europe was an opportunist, they would have dumped the USA for a long time. But we arent like the USA who selled oil to nazi germany before pearl harbor. As an conclussion, there are no allies, there are only interests...
Wonderful informative video. You stated that Russia is a sovereign state who viewed NATO expansion as an essentially threat. Their action was a natural response. But isn't Ukraine also a sovereign state? They don't have the right to decide for themselves the direction of their country? Who gave Russia the right to infringe on Ukraine's sovereignty?
Но почему никто не вводит санкции против США и Европы за то, что они натворили в Афганистане, Сирии, Ираке, Ливии? Россия ни на кого не нападала, мы защищаем изначально Донбасс, а теперь и свои территории.Украина стала вашей марионеткой ещё до начала СВО.
To answer your questions, it is necessary to go back a few years to late 2013. At that time, Ukraine was still a functioning democracy, with its own president, elected by the people, just like any other European nation. Ukraine was a sovereign state and the people had decided the direction of their country. They had, in fact, elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2010, and he was attempting to balance the nation's relations with its neighbours to the west and east, namely the European Union and Russia. Yanukovych is often described as being "pro-Russian", but it would be better to say that he valued having friendly relations with both Russia and the European Union. His government had been inching toward finalizing an Association Agreement with the European Union, but there were several obstacles still to be ironed out, with the EU laying down the law on several key points. As a result, in November 2013, Yanukovic's government decided to suspend the process of the EU Association Agreement. This was the government's right, of course, but it resulted in mass protests in Kiev that came to be known as the "Euromaidan" protests. They were organized by various pro-EU civil society groups, backed by powerful vested interests in Europe and America. The United States and several other NATO members (notably Poland) took advantage of the situation to transform these peaceful protests into violent conflict, providing training and materials to the more violent protesters. In particular, they lent support to neo-Nazi thugs who had already been trained and nurtured by the United States and Poland with a view to influencing Ukraine's political landscape. These neo-Nazi thugs grew increasingly violent throughout the protests, turning central Kiev into a battle zone. In February 2014, the United States (probably the C.I.A.) deployed snipers to Kiev for the final stage of their planned regime-change operation. These snipers (sourced from various countries) were ordered to shoot from various buildings into the protesters and police, creating a massacre that would offer the justification for the final escalation from "protests" to "armed insurrection". In line with the U.S. instructions, this massacre was reported in the media as being the work of the Ukrainian police. Using the massacre as justification, armed insurrectionists then attacked government buildings, ousting the elected government of Ukraine. President Yanukovych fled the country by aircraft. This was a C.I.A. coup in a European nation in the 21st Century, and the U.S.A. did this because it didn't like the policies of the government elected by the citizens of a sovereign European nation. What followed was the installation of a puppet government in Kiev (chosen by the U.S.A.), and the capture of the Ukrainian media and political landscape, thereby eliminating any chance of another "pro-Russian" president like Yanukovich being elected again. The C.I.A.'s neo-Nazi thugs went on the rampage, attacking the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, as per instructions. However, in the south and east of Ukraine (Crimea and the Donbas), the neo-Nazi's ran into opposition, because the populations there were overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. The result was a civil war in Ukraine that ran from 2014 to 2022, with thousands of Ukrainians killed and injured. The Russian-speaking Ukrainians begged Russia to help, and Russia provided assistance covertly in the Donbas. The regions of Donetsk and Lugansk had already declared themselves as independent republics, rejecting rule from Kiev. Meanwhile, in Crimea, a referendum was held on leaving Ukraine and joining Russia, with the population voting overwhelmingly to join Russia. In all of these Russian-speaking regions, the people had a clear choice: remain under rule from Kiev and risk more violence from the neo-Nazis, or reject rule from Kiev and seek protection from Russia. They opted for protection from Russia. As I say, the war continued for eight years, with Russia only involved on a covert level, and the government of Kiev continued to attack the Donbas and Crimea, using weapons and ammunition supplied by NATO. Russia tried multiple times to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this crisis, but the Kiev government continually sabotaged those efforts, reneging on the agreements it signed. In the spring of 2022, just as the Kiev military was preparing to attack the Donbas for a fourth time, Russia launched its special military operation, with the aim of forcing Kiev to accept a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Russia knew that Kiev could not be trusted to keep to any agreements previously signed, because it kept breaking its word. And so, Russia escalated the situation by sending in the tanks, forcing the government of Kiev to the negotiating table in Belarus. This almost worked, but certain people in NATO (most notably British Prime Minister Boris Johnson) sabotaged the talks. And so, Russia withdrew, regrouped and resolved to end the situation by way of a full-scale war, which is what we have seen over the past two years. In short, this current conflict between Ukraine and Russia is the culmination of a decade-long civil war in Ukraine that was started by NATO, and particularly the U.S.A. It was the U.S.A. (with the C.I.A. in the lead) that deliberately ousted the elected president of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequently collapsed Ukraine's democratic system. (There have been elections in Ukraine since that time, but there has been no true political freedom, because certain parties are banned, the media is totally censored, and anyone with an independent voice is either arrested or murdered.) The U.S.A. deliberately collapsed democracy in a European nation, depriving the citizens of the right to determine their country's direction. And the U.S.A. did this because it wanted to dictate the direction of that country in line with U.S. national interests, ensuring that it joined the E.U. and NATO, etc.. So, if anyone has deprived the people of Ukraine of the right to determine their own future, it is the U.S.A., not Russia. It is the United States (and its NATO allies) that infringed on the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia's own involvement was at the request of those Russian-speaking Ukrainians who were being targeted by neo-Nazis and the new regime in Kiev. The involvement of the U.S.A. was entirely self-serving, aimed at pursuing its power-crazed global foreign policy, with NATO expansion a top priority. Meanwhile, the involvement of Russia was based on two considerations: first, the need to ensure it's own survival in the face of likely NATO expansion; second, a moral obligation in response to an unfolding humanitarian tragedy on its borders. If you are still unsure who gave the Russians the right to "infringe on Ukrainian territory", go to Donetsk and Lugansk, or to the Crimea, and ask the majority Russian-speaking people there. They begged Russia to come to their rescue, and Russia responded to that call.
@@Madadaal For three years he said one thing that NAto is doomed, yet to come , hope he doesnt die from old age cuz its going to be hilarious if his blabbering is just paperweight
@@samogonbrother We can see now all the signs that NATO’s power diminishing. If soon Ukraine's army is badly broken and defeated, what do you think will happen? NATO is likely to collapse and Europe will be freed from American warmongers.
I prefer Peter Zeihan. This guy has been consistently pro Putin policy wise. That’s a bankrupt position. To be fair I’m willing to be persuaded but all the evidence I see is Putin is a ruthless kleptocrat.
@@HarryWolf Have you heard Martti J. Kari (a former intelligence colonel in the Finnish Defence Forces)? He is an expert on Russia and lives just next door. I think you would find he disagrees with John Mearsheimer on quite a few issues.
This man is showing his age with this old-timey perspective. I find it unthinkable that any western EU country would go to war to expand its borders, with the exception of the balkans perhaps. The relations could hardly be better. Germany is in fact improving it's defensive capabilities, and as a Dutchman I applaud this. Also mind you that Germany doesn't have nukes.
lol, glad you approve of Germany improving their "defensive capabilities" the good Prof. is respected in the west and Russia, his "old-timey" is known as common sense. The last two times Germany improved their capabilities close to 100 million people lost their lives. The saying is as true to today as 100 years ago "history repeats itself"
A failure of perspective and understanding the dynamism of nation-state relations under changing conditions. I wouldn't think it would be anything like an immediate event, in fact, I would think the immediate event would be European nations remaining in and attempting to build up NATO with renewed vigor. How successful they would be in that is an open question. If there is failure, there could be stub collective security led by the stronger nation-states.
The problem is that Europe is addicted to US security protection. It allows the European countries to fund their social welfare states instead of funding their own security. However, with the massive inflow of migrants over the past decade, even with high taxes, they can no longer afford the social welfare state as it currently exists. As such, Europe remains subservient to the foreign policy of the USA. At the same time, Europe is not getting rich. It chose to spend on social welfare rather than invest in the growth of their economies. This is clear when you compare economic growth in Europe with Asia and the developing world over the past 25 years. NATO has demonstrated that it is a toothless tiger and the USA is far weaker than it was 25 years ago. If Europe continues on this path, its future is not bright. Europe's future would be far better if they broke with the USA, negotiate a lasting piece with Russia, and stop the migration.
And it's America's fault. They are the ones forcing our weak politicians to sanction countries that we need to trade with, in order to force Europe into trading more with USA on a more expensive regard. "Oh you cannot get your gas from Russia? How unfortunate. You can buy ours!" "Oh woops.. yeah you don't need that pipeline anymore. We can't have you trading with Russia." "You getting all those migrants? Arh darnit. Yeah... well, the middle-east didn't work out for us. You just have fun with them!"
What a joke of the European Union depending on NATO aka USA to protect them from one self. One should ask, how is League of Arab States (LAS), the African Union Commission (AUC), ASEAN, & BRICS exist without US watching over them
or,. btw,. creating these problems,. dont know if you realize,. but,. the yanks are involve in how many wars? lets count,. ,Vietnam,. Iran,. Iraq,. Afghanistan,. Ukraine,. Pushing Taiwan,. Haiti just showed up,. Africa with their minerals,. WHY THE HELL do you yanks just stay out of stuff,. ,and now????? SANCTIONING EVERY COUNTRY THAT WILL NOT PAY WITH YANK DOLLAR???? honestly,. by my opinion,. now.???? your usa is most of the problems as far as i can see......sit the hell down,. shut the hell up,. go about your own country,. your at civil war stuff,. dont tell the rest of the world what to do,. and btw,. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO FIGHT ANOTHER W....A....R..., GOSH,.
EU-Nato countries are like 40% Nato military spending. EU-Nato is not defenseless. France, UK, and probably Poland now at this point as well could each manhandle Russia by themselves if it came down to it. US might not need NATO, but NATO also doesn't need US. US might be too dog, but the rest of NATO isnt far behind as a close second. With the US watching over all those supranational-organizations that don't even really do anything; YOU need to ask yourself, what if the US is the only real or possible threat to any of them?
OK, but only regarding that Russia doesn´t want to occupy later also other European countries-and they were happy to leave out after 1990, because it was difficult to manage it when we didn´t want them here (I am Czech). They still were happy to drain us like leeches economically, for example they mined all the uranium, and devastated our economy to the last drop. They didn't have much trouble keeping it here. But now they are no longer such a big empire and they are impoverished. This could be reason enough to move here again.
Mearsheimer's arguments don't stack up. How is it that Russia supposedly views a western aligned Ukraine as an existential threat (and was justified in trying to invade it), but China should somehow not view a western-controlled Taiwan as not being one? The reality is that neither of these countries are existential threats to their big neighbours.
Ukraine is the natural buffer zone before the actual russian territory in case of an attack from the west. Russia never had natural "barriers" (like mountains) on that side since the sarmatic flatland runs uninterrupted until Germany.
Why should my taxes pay to protect Europe so that they can have the single payer healthcare, affordable education and high quality of life that I don’t get as an American? This is what many may ask themselves.
US could have all these things too, in fact, had them. You spend 18% of enormous GDP on healthcare. Cut it down to 10%, introduce German model, and enjoy extra 2% of GDP for education, budget deficit, infrastructure and maintaining your suburban houses that have porches larger then whole European quality-of-life apartments.
Another hilarious joke " nato and thus American military presence within Europe is a pacifier " ....that Mearsheimer guy is out of his mind , send him to the psy ward
I was aligned with many of the positions generated by this dude until Sweden and Finland joined NATO and I saw a historical perspective on Putin‘s meddling and bombing of Georgia, annexation of Crimea & effectively Belarus. Why would Sweden and Finland join NATO if they didn’t perceive Russia as a threat?
I agree. He is completely twisting the facts when it comes to Russia. Russia is constantly trying to destabilize European democracies, by direct and indirect warfare. This is well known and well proven, so I don't get why Mearsheimer chooses to ignore these facts
Have another look into what actually happened in 2008. EU monitors explained the Bear didn't fire first. Who became mayor of Odessa after that? After WW2 Finland used to be neutral like Switzerland but that changed after the c19 debacle. They asked the British for help but Churchill denied them assistance so they aligned with Germany against USSR in WW2. They profited from war reparations with USSR.
@@TekAutomatica doesn’t change my operative point. Why would countries known to be relatively neutral join NATO unless they perceived Putins Russia to be a threat? I think the pundit here takes an interesting perspective in that he sees these issues through the lens of whomever is opposing US interests and repositions their talking points. I think it’s healthy to see all views.
If EU countries can live under NATO they can militarily organize themselves together also beyond NATO. What would be the difference? The big influence of USA: they give but they want things too. And that art of toxic relationship should somewhen finish
NATO enlargement since 1991 had been a serious mistake not (only) because it triggered Russian security concerns, but primarily because it has affected the balance inside the Alliance itself by bringing Russophobic Eastern European elites to the decision making table. In 1991 NATO had been about peace and cooperation but since 1999 and especially 2004 it became all about conflict and confrontation. As a matter of fact Europe did not became more secure after 2004, rather the opposite.
Horseshit. Eastern Europe has never been more secure. In the early 2000s Eastern European countries feared for their existence because of Russia. My country would have never joined the EU if it hadn't joined NATO first. Eastern European countries practically begged to be in NATO because they were afraid of Russia, which is a point that Mearsheimer and his fans seem to ignore entirely.
I am a member of a country that joined in 2004 - if this war was happening as it is right now and we weren't in NATO - I'd be shitting my pants. And no, people don't know Russians - they are just as greedy as any other superpower (or wanna be).
What if I told you that the Eastern European countries wanted to get into NATO and EU for protection? Russia has been doing their diving propaganda for decades now. Eastern Europeans aren't russophobic. Russia for 20-25 years have been actively funding groups and politicians that are constantly trying to spark conflicts between russians and the locals in that country. You have a new generation in Eastern Europe who has all the memories from their parents of how awful the USSR occupation was, while also seeing that Russia doesn't want to play nice and wants to control Eastern Europe once again. That's the problem with many Russians - they can't comprehend that Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles etc absolutely hate the USSR and the occupation and generally find it a dark times in their history...
@@NikiK57 This. Mearsheimer never comments on this - Russia has been actively working, especially since it's gotten some financial stability in the early 2000s, to destabilize whatever it can in Eastern Europe. Their networks are still up and running from USSR's time - it wasn't 10 thousand years ago, it was just a decade. Ukraine had exactly 0 internal independence politically and, to be frank, economically from Russia. The closer you are to Russia the closer you are to hell.
@@NikiK57 "Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles etc absolutely hate the USSR"... they also hate Russian Empire... and they hate modern Russia. That's exactly what Russophobia means in a nutshell. You just have proved my point.
As a Dutchman (i.e. inhabitant of The Netherlands) I can assure you that Mearsheimer is plainly wrong about The Netherlands: we do NOT fear Germany and don't compete militarily. On the contrary: our militaries are practically combined. We DO fear the Russians and perceive them as a real threat.
Self-contradiction: US troops have stationed in Taiwan, isn't the US made Taiwan an existential threat to China? From your realist point of view, hasn't China every reason eliminate this security threat, i.e.to invade Taiwan, no matter the cost?
Not until US will consider Taiwan as independent state (which they haven't) and invite it to NATO. Right now the Chinese have no reason to rush and start a war there. They can just wait a decade or two until the declined hegemon withdraw on its own and Taiwan will be reunited peacefully.
This is a great introduction to appropriately framing one's thinking about geopolitics and foreign policy, conflict and trade. I appreciate it on behalf of the up and coming generations who are just learning about this stuff! Also, I appreciate your directness and authoritative presentation. The internet needs more of this sort of direct, straight-up content that explain how geopolitics works.
Professor Mearsheimer says Russia isn't a threat to Europe. Then what threat does Europe really face today? Why do we need NATO? Could the Treaty of Lisbon from 2009, which outlines a common European defense mechanism, replace NATO dependency and "free" Europe from US hegemony?
I been deep diving into his books . I highly recommend reading his work and books. He is very knowledgeable and informative. This comment section really is a distasteful disgrace
perhaps you are just the person to tell me, john m. doesn't seem to know that islam is determined to rule the world, already 8mill in the USA, they don't have a time frame, long as it happens. BRIGITTE GABRIEL ''because they hate'' is a very informative book, john has probably never heard of her. muslims want ALL jews and infidels DEAD or converted.
Writing a book doesnt make you smart, writing a book doesnt make you knowledgeable. I see this man as someone with dementia or he is on Putins payroll (probably both). That just sounds like another character important in USA politics. The man i mean has an is absurdly orange appearance.
he says Russia has no interest in invading countries that don't want to be occupied. yet they are invading Ukraine! Ukraine is fighting back, what is he talking about?
It's kinda complicated. Some people in Ukraine wanted to split with Ukraine since 2014. There was war there between Ukraine and it's regions that were supported by Russia. Then invasion happened. Basically Russia think that parts of Ukraine that speak Russian want to be with Russia. Most of occupied regions are regions that fought with Ukraine from 2014. People that are fighting with Russia are Ukrainians that were on the side of Ukraine in the conflict from 2014. But there are Ukrainians that are on the side of regions that wanted to split, they are now on the side of Russia.
@@kotenoklelu3471 it sounds like civil war. I hate to say it but it seems like US should stay out of a civil war 1/2 the population want one thing, one another.
Remember, Russia could have joined the EU and likely dominated it with its energy dollars and technology, but out of stupidity of Heritage, it never made that request. There is no discussion as to why Russia thinks that the Ukraine in the EU would “harm” Russia. If anything, it would benefit Russia, and no, there has NEVER been an official offer for Ukraine to join NATO as John suggests happened.
"The USA defends Europe and in turn Europe does what the US wants them to do" - This was absolutely true during the cold war and it is more true today than it was before the war in Ukraine. I'm not sure though if this is going to be the case in decades to come. The USA with the increasing lunacy and unreliability of conservatives is not actually getting the job of protection done. Depending on how the conflict between China and the USA turns out to evolve, it might very well be in Europe's best interest to become a third party, certainly in economical terms. The USA demonstrated that it is not capable to create or maintain a world order in which Europe can remain an appendix of American policies. If Trump wins the upcoming elections, I find it quite likely that Europe will emancipate itself from the USA, not because of what Trump might do, but because it demonstrates that the USA is not an ally that can be counted on. Europe knows that already, it just doesn't really want to believe it and it also does not really want to engage in global politics aside from its economical aspirations. If Europe learns that it doesn't really have a choice, Trump can help with that, I'm not overly pessimistic.
How does the good professor square his assertion that Russua doesnt want to invade eastern European countries with the empiric observation that Russia is in the middle of invading an eastern European country.
You may find a longer answer in the professor's other lectures and presentations, but basically Russia's plan was to intimidate Ukraine into a deal, just like that happened in Georgia in 2008. And Ukraine was ready to accept that a few months into the war (Ankara peace talks). US / UK said that show must go on and now Russia got itself into a long war it doesn't want but have no choice but to finish.
Sorry John, India and China are not going to war over a range of mountains. John does not want to give the BRICS organization the credit it deserves. I'm indeed also concerned about the future because of the desperation in the West over the out of control Western debt, as well as the Western reaction to BRICS.
Depends, China building dams upstream of Indian territory and slowly nibbling away at Indian territory is eventually going to piss off an increasingly nationalist India
J is getting anti China recently - in some of his media, he goes as far as to mentioned that it was mistake to start war with Russia but hinted that China is the real threat.
Those countries couldn’t be any more different. France and Germany can’t even coordinate monetary policy. Now you are proposing China and Brazil or India? GTFOH.
Great respect for the Professor. There is a "higher authority" but only 1% of people who are "old souls" understand it. No one controls his own destiny, everything that exists is controlled by the "hanging authority"
Although I agree with Prof. Mearsheimer more often than not, he is completely wrong with assessment of Russia on the Ukrainian wr. Russia does not respect sovereignty and should Russia succeed in Ukraine, they will expand to Moldova and start picking off Baltic States. They will probably start with Estonia just to test if Nato is willing to activate article 5 and risk a nuclear conflict over a small European country.
YEAH EXACTLY!! We don't have any fking enemies. It's USA's enemies. Not ours. Russia and Europe were getting along very well 20 years ago. Europe was growing. But USA saw that and was like "Noooope.." So they gave us the 1985 Japan treatment. "We can't have your economy growing. We'll set a stop to that." And now they are back at their chant with "You are nothing without us" and "Europe should pay for its own military." What about just leaving us alone?..
The basic assumption is flawed. Economic power trumps military power in a multi-polar world. The USA is a failing empire and is flailing by focusing on military power over economic success.
That is only true for "invincible" big countries (that have nukes). For everyone else economic might is not important if someone stronger can just take away your riches (Lybia, Iraq, ...)
That ignores basic facts. US is food and energy independent and the dollar is the reserve currency. The US GDP grows year on year and is $11. Trillion more than the #2 country which is facing an unprecedented demographic collapse. 1. United States: $25.43 trillion China: $14.72 trillion Japan: $4.25 trillion Germany: $3.85 trillion India: $3.41 trillion United Kingdom: $2.67 trillion France: $2.63 trillion Russia: $2.24 trillion Canada: $2.16 trillion Italy: $2.04 trillion
Your wrong on Taiwan John. Very wrong. The Japanese, Taiwanese and Americans are not a cohesive fighting force. Moreover, the Chinese are prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend their sovereign territory and Taiwan is recognized by the U.N. as being sovereign to China. A few special forces soldiers are not going to have any impact. Taiwan must have tens of thousands of U.S. troops on the island and dug in to have a chance at defense. China will never allow a build up like that to take place. You know this John but aren't vocalizing it for a reason.
@@flyingsnow311Americans usually mention semiconductor industry of Taiwan. Also there are rumors that Americans want to default on their debt to Chinese under the guise of Taiwan war
THE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA THAT NATO WILL NOT MOVE EASTWARDS IS A MYTH This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in a interview in 2014 (google Bond the headlines Mikhail Gorbachev nato): Mikhail Gorbachev himself SAID ; "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either." This is a myth pressed by Kremlin about the so called promised that NATO would not expand after the Cold War... Also on a side note like I have said before : if there was a such agreement (and there was not ) the agreement will have been with the USSR and the USSR as a country and legal entity no longer is a thing any more, it is only in the history books and therefor all legally binding verbal or otherwise contract with the USSR is no longer valid and has no legal standing, so even if such an agreement was a fact (and its not ) then it no longer has any binding moral or legality to it !! Every agreement and decision made by NATO must be made in consensus and recorded filed and signed by ALL Nato member states before it becomes a fact !! NATO has time after time after time told Russia to show the world where this so called agreement is where is the document that shows such an agreement was ever made !!! And time after time Moscow cannot come up with any evidence , prof or any document to back up this so called agreement . WHY IS THAT ?? Because it never happened it's a myth made up by Moscow !! There is no record of any such-decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement. In addition, at the time (1989) of the "promise", the Warsaw Pact still existed so why will any such agreement have been made? . The Warsaw Pact members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. (So based on that fact even if there was an agreement (and there never was one ) that agreement will have to been made with the USSR and the USSR no longer is a thing as it dissolved in 1991 so any agreement made is now none in void in other words no longer is valid because the USSR only belongs in the history books and can not be seen as a legal entity any more... The idea of their accession to NATO was not on the agenda in 1989. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev himself in an interview with Russia Beyond the Headlines: (just google :Mikhail Gorbachev Russia Beyond the Headlines ON A SIDE NOTE ; also back in , in 1997, it was reveal that Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."
Mearsheimer often talks in circles. He says Russia will win in Ukraine, but later states Russia is not strong enough to conquer Ukraine. Then what does a Russian 'win' look like Mr. Mearsheimer? Even if Russia is able to keep the 10% it currently holds, it will still be neighboring a hostile, mostly intact , and now armed Ukraine. All for the price of depleting its military, what's left of its demographics and what was once a thriving arms export industry. This does not look like a 'win'.
He didn't say Russia will be happier. Just that Ukraine's goal of winning back the 10% will fail. In other words, the blustering from the USA and Europe about winning will only lead to embarrassment and weakening of NATO.
@@martingifford5415 I didn't say anything about Russia being happier either . At 10:10 he says Russia will win. I disagree for the reasons i posted. Both Russia and Ukraine lose. I do not agree with Mearsheimer that this will be a loss for NATO. The only thing that puts NATO in jeopardy is the US going home......which can happen, but not because Russia keeps a few oblast.
@@martingifford5415 Russia is drastically weaker and has created so many more problems for itself, yet it has gained nothing of note. Most NATO countries have increased military spending, and NATO as an institution is back from the dead, as before the invasion it was ..... well, contemplating its own existence. What weakening and embarrassment do you speak of? The only way Nato "losses" is if they pull completely out, like this useful idiot has advocated, and then they roll over everything and look for more. Or a 1 in a billion odds hits and they take all of Ukraine, which even he said they can't do.
Claim: NATO enlargement threatens Russia Fact: Every country that joins NATO undertakes to uphold its principles and policies. This includes the commitment that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia," as reaffirmed at the Warsaw Summit. NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also subscribed to and should respect. NATO's Open Door policy has been a historic success. Together with EU enlargement, it has spread stability and prosperity in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Claim: Russia has the right to demand a "100% guarantee" that Ukraine will not join NATO Fact: According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act which established the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right "to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." All the OSCE member states, including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles. In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty of alliance, including NATO's founding treaty. Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security". Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated agreement, no right to dictate that choice. Claim: NATO provoked the "Maidan" protests in Ukraine Fact: The demonstrations which began in Kiev in November 2013 were born out of Ukrainians' desire for a closer relationship with the European Union, and their frustration when former President Yanukovych halted progress toward that goal as a result of Russian pressure. The protesters' demands included constitutional reform, a stronger role for the parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to the pervasive and endemic corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence. There was no mention of NATO. Ukraine began discussing the idea of abandoning its non-bloc status in September 2014, six months after the illegal and illegitimate Russian "annexation" of Crimea and the start of Russia's aggressive actions in Eastern Ukraine. The final decision by Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada to abandon the non bloc status was taken in December 2014, over a year after the pro-EU demonstrations began. Claim: NATO has bases all around the world Fact: NATO's military infrastructure outside the territory of Allies is limited to those areas in which the Alliance is conducting operations. Thus the Alliance has military facilities in Afghanistan for the support of the Resolute Support mission, and in Kosovo for the KFOR mission. NATO has civilian liaison offices in partner countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and Russia. These cannot be considered as "military bases". Individual Allies have overseas bases on the basis of bilateral agreements and the principle of host-nation consent, in contrast with Russian bases on the territory of Moldova (Transnistria), Ukraine (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) and Georgia (the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Claim: NATO is trying to en encircle Russia Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia's land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 2,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. Russia shares land borders with 15 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea Finland ). Only six of them are NATO members. Outside NATO territory, the Alliance only has a military presence in two places: Kosovo . Both operations are carried out with a United Nations mandate, and therefore carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. In contrast, Russia has military bases and soldiers in three countries - Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine - without the consent of their governments. In fact, we’ve seen new permanent deployments all along Russia’s western border with NATO Allies, from the Barents to the Baltic Sea, and from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalize Russia Fact: Since the early 1990s, the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest. NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia PfP founding documents After the conclusion of the Dayton Accords in 1995, Russian forces participated in the NATO-led operations to implement the peace agreement (IFOR and SFOR) and in the NATO-led operation to implement the peace in Kosovo (KFOR), under UN Security Council mandates. In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). They reaffirmed their commitment to the Founding Act at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010 Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. We set out to build a unique relationship with Russia, one built not just on mutual interests but also on cooperation and the shared objective for a Europe whole free and at peace. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship, nor a similar comprehensive institutional framework. Claim: Russia has the right to oppose NATO-supported infrastructure on the territory of member states in Central and Eastern Europe Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010. In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defense against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe." Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act and therefore by Russia.
One error the esteemed professor makes: Often the basic unit is not a state, but an international caste that makes deals to protect itself, at the expense of the state. E.g.: The current alleged collusion among the Nominated of the US, Europe, and (a few of) Japan. These Nominated are civil servants, police, judiciary, and hush-hush services. See the 2020 elections, or the current "cooperation" among the Nominated of Israel, the US, and (a few of) Europe. E.g.(2) The Epstein/Maxwell kompromat operation. It did not seek to entrap enemies, but the hush-hush services (Israel, US, UK) bosses. So yes, security is primary, not wealth per se. But it is security not of the state, but of management of the state, who seek to rob the state's "shareholders" of their ownership and control. Far fetched? Not at all. This attempted robbery of shareholders by nominated management takes place in the stock market daily...
Agree in part, but you missing a big part of the picture. States are designed to serve the interest of a certain people group. Once it fails to do so successfully the State falls and is reconstituted. The Russian Federation serves the Russia people for instance, just as the Soviets did before that. When the Soviets no longer were able to best ensure the security of the Russians, it had to go. So many forget that States are just ONE mechanism for organizing people, but the real force is always the people group itself, no matter how they are organized, no matter the system involved.
@@dmvfilms That's not how things really work. If you don't know it, it will take too long to explain. See the case of the fall of East Germany, and how the assets were disbursed via the Treuhand to a bunch of people from both East and West. Or see how the Maxwell/Epstein Kompromat was not aimed at Russians or Chinese or Iranians, but against the hush-hush bosses. Or how deep state Americans and deep state Chinese and deep state Russians are in biz together. The way things really work is not the way bokheads like Meersheimer can even imagine. It is beyond his ken. His "units" are states. They are not. They are loose partnerships across international borders, of the Nominated against the Elected.
sounds like a quasi class analysis of the contradictions within each state. the military protection of capital. the lobbying complex of corporations controlling government policies.
@@ibn_klingschor Why must you use such fancy academic words that say very little? It's a conflict between the state's shareholders and the state's conniving management. It happens every day in the stock market. Only in the market there's an arbiter-- the court system. In politics there are none. So the only arbiter is the street, with the people taking pitchforks to the paid guards of the aristocracy.
Jesus. What on earth do they teach in American schools. The EU needs to be defended? Do you even know what that means? Exactly how does the US fund the European Union? Do you even know what the European Union actually is?
NATO is important for European security. On the other hand even small European states like Finland and Sweden could effectively defend themselves against an invasion (given conventional warfare). Russia is not the soviet union, not even close. Being under the NATO umbrella is most important for Europe when it comes to global issues, like the US maintaining a functional world order with free trade.
if there was no interest from Russia to conquer the whole Ukraine how do you explain the thousand of tanks arrived (and destroyed) to Kyiv, the planes landing (and destroyed) in the Kyiv airport? Of course they tried, and failed.
Conquering would involve taking something intact and then extracting benefits from the place, but leaving after destroying and making a place uninhabitable is a completely different thing.
@@k-c true, but we need to see the intent: at the beginning they tried to seize power simply changing government in Kiyv, since they didn't manage, they started this destruction campaign
I do not agree with Prof. Mearsheimer's analysis of "retaliation dominance", he leaves Israel's silent partner in a potential conflict with Iran out of the equation - Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have buried the hatchet. SA will not aid Israel. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is not a stickler for theological minutiae. He wants the Muslim world to work together based on a least common denominator (belief in the Quran) instead of fighting the old Sunni vs.Shia battles.
His position is pretty consistent That doesn't mean that I agree with his analysis He served in the Vietnam war and had skin in the game so to speak Considering victor davis hanson's new book: the end of everything, I would love to have these two academics discuss the current situation
Problem with vdh is that as a supporter of Trump, he gives John the benefit of the doubt. Trump wants to end Nato, loves Putin's position and character and is not interested so much in Europe. He will be the Leader in putting America back in Isolation. Hopefully Europe will step up as in Ukraine and Israel get to terms with itself and their enemies
@@PeterBakker Trump is difficult to read as to where he wants to take the USA outside of his own self interest and ego. I remember Trump being profiled on the lives of the rich and famous in the 1990's while Clinton was president, and I did not like Trump at that time, thinking that he was another self absorbed rich dude trying to bed as many hot young women as possible - turns out that he and Bill were pretty much of the same mindset and I still don't know which one influenced the other more in terms of corrupting influence. My reason for wanting Hansen to discuss/debate with Mearsheimer, is that both are well qualified in the feild of political history, though through different times periods, and Hansen is arguing that military defeat sometimes ends in the dissappearance of a civilization as he documents that this has occurred on several occassions and I am interested to know whether he would argue that the free West is at risk of catostrophic collapse, of the authoritarian Russian-Chinese axis, and I am guessing that |Mearsheimer would agree for detente with both continuing or both collapsing from nuclear conflict.
@@PeterBakker I've never once heard Trump say he wants to end NATO. What he's always said is that when America maintains a powerful and well-supported military, and Europe (which is almost as rich as America) maintains only a weak and underfunded military, then America is being taken advantage of. Indeed, it can be argued that Trump wanted Europe to man-up & actually create a stronger and more powerful alliance. I also don't believe he loves Putin's character. Trump's philosophy seems to be that it's in America's interest that he deal with the leaders of the world as they are, warts and all. He sees no need to be disrespectful to them when meeting them personally or talking with them on the phone, since such disrespect would accomplish nothing good. For similar reasons, he does not lecture leaders about their morals. He deals with them in straightforward way as powerful men engaged in pursuing their nation's self interest, and he lets them know that he's similarly out to maximize America's interests. I think most leaders find this approach refreshing; and Trump's willingness to wield American power makes them eager to please. Seems like overall, when it comes to Trump, you're believing myths crafted by his enemies. For instance, the press talked of a Trump/Putin bromance, and you say much the same, essentially. But while in office, Trump sent lethal aid to Ukraine, to help them kill Russians. He criticized Europe's trade with Russia and also cancelled the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which was just weeks from completion. His emphasis on U.S. energy production lowered world energy prices and emptied Russian coffers. But he was like a respectful athlete who doesn't gloat over his victories when meeting the Russian leader -- as was the wise thing to do. I mean, it costs nothing to shake a hand, and it could do a world of good. Anyway, I think we both need to keep learning. And if you've read this far -- well, that's a sign you are OK in some ways, and willing to at least see what others think. As for me, I think it's dumb of me to think I can change anyone's mind to even a slight degree, if they are already anti-Trump. But I can't help but try sometimes, I guess.
A pretty stark contradiction in what the esteemed Professor is saying . He said it's in Europe's best interest to keep NATO in Europe including the Americans, for the sake of security. He then goes on to say that Russia has neither an interest or capacity to even devour Ukraine let alone Europe. Needless to say, it begs the question as to why Europe needs NATO ? To protect them from who ?
@@Jaz-wx4vo I've never seen that and it begs the question as to how Article 4 or 5 would be exercised. An attack on one member is an attack on all. So if Germany and France went at it again, whose side does the rest of NATO take ?
0:00 - 2:00 is a totally daft premise. Power is NOT "a zero sum equation". History clearly shows that. That's the point of blocs, allies, coalitions, UNSC. It is ONLY the US which makes hegemonic Superpower the main game on the planet and twists things into its own -- and Meirshiemer's -- perspective. He's a rabbid, congenital, US imperialist. Thus his blinkers are impenetrable and his realism SEEMS real to him. But it's not. He and his political masters only stand temporarily safely on the top of the power pyramid and have, for 80 years, framed their whole perspective from that point. The very nature of a growing BRICS will collapse his whole thesis sooner or later because, in the 21st/22nd century, multipolarity will, after hobbling US hegemony, show that modern power MUST BE SHARED fairly. This is what nuclear arms have brought about -- a more level playing field of warfare endpoint. Was the US H-Bomb upon Japan a real American need for power. Yeah, against a defencekess enemy. But that wontcwork today against Russia and China. His whole "power perspective" of "geo-political realism" is just an 80 year empire abberation built upon an outdated delusion.
Can you please explain how your BRICS argument goes against the realism theory? The premise that states seek to increase their power in the absence of high authority seems very plausible and explains many events of the past.
@@DmitryOzzy 1, The fact that BRICS even came about in the first place indicates that Mearsheimer's whole theory is full of holes. It shows that a power pyramid is NOT some natural, immutable law which all countries wish to play because their #1 concern is power. His realism is an American theory blinded by his own prejudiced hegemony. To Mearsheimer, like so many US academics, the way America sees things is the way things are. Just not true. It's pure projection. 2, BRICS shows that more and more, nations big and small, want to SHARE power. THAT is the long repressed "realism" outside of Empire Thinking.
Power is a zero sum game because to be more powerful means to climb the power ranking with more and more powerful weapons above others. In economic wealth a state can rise above another while they both get more wealthy.
@@deldia Nonsense. The overall quantum of power , ie the VOLUME of a pyramid, is not in fact fixed nor related to the size of the monster on the top. The sum of multipolarity WILL, EVENTUALLY, be the downfall of hegemony. You fail to see the delusion of M's theories. They are based on the status quo and the US pov. The EVIDENCE for his falsities is that Russia + China + India + Iran + others are destined to at least balance (if not topple) the US "power base", both militarily and economically. It's the same as saying "Sure, the US has the biggest slice of pizza at present, but since more countries have come to the global power table, thd size of the who pizza has therefore increased". The more anti-hegemony countries that weapon-up, the weaker the US becomes. Superpowerdom is on its way out due to anti-American allegiances. This is exactly what the Pentagon has forgotten to factor in to its superiority complex. 15 years ago, Mearsheimer developed his theories and wrote his now famous book, but THINGS HAVE CHANGED. He's a dinosaur imperialist thinker, and a cracked record.
@@thedolphin5428 Thanks for the detailed answer, I do appreciate it. Let's watch how relationships between China and India will develop over time. They both are members of BRICS, but my bet (according to realism) that both parties will try to screw each other (indirectly) when a good opportunity will present itself. All in order to make a rival less powerful. I might be wrong and after the fall of US hegemony the world will establish a new order where power competition will be counterproductive. Let's see 😀.
The claim that Russia is not interested in occupying Central Europe demonstrates a lack of understanding of Russian neo-imperialism (ideas of people like Dugin) and no lessons learned from the world wars. The lack of understanding of the situation in Taiwan probably stems from no perception of the fact that US is losing its hegemonic position and deterrence potential. The recent BRICS agreement, which 'was not supposed to happen', only shows how short-sighted and untrue all these claims are.
And that’s why the American hegemony has to end and US has to go away… This mess was created by America and now everyone has to pay the price for their terrible judgement
