#john mearsheimer

[because--palestine]

Palestine Talks | John Mearsheimer discusses the Israeli lobby and Israel’s assault on Gaza

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Matt Johnson

A central weakness of Mearsheimer and Walt’s case is the failure to account for why Israel attracted so much American support and solidarity in the first place. This couldn’t be attributed to the Israel lobby before it existed. They believe there are only three explanations for the United States’ support for Israel: the strategic value of the relationship, the “moral case” for defending the world’s only Jewish state, and the power of the Israel lobby. Much of their argument is focused on knocking down the first two explanations so that only the third is left standing. They believe the strategic and moral arguments are so weak that they cannot possibly explain the United States’ support for Israel, which leads them to drastically overstate the influence of the Israel lobby in shaping American public opinion. If Americans only understood the extent to which they are being deceived and manipulated, the argument goes, they would cease to support Israel as strongly as they do.

Mearsheimer and Walt are devotees of a school of thought in international relations called realism, which holds that states behave according to a single variable: the distribution of power in the international system. As Mearsheimer explains in his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, states aren’t motivated by ideology or other internal characteristics: “All great powers act according to the same logic regardless of their culture, political system, or who runs the government.” He and Walt seem to assume that all Americans share this mechanistic view of state behaviour, and if they say otherwise, they must have been fooled by political actors who place Israel’s interests above those of the US. Consequently, they downplay the significance of political beliefs, culture and history, and the importance of shared values and institutions to international alliances. Mearsheimer: Rigor or Reaction?What John J. Mearsheimer gets wrong about Ukraine, international affairs, and much else besides.QuilletteMatt Johnson

Realist logic dictates that a great power like the United States would never provide what Mearsheimer and Walt describe as “unconditional support” for Israel. They maintain that support on the basis of shared values or genuine solidarity is a myth and that every state relationship is simply an expedient transaction to be discarded the moment the strategic winds shift. According to realist logic, US support for Israel ought to have declined after the Cold War ended as Washington refocused its Middle East policy on maintaining a regional balance of power. Instead, Israel has remained the primary recipient of American military aid and diplomatic support in violation of realist assumptions about state behaviour.

This confounds realists like Mearsheimer and Walt, but they do not stop to reconsider their analysis of what motivates policymakers in the West. Instead, they argue that what they see as Israel’s negligible strategic value means that the United States’ commitment to Israeli security is a “liability rather than an asset”—a mistake to be corrected rather than a policy justified by other values. Something must therefore be causing the US to act in ways contrary to its own interests. And that something, they have decided, is the Israel lobby, the influence of which distorts the United States’ strategic decision-making.

Given the depth and consistency of the United States’ support for Israel, Mearsheimer and Walt must award the Israel lobby extraordinary power. For example, they assert that it was the “principal driving force” behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It would be one thing to observe that Israel supported the war or supplied faulty intelligence about Iraq’s WMD, but claiming that the war would not have happened but for the influence of the Israel lobby is absurd. The Bush administration made its own case for the invasion of Iraq and obtained the overwhelming support of Congress, not to mention the endorsement of 72 percent of Americans.

In The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, the authors attempt to fend off allegations of antisemitism by declaring that they aren’t talking about a “cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy.” They observe that the lobby is a “loose coalition” and not a “unified movement with a central leadership.” But these disclaimers do not alter the thrust of their argument—throughout the essay and the book, Mearsheimer and Walt refer to the Israel lobby as a single, amorphous entity that drives US foreign policy, manipulates public opinion, and punishes or even silences dissent.

[minetteskvareninova]

[boybmober]

Did the Liddell hart talk with my bf the other day, it’s scary and nerve wracking but he was supportive

[toastyslayingbutter]

A fun watch.

[lemondeabicyclette]

John Joseph Mearsheimer (1947) est un politologue américain et un spécialiste des relations internationales, qui appartient à l'école de pensée réaliste. Il est le R. Wendell Harrison Professeur de service distingué à l'Université de Chicago. Il a été décrit comme le réaliste le plus influent de sa génération.

Mearsheimer est surtout connu pour avoir développé la théorie du réalisme offensif, qui décrit l'interaction entre les grandes puissances comme étant principalement motivée par le désir rationnel de parvenir à l'hégémonie régionale dans un système international anarchique. Conformément à sa théorie, Mearsheimer pense que le pouvoir croissant de la Chine la mettra probablement en conflit avec les États-Unis.

Les œuvres de Mearsheimer sont largement lues et débattues par les étudiants du XXIe siècle en relations internationales. Une enquête menée en 2017 auprès des professeurs des relations internationales des États-Unis le classe au troisième rang parmi les "érudiens dont le travail a eu la plus grande influence sur le domaine de l'IR au cours des 20 dernières années.

[stillunusual]

In vatnik clownland, John Mearsheimer is completely objective, absolutely isn't on the Kremlin's payroll and totally doesn't talk out of his arse….

[tratadista]

John Mearsheimer | The U.S. is DESTROYING UKRAINE

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/the-shadow-knows/

The Shadow Knows

During the winter holidays, Britain’s Prime Mister, Rishi Sunak took a photo-op when he decided to serve breakfast at a homeless shelter. Sunak, reported to be worth  $800 million, made a stab at being chummy as he handed a plate of eggs and sausages to a stranger standing on the opposite side of the steam counter.  “Do you work in business, by any chance?” As the man reached for the plate that hung in midair, he stated the obvious.  “No.  I’m homeless.  I’m here for a hot meal.” Finding common ground with a stranger can be difficult.  Sometimes, it never happens.  Sometimes connection takes a second. Since arriving in Congress (2021), House Republican Marjorie Taylor Green has engaged her Democratic associate Jaime Raskin in Twitter combat.  No one could have guessed they were linked by a  thread.  Yet when Raskin announced he had cancer, Greene did an about-face. Her father had died of cancer. She knew the struggle that awaited her colleague.  “I’ll be praying for Jaime Raskin,” she tweeted. Empathy is a grace that exists in most humans.  It lifts us into spiritual realms but is ephemeral. Called upon too often or for too long a time, the flame dies out. Prolonged empathy morphs into grief; grief becomes despair; despair, falling alike upon those who suffer and those who help,  leaves the spirit numb.  insanity is the final transition. The Ukraine war is an example.  The nation may be winning its battles, but its rubbled streets look nothing like a victory. How long will the people’s courage last and that of their supporters?  Longer than the invaders’, I hope.  Seeing his country mired in blood,  one Russian propagandist’s despair touches upon insanity. Embrace death he exhorted his countrymen. “Life is highly overrated.”    History is rife with nihilists like him.  It is a state of mind as old as Biblical Masada and jihadism.  In times of greatest stress, it can pass for Reason.   Recently, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun control laws which were intended a cripple the growing number of mass shootings. The judges concluded that under the Second Amendment, the legislation violated the people’s right to protect themselves. That decision was based on its 2008 verdict in the District of Columbia v. Heller. There, the judges determined that “militia” in the Second Amendment covered an individual’s right to self-defense.  Though reasonable on its face, the interpretation leaves citizens standing in crosshairs. One commentator rightly asked, “What happens when the people are no longer allowed to protect themselves from mass slaughter through their elected representatives and are left at the mercy of unelected judges who do not care if they are shot to death.” The marshmallow experiment reminds us that our human tendency is to secure what we have rather than plan for future unknowns. The impulse can goad us into precipitous action.      In the 1990s, the United States may have acted impulsively when President Bill Clinton encouraged Urkaine’s desire for ties with Europe.  Political scientist John Mearsheimer says Clinton’s decision destroyed a détente between Russia and the west and paved the way for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of its neighbor. Clinton disagrees. Graham Fuller, a political analyst, sides with Mearsheimer on the question and sees Ukraine’s struggles as a proxy war between the U. S. and Russia.  He says we are making a similar mistake with China he continues. Our efforts to restrict that country’s growth have backfired, leading  China to respond with its Belt and Road initiative —an economic development plan for third-world countries that China underwrites. The program has enjoyed success, particularly among nations in the southern hemisphere that have experienced the west’s military presence: Latin American, the Middle East, Africa, India, and parts of Asia.   Finger-pointing, of course, is among the oldest ploys.  At this moment, however, it poses danger because it diverts our attention from Damocles’s sword as it swings above our heads.  I refer to climate change. In a recent version of nihilism, some scientists have abandoned the hope that we can escape annihilation. Those of us who dare to contemplate the future know that Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jamie Raskin have revealed the common ground that unites the species. Who becomes Speaker of the U. S. House in 2023 is irrelevant. At a visceral level, we know our charge. Either we work toward the common good.  Or, we nurture our grudges and fall victim to the lengthening shadow of our annihilation.

[because--palestine]

"Israel is an albatross around the USA's neck"

I've always found it amazing how Mearsheimer is smiling all time no matter how serious and critical the stuff he says is.

[averycanadianfilm]

US elections, China policy, Palestine-Israel and Russia-Ukraine: 

John Mearsheimer

[libertymiddleway]

John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024

[essayboardorg]

(via The Looming Threat: A Deep Dive into the Mearsheimer-Sachs Debate on China and Nuclear War)

[demokratieundfreiheit]

Henry Kissinger has found his cellmate

At the very least, Kissinger recognized his place as a pawn and marched to his Nation's command. His unapologetic attitude made sense with regards to his limited purview and unflinching commitment to national interest. He gave marching orders to his underlings, to be sure, but those orders ultimately originated from a misguided sense of servitude. His crime is a moral one - no less deserving of the scorn above and the torture below - but moral, and therefore reasonable.

John J. Mearsheimer, on the other hand, is comically evil. The man does not possess political power. He gives biweekly addresses to 20-something future bankers and lawyers. There is no reason for his expressed ideas to be insane as they are, but they just are.

On August 15th, Mearsheimer's opinion on Ukraine's incursion into Kursk was shared by "Responsible Statecraft", a patently realist publication which celebrates imperial power and subjugation in the name of peace. What is entirely to be expected is his critique of the Ukrainian resistance, as his Vatnik ass simply does. What is not is the reasoning. He isn't warning of the dangers of great power conflict, lest it makes him sound even more ridiculous than he already does given Putin's proven-to-be complete lack of bite. No, he is warning of a Ukrainian military failure.

As a preface, at least I respect Mearsheimer's position as a political researcher and theorist. One does not receive distinction from the University of Chicago as a total dunce. One does not, however, receive credit for their comments on military activity as a political researcher. Mearsheimer's "analysis" on this matter is no more valuable than Nigerian LARPer @Alex_Oloyede2 on Twitter.

Mr. Mearsheimer has the gall to first discuss about the "casualty-exchange ratio". First, let all of his claims miraculously be true. By the US' estimates, Russian deaths outnumber Ukrainian deaths by 3-1 on the battlefield since February 2022, and officially they have made less progress on the battlefield in 2 and a half years than Ukraine have in a week. I wonder if Mr. Mearsheimer considers that ratio "fair exchange" or if he would be willing to admit that Russia's heading towards defeat. Oh wait, no, he already opined that Ukraine was accelerating its own defeat. No need then.

Second, this is why Mr. Mearsheimer is employed by the University of Chicago, rather than any modern army. One does not simply calculate casualty by plugging in a single variable and going "ooga booga attack bad". The element of surprise which Mr. Mearsheimer dragged for his conclusion, in fact, did have an effect. It forced Russia to relocate its manpower and materiel en masse to Kursk, creating concentrations of Russian targets primed for HIMARS fire, and thusly burnt convoys remeniscent of the early days of the invasion. It also allowed Ukrainians to dig in and start building trenches, in relative peace compared to the constant shelling in Donetsk, which has disrupted most of their defensive efforts.

Third, Mr. Mearsheimer omits many key changes in terms of equipment, a direct result of the pro-Ukraine American foreign policy which he himself despises (curiously given his former advocacy for Ukrainian means of self-defense). They have created the conditions for a Ukrainian offensive. The most notable is the first batch of F-16s delivered on August 4th. Note the date. There have been reports of F-16s engaging Russian airpower in Kursk, significantly dampening Mr. Mearsheimer's case for high Ukrainian casualties.

Let's last address Mr. Mearsheimer's faux concern regarding the situation in the Donbass. The front is moving inches at a time with no let-up on artillery, rocket and drone force from either side. Given it has been two weeks since the incursion began, and Russia has gotten barely closer to taking over Pokrovsk, which itself would be a miniscule step forward in its campaign for Donetsk, it doesn't appear to be much of a risky move for Ukraine after all.

John J. Mearsheimer's Russian and Chinese backers will once again parade his opinion, as though it represents the entire West's on their latest defeat on the battlefield. And because Mr. Mearsheimer himself cannot find reason to excuse Russia's impotence, he has resorted to dipping his feet in foreign waters, to making baseless claims regarding Ukrainian military operations. He can no longer claim ideological purity, to be just a tragic perspective going against the liberal norms. He is working for evil. Regardless of his lack of political power, he deserves to share a cell with Henry Kissinger.