#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.

[athis333]

In 1942, answering a pacifist opponent of British involvement in the Second World War, George Orwell replied that “pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.” There have of course been many times in human history when opposition to war has been morally justified, intellectually coherent, and, in the end, vindicated. But the war to defeat fascism during the middle part of the past century was simply not one of them. “This is elementary common sense,” Orwell wrote at the time. “If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”

Eight decades later, as a fascistic Russian regime wages war against Ukraine, a motley collection of voices from across the political spectrum has called upon the United States and its allies to adopt neutrality as their position. Ranging from anti-imperialists on the left to isolationists on the right and more respectable “realists” in between, these critics are not pacifists in the strict sense of the term. Few if any oppose the use of force as a matter of principle. But nor are they neutral. It is not sufficient, they say, for the West to cut off its supply of defensive weaponry to Ukraine. It must also atone for “provoking” Russia to attack its smaller, peaceful, democratic neighbor, and work at finding a resolution that satisfies what Moscow calls its “legitimate security interests.” In this, today’s anti-war caucus is objectively pro-fascist.

To appreciate the bizarrely kaleidoscopic nature of this caucus, consider the career of a catchphrase. “Is Washington Fighting Russia Down to the Last Ukrainian?” asked the headline of a column self-published in March by Ron Paul, the former Republican congressman and presidential candidate. It was a strange question for Paul to be posing just three weeks into President Vladimir Putin’s unjustifiable and unforgivable invasion, especially considering the extraordinary lengths to which the Biden administration had gone to avoid “fighting Russia.”

Even stranger than Paul’s assertion that the U.S. was goading Ukrainians into sacrificing themselves on the altar of its Russophobic bloodlust, though, has been the proliferation of his specious talking point across the ideological spectrum.

Ten days after Paul accused his country of treating Ukrainians as cannon fodder, the retired American diplomat Chas Freeman repeated the quip. “We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,” Freeman declared sarcastically—even as he excused Russia’s “special military operation” as an understandable reaction to being “stiff-armed” by the West on the “28-year-old demands that NATO stop enlarging in the direction of Russia.” Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute, made these remarks in an interview with The GrayZone, a self-described “independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire.”

Although The GrayZone would characterize itself as an “anti-imperialist” news source, the opaquely financed publication is highly selective in the empires it chooses to scrutinize; it is difficult to find criticism of Russia or China—or any other American adversary—on its site. A more accurate descriptor of its ideological outlook is “campist,” denoting a segment of the sectarian far left that sees the world as divided into two camps: the imperialist West and the anti-imperialist rest.

Freeman, who served as Richard Nixon’s interpreter during his 1972 visit to China, seemed to feel at home in The GrayZone. In that Manichaean domain—one that lacks, naturally, any shades of gray—no anti-Western tyrant is too brutal for fawning adulation, and America is always to blame. A Republican foreign-policy hand in conversation with a fringe leftist website might seem like an odd pairing, but Freeman has a fondness for dictators.

In 2009, when Freeman was appointed to serve on the National Intelligence Council during the first year of the Obama administration, a series of leaked emails revealed a window into his worldview. Observing the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Freeman praised the Chinese Communist Party for its bloody crackdown on peaceful student demonstrators; his only criticism of its dispersal of this “mob scene” was that it had been “overly cautious” in displaying “ill-conceived restraint.” It is quite something to read a retired American diplomat criticizing the Chinese regime for being too soft during the Tiananmen massacre, but such views are not as aberrational as they sound. Within the school of foreign-policy “realism,” notions of morality are seen as quaint distractions from the real business of great-power politics.

In April, it was Noam Chomsky’s turn to recite the Pauline mantra in a podcast with the editor of Current Affairs, a leftist magazine. Going out of his way to praise Freeman as “one of the most astute and respected figures in current U.S. diplomatic circles,” the world’s most famous radical intellectual endorsed the crusty veteran of realist GOP administrations for characterizing American policy in Eastern Europe as “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

From Chomsky’s mouth to Putin’s ears.

“A great deal is being said about the United States’ intention to fight against Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’—they say it there and they say it here,” the Russian president mused the following week, prefacing his mention of the gibe with his own version of that Trumpian rhetorical flourish, “A lot of people are saying.” That same month, an American Conservative article by Doug Bandow of the libertarian Cato Institute was headlined “Washington Will Fight Russia to the Last Ukrainian,” denying Ukrainians any agency in their own struggle by answering the question Paul had rhetorically asked.

Soon after, the dean of realist international-relations theorists, the University of Chicago scholar  John Mearsheimer, used the line as though he’d just thought of it. By then, the argument that America was “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian” had ping-ponged between both ends of the ideological spectrum an astonishing number of times. The point for the anti-imperialist left and the isolationist right, as well as the realist fellow travelers hitched to each side, was that blame for the conflict lies mainly with the U.S., which is using Ukraine as a proxy for its nefarious interventionism in Moscow’s backyard.

That the fringe left would blame America—which it views as the source of all capitalist exploitation, military aggression, and imperialist evil in the world—for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is predictable. It blames America for everything. When, two days after the Russian invasion began on February 24, the Democratic Socialists of America called upon “the US to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict,” mainstream Democrats condemned the statement. More significant has been the position taken by mainstream realists, who similarly fault the West for somehow “provoking” Russia into waging war on its neighbor. These politically disparate forces share more than a talking point. They also have a worldview in common.

Consider America’s leading realist think tank, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. This “transpartisan” group enjoyed great fanfare upon its founding, in 2019, with seed funding from the libertarian Charles Koch and the left-wing George Soros. After two decades of “forever wars,” here at last was an ideologically diverse assortment of reasonable, sober-minded experts committed to pursuing a “foreign policy of restraint.” But counseling restraint as a rapacious, revisionist dictatorship wages total war on its smaller, democratic neighbor had a whiff of appeasement for at least one of Quincy’s fellows, leading to a split within the organization.

“The institute is ignoring the dangers and the horrors of Russia’s invasion and occupation,” Joe Cirincione, a nuclear non-proliferation expert and one of the group’s leading left-of-center scholars, said upon his resignation this summer, adding that Quincy “focuses almost exclusively on criticism of the United States, NATO, and Ukraine. They excuse Russia’s military threats and actions because they believe that they have been provoked by U.S. policies.”

The moral myopia Cirincione identifies is an essential trait of the new online magazine Compact, where self-styled anti-woke Marxists and Catholic theocrats unite in their loathing of classical liberal values at home and their opposition to defending those values abroad. In an article titled “Fueling Zelensky’s War Hurts America,” the left-wing writer Batya Ungar-Sargon took issue with the U.S. supplying defensive weaponry to Kyiv, arguing that resources devoted to supporting Ukrainians would be better spent helping economically disadvantaged Americans.

Pushing the United States to prioritize the needs of its poorest citizens, even if that means forgoing its responsibilities for maintaining the European security order, is at least an intellectually defensible position (if a shortsighted and reductive one). But Ungar-Sargon also went out of her way to give credence to Russia’s specious territorial claims.

“If Ukraine’s territorial integrity were of such immense national interest,” she wrote, “surely we would have climbed the rapid-escalation ladder back in 2014, when Moscow invaded and annexed Crimea—a move that a referendum found was popular among Crimeans.” The plebiscite Ungar-Sargon endorsed was held under Russian gunpoint to provide a legal fig leaf for the first armed annexation of territory on the European continent since World War II. She also identified Donetsk and Luhansk—the two Russian-backed separatist enclaves in Eastern Ukraine that Putin recognized as puppet states on the eve of his invasion and where he has now held similarly meaningless referenda annexing them to Russia—as “independent republics,” conferring a legitimacy that was in marked contrast to the way she referred dismissively to “the United States and its European satrapies.”

Many commentators have likened Volodymyr Zelensky to Winston Churchill for his charismatic resistance to foreign invaders and his ability to raise the morale of his people. In light of this popular association, the headline that the editors of Compact devised for Ungar-Sargon’s apologia—“Zelensky’s War”—is nauseating, blaming the victim while seeming to evoke the title of a notorious book by the Holocaust-denying historian David Irving, Churchill’s War.

Condemning the U.S. and its allies for the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine requires one to ignore or downplay a great deal of Russian misbehavior. This is a characteristic that unites left-wing anti-imperialists, right-wing isolationists, and the ostensibly more respectable “realists.”

“Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet Empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine as well as other countries in Eastern Europe,” Mearsheimer wrote in a 2014 essay titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault.” “But this account is wrong.” Eight years on, as Russian forces marched toward Kyiv and Putin issued vague threats of nuclear escalation, Mearsheimer made no acknowledgment of how very wrong his own earlier, sanguine assessment of Putin’s intentions had been.

“We invented this story that Putin is highly aggressive and he’s principally responsible for this crisis in Ukraine,” he told The New Yorker a week into the invasion. Putin’s apparent goal of overthrowing Zelensky and installing a puppet regime would not be an example of “imperialism,” Mearsheimer argued, and was meaningfully different from “conquering and holding onto Kyiv.” All of this linguistic legerdemain would surely come as news to the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, and other peoples of the region who once suffered under the Russian imperial yoke.

As evidence of Russian war crimes against Ukrainian civilians mounts, Mearsheimer has cleaved to his position that NATO enlargement is to blame for the war. “I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO,” he also told The New Yorker. Although the NATO communiqué did express the alliance’s hope that the two former Soviet republics would become members at some indefinite point in the future, it came after France and Germany had successfully blocked a proposal by the Bush administration to offer Ukraine and Georgia an actual path to membership. But even if the U.S. had made such a promise, how would that justify the invasion and occupation of Ukraine? Mearsheimer also ignores the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, according to which the United States, Britain, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons. This concord lasted for 20 years, until Putin abrogated it by invading and occupying Crimea.

Even more obtuse are the excuses for Russian aggression made by Mearsheimer’s fellow academic realist, the Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs has worked as an adviser to a host of international institutions, such as the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, as a development economist. Unlike Mearsheimer, he has no particular expertise in foreign political affairs, but this has not stopped him from pronouncing on geopolitical issues. Last December, as Russia was amassing its forces on Ukraine’s border, Sachs suggested that “NATO should take Ukraine’s membership off the table, and Russia should forswear any invasion.” This ignored the fact that Russia had already invaded the country in 2014.

Seeking to explain “the West’s false narrative” about Ukraine after the war began, Sachs noted, “Since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria and Yemen to name just a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.” This sentence contains two significant qualifications. First, Sachs’s counting only those “wars of choice” that Russia waged “beyond the former Soviet Union” implies that its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 were permissible through some sort of Cold War–continuity droit de seigneur. Second, Sachs’s selection of 1980 as the starting point for his comparison conveniently excludes the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began in December 1979 and became the Red Army’s own forever war, lasting almost 10 years and playing a crucial role in the Soviet Union’s demise.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed the incompetence of the Russian military and the hubris of President Putin. It has also revealed the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, who, contrary to Ron Paul’s ambulatory talking point, had no need of any American to prod or gull them into defending their homeland. Here in the U.S., the war has also exposed the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of an ideologically diverse set of foreign-policy commentators: the “anti-imperialists” who routinely justify blatant acts of imperial conquest, and the “realists” who make arguments unmoored from reality.

[boybmober]

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

[i-merani]

When whole four years at university i was told how great this man was and then i had to actually learn how idiotic he was…

[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.

[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.

[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.

[mycstilleblog]

Pistorius ist ein Angstmacher, und Angst ist ein Gehirntöter

Der Bannerträger vieler kriegslüsterner Ostlandreiter in Regierung und Opposition will es nicht wissen: Russland ist nicht unser Feind Von Friedhelm Klinkhammer und Volker Bräutigam „Die manische Fixierung auf ‚Sicherheit‘ hat zu einer lähmenden Kultur der Angst geführt. Sie verzerrt die Entscheidungsfindung auf allen Ebenen der Gesellschaft.“ Gleichfalls gesichert ist, dass Angst schnell in…

[marcogiovenale]

John Mearsheimer about Zionism's projects on Palestine

 

[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.