#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]

[boymoder-eunuch]

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

[mercoglianotrueblog]

Trump's Team Wants 'Peace Through Strength'

#Trump team includes very #Russophobic hawks

John J. #Mearsheimer & Alexander #Dugin

for donors as #LockheedMartin #Northtrop #Raytheon etc #war is a business

Marco #Rubio:#China is more dangerous of Russia

#Crimea part of #Russia

but #world is changing

https://salvatoremercogliano.blogspot.com/2025/01/trumps-team-wants-peace-through-strength.html?spref=tw

[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.