Just to be clear, exactly which POV of Mearsheimer are we discussing? He has many of them. He has many of them with respect to Russia so please be as specific as possible.
Putin's invasions of border states in Europe have been primarily driven by the military threat posed by NATO expansion, especially in countries or territories that are on Russia's border such as Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Finland, and Norway. That is Mearsheimer's theory I am talking about. Mearsheimer believes if NATO had never advocated for NATO expansion, then Russia would not have invaded Georgia, Crimea, or Ukraine. He believes NATO expansion after WWII has done nothing to promote peace other than provoking Russia. He sees NATO expansion as being akin to the Cuban missile crisis, which placed Russian military assets in Cuba near the Florida border. Or you could also imagine a situation where China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea sign a military treaty with Mexico or Canada allowing their military assets to be placed on the border of the United States. He says NATO expansion along Russia's border from Russia's perspective is an equally provocative scenario when compared to those other scenarios. He takes that a step further, and says we are hypocritical to assert the Monroe doctrine in the western hemisphere, while simultaneously striving to expand America's military presence up to Russia's border. I agree with much of Mearsheimer's assessment, but the debate hinges on Russia's and more specifically Putin's motives and goals. We wouldn't be having this debate if Hitler was prime minister of Germany right now because we have a clearly documented history with respect to Hitler. How provocative NATO's military presence is in Poland would not matter in such a scenario because Hitler is dangerous. With Putin on the other hand, it is difficult to tell whether NATO expansion is the pretext that allows Putin to pursue greater military ambitions, or if the perceived threat posed by NATO expansion is truly the singular issue that is driving Putin to act the way he is acting. I see it as a toss-up because I cannot disprove either theory. If Mearsheimer is correct that Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine never would have been invaded given no attempts at NATO expansion had been made, then I think it is a fair claim to say NATO expansion provoked Russia. That does not serve as a defense for Russia's actions. I condemn Russia and Putin for the War in Ukraine. However, I think Mearsheimer is possibly correct that it could have been avoided with more careful geopolitical strategy.
Sure, and I think Mearsheimer is correct in a vacuum, where Russia and the other great powers are the only states with any agency, fears, honor, or interests. And this where I wonder if Mearsheimer understands his own theory. One of the core principles of realism (as it means in international relations) is anarchy, the idea that there is no real power above the state. Yet in this case Mearsheimer treats NATO as some kind of a monolith organization above the state, instead of what it is, a collective defense organization of individual states. Mearsheimer's particular brand of realism is called offensive realism, which suggests that states will always try to add to their power if they can. Under his own theory, the smaller states on Russia's periphery (he never considers their perspective for some reason) were of course going to react to the fear of being reabsorbed by Russia at some point, and the only power at their disposal to grab was membership in an alliance of likeminded countries. The drum Mearsheimer keeps wanting to hit is, "Russia doesn't like it that its former vassals don't want to be under its economic and military dominion." He never seems to want to address the question of why they don't want that and how far they seem to be willing to go to get out from under it. When I was at War College, we had to read two of his books, and I was impressed by his wisdom. Then I would read his contemporary writings about Ukraine, and I wanted to ask him to go back and read his own books, citing portions at him that he seemed to be ignoring when making excuses for Russia. One example that comes to mind is a passage from one of his books about the uncertainty of going to war because one never knows how their armed forces are actually going to perform until they are in battle. I remember reading that and thinking of how badly the Russians were doing in the field in comparison to the glowing expectations Putin had of them. Yet, instead of adjusting his thinking to those realities on the ground, Mearsheimer just kept, just keeps, doubling down on the ludicrous idea of inevitable Russian victory and how we should just give them that which they cannot take. To say I am disappointed would be an understatement.
They just might. I'm hearing the Iranian power grid is the target if the ballistic missile temper tantrum does not stop. And -- I'll say it again -- I get that Iran had to strike back for pro forma honor reasons and that area attacks against cities is all they can really do, but it's probably time to go ahead and admit the little country beat you and move on. I know it hurts, but they can actually keep doing things to you that actually hurt and actually matter, and you basically can't do anything back but hit random buildings and kill random people if a random missile slips through.
. Tankers. The issue is complex because if the damage that would be done to the economy of third countries. Israel but some oil favorites today.
Tankers, eh? Sounds an awful lot like contraband to me ... Maybe those countries should consider escorting those tankers or buying from someone else. Of course, there is always the option of a non-nuclear, non-hostile Iran that maybe we do business with ourselves.
Remarkable thread. Everyone voicing their opinions on how close Iran was to a bomb. They have accelerated their Uranium enrichment. They have reached levels that have no civilian purpose. They have stated publicly that they will not stop enrichment. Non-negotiable. And the recent IEAA report confirms this. Nobody here bothered to read it or link it. So, I will link an analysis of it. Do you want Iran to have a nuke? Because they are close. Is that good for America? Europe? It’s certainly not good for Israel, who Iran has vowed to destroy. Analysis of IAEA Iran Verification and Monitoring Report — May 2025 | Institute for Science and International Security
Well, maybe the Iranian people will fix that. Sometimes, not always, people do that after they realize their blustering, bullying government has just been pimp slapped in front of them.
I can tell you are much more well read on this subject than I am. I have never formally studied international relations or Meirsheimer’s positions on other topics. I only know of him through his opinions on this topic. So, I was never aware how Meirsheimer apparently contradicts his other writings in international relations. So, thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don’t know if this is true, but I think we should go ahead and take advantage of the open hostilities and completely level those two facilities
