Thanks, Ayaan, for an excellent analysis powered by common sense and a worldview that is complex and realistic. I particularly loved the concept of "moral alignment" that empowers the alliance between Israel and the USA. Donald Trump can go in undisciplined directions but he is very clear about our moral alignment with Israel to the benefit of both countries.
It sounds like Mearsheimer has been wrong about pretty much everything. Where do we find this guy a job? The private sector? No, that won’t work. You actually have to be productive, and right most of the time. Government? No, his track record works against getting elected.
Wait, I know - academia! They have this bullet proof system called “Tenure”. You pretty much can’t be fired, can spout off inanities with no consequences, and your customers (students) don’t know enough to call you out, or dare not do so. So maybe Mearsheimer isn’t so dumb after all.
Thanks for this. I always knew there was something not quite right about Mearsheimer's analyses. His views seem to be founded on a sad vision of humanity that posits only power as a motivating factor. In addition, he (and often his sympathetic interviewers) always seem to believe that only they are right, everyone else is a dupe, and there seems to be an indulgent smugness about that, so that the listener feels he or she is lucky to be getting the real scoop from the likes of him. Does he really believe everything he says? Or has it become his "shtick" which gets him airtime and keeps him in the conversation? He's an environmental economist, he doesn't have much background in politics or political science and the only experience he can draw on is interactions with people his positions as an economic consultant have brought him into contact with. And there seem to be a LOT of assertions and a difficulty in producing written evidence...just hearsay here and a dubious supposition there also not based on much solid evidence. I don't think he has been making great contributions to the political discourse at all. In fact, i don't think his analyses are constructive, and leading in a positive direction. I'm sure he's really gifted but...
It is interesting that you call Mearsheimer "anti-American." America's fundamental founding principle and value was individual liberty. Individual liberty seems a foreign concept for Mearsheimer, hence his preference or at least neutrality for Iran over Israel or Russia over Ukraine.
And he treats nations as if they are individuals with well defined interests, which he assumes the are those of the most crude homo economicus. But nations are collections of individuals, with differing interests. And, as you point out, these include all sorts of moral values. Perhaps his amoral collectivism explains why he sides with thugs like Putin and Khamenei, but regardless, it is contrary to America's founding principles. I think your characterization of Mearsheimer as anti-American is correct and profound.
Excellent. You really hit the nail on the head. When we don’t question our assumptions and theoretical frameworks, it becomes easy to fall into error in order to keep our egos intact.
It would be very interesting to hear Ayaan debate Mearsheimer - I’m sure his arguments would be shown for what they are: post modernist drivel and arrogant rhetoric.
Mearsheimer is a realist focused on power politics everywhere except in the Middle East.
There, a powerful strongly pro-American country is able to strike breathtaking blows against the greatest enemies of the United States in the region, Hezbollah, Assad, Iran but instead of viewing it as a terrific US ally, he prefers to side with its, and America's, enemies.
It's the exact opposite of what his theories suggest. Nothing to do with the Jewish character of Israel, of course.
You present the arguments in a way that shows the kind of depth I rarely find in analysis. Your ability to identify the source of misunderstanding of many liberals is unmatched.
Because why? That Putin has decided that NATO's proximity is reason to invade an independent country? Ukraine did NOT pull the trigger in NATO membership, but even so, the fear of it made the dictator of Russia decide to invade. Mearsheimer's cheerleading has been instrumental in the forward movement of Russia's violation. This US academician has a lot to be sorry for.
No, he's not. His position is another tiresome example of his amoralism, his refusal to give any weight to values such as freedom, and his foolish apologizing for foreign tyrannies.
I respectfully disagree. His position is one that has been held for the most part by many geopolitical analysts across the political spectrum, from Chomsky to Kissinger. Putin's war in Ukraine didn't come out of nowhere; it was the result of foolish Western policy since the fall of the USSR in 1991. We in the West - and certainly the United States - would never tolerate such an encroachment upon our near abroad as Russia has suffered over the last couple of decades.
Thanks for the comment, Mark. My response... First, I don't think there's a commonality running through Kissinger, Mearsheimer, and Chomsky. They are vastly different. But I admit it's possible I don't understand Mearsheimer's position on Ukraine sufficiently, as most of what I've read from him is either very general or focused on the Middle East.
Second, I strongly disagree with the argument that it is Western policy that created Russian belligerence. Most of Russian policy developed from from Russia's internal politics. Putin was always opposed to the end of the Soviet Union and to a liberal society, and it has been in his mind to restore the empire. The people with whom he surrounded himself were from the security services and military, and since his first term as president he has systematically centralized his power.
His invasion of Ukraine developed from his failures to subvert Ukrainian politics in 2004 and 2014. If Ukrainians can develop western style free institutions, so can Russians, and that's dangerous for Putin. NATO was no threat at all to Russia, but Ukrainian democracy is a deadly threat for Putin and his regime.
The only reason Ukraine is considered Russia's "near abroad" that Russia should dominate, rather than Russia as Ukraine's "near abroad" that Ukraine should dominate, is that Russia is bigger. I don't think that is a very good argument.
It strikes me as strange when I hear Westerners confuse Putin's interests with Russia's interests. They aren't the same. And when I hear Westerners, and especially Americans, attribute developments in Russian politics to America's foreign policy, I'm reminded of when I offered this thesis to a former Soviet official, who snorted back "you Americans think everything is about you."
When I first heard of Mearsheimer's work years ago, I was at first quite favorable, because it is important to understand things from opponents perspectives, their conceptual frameworks and interests, and some schools of foreign policy seem to be not much more than moral hectoring. But Mearsheimer seems completely amoral to me.
Charles, thank you for your extensive and considered reply. It is much appreciated. As for your first point, you are correct about the lack of commonality between Kissinger, Mearsheimer and Chomsky, but that is kind of the point. Despite their differences, this is a topic about which they more or less agree with each other.
In response to your second point however, I very much believe that it has been Western policy that has created Russian belligerence. In the early years of his presidency, Putin was very open to building a cooperative relationship with the West. After the September 11th attacks, he was one of the first leaders to express solidarity with the United States, offering intelligence sharing and logistical support for the Afghanistan operation. He also agreed to having U.S. military bases in Central Asia, a region Russia regards as being in its sphere of influence. In 2002 Russia and NATO even established the NATO-Russia Council, showing willingness to engage on security issues. He was also interested in seeking closer ties with the EU and showed interest in actually joining NATO under certain conditions. This was of course rooted in pragmatism, as he expected some reciprocity, showing respect for Russia’s interests and recognition of its Great Power status. Instead, the West disregarded Russia’s concerns and embarked upon a huge eastern expansion of NATO. Russia warned time and time again about the consequences of doing this but put up with it until the meddling in Ukraine in 2014, which was a broken red line too far.
Russia during the ‘90s was a basket case; it was effectively survival of the fittest and run by powerful mafia figures who evolved into the oligarchs. The entire economy was in chaos, with former state assets up for grabs for whoever was able to take them and keep them. It was in the process of being asset-stripped by the Oligarchs in league with Western banks, who saw an opportunity to control the vast natural resources of Russia. Yeltsin had been corrupted by the Oligarchs and had the Communists breathing down his neck, ready to send him and his daughter to Siberia if they were ever able to regain power. Putin was hand-picked by Yeltsin to be Prime Minister because he was neither a communist nor an oligarch. Once Yeltsin resigned at the end of ’99 and Putin became President, he quickly brought the Oligarchs to heel and marginalised the communists by consolidating and strengthening the federal government’s authority. The result has been remarkable for Russia; the country went from being effectively a failed state to being stabilized in a very short period of time. Is he a ruthless autocrat? Yes, of course, but this is Russia we’re talking about; if he were like Justin Trudeau, he wouldn’t have lasted five minutes. I’ve never really understood this demonisation of Putin; he’s no more or less of an autocrat than someone like Mohammed bin Salman, with whom we’re quite happy to do business, even though he had a journalist brutally murdered just a few years ago. Putin of course has been accused of having many of his opponents killed, although I’m not so sure about that. Many of them are perhaps more likely to have been killed by others (Boris Berezovsky?) with more motive than Putin. In any case, Putin’s self-described ‘number one enemy’, Bill Browder, is still walking around very much alive, which is something of a surprise, given the supposed ruthlessness of Putin towards his critics. It’s true that he has expressed regret at the demise of the Soviet Union, but I don’t believe he wishes to re-create the USSR. That at least is the impression I got from listening to his Tucker Carlson interview a while back. In any event, Russia hasn’t even been able to subdue Ukraine after almost four years of war, so I doubt they would be able to even if they wanted to.
You suggest that Ukraine is only considered to be Russia’s near abroad because Russia is bigger. It is Ukraine’s unfortunate fate to act as a buffer zone between Europe and the Russian heartland and it has been that way for centuries. The long march through Ukraine defeated both Napoleon and the Wehrmacht. It may be true to say that NATO is no threat to Russia, but it is certainly perceived as such by the Russians. That much has been understood by just about every foreign policy expert: Kennan, Kissinger, McNamara and many others over the years have all talked about the folly of expanding NATO’s borders up to Russia. You can even find a video clip of a much younger Joe Biden in the 90s, warning about the danger of admitting the Baltic States to NATO. If you’re interested, the first hour or so of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Jeffrey Sachs (first one, I think) is worth listening to, as Sachs lays it all out in a very clear way.
We had a golden opportunity in the ‘90s to build a ‘normal’ relationship with Russia; one that treated them with respect and would have allowed us to build an alliance with them to counter China, our most dangerous rival over the rest of this century. Instead, we’ve alienated them, driven them closer to China and have made the world a much more dangerous place. Very, very stupid in my view.
Thanks for this excellent article, Ayaan. I have been waiting years to hear a cogent rebuttal of Mearsheimer's flawed theories, and you've nailed it. I loathe the way he keeps talking about what he calls irrefutable evidence of Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing without any reference whatsoever to the law. He maintains that Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel and is silent on Iran's participation or the effect it will have on the global jihadi cause if their dreams are not entirely and unambiguously shattered by the resolve of Israel and the IDF. I especially love his defence when citing his The Israel Lobby - "some of my best friends are Jewish".
As you conclude, "Time to move forward with clear eyes" Eyes that have seen the coming..of a Glorious future..
free from the misguided ..The GREAT LAKES Region where two Nations share the longest Border in the Western World is going to practice the srt science and reality of Balance and coperation and Brotherly Love not just Sea to shining Sea East to West but from the Gulf to the Arctic
Thanks, Ayaan, for an excellent analysis powered by common sense and a worldview that is complex and realistic. I particularly loved the concept of "moral alignment" that empowers the alliance between Israel and the USA. Donald Trump can go in undisciplined directions but he is very clear about our moral alignment with Israel to the benefit of both countries.
It sounds like Mearsheimer has been wrong about pretty much everything. Where do we find this guy a job? The private sector? No, that won’t work. You actually have to be productive, and right most of the time. Government? No, his track record works against getting elected.
Wait, I know - academia! They have this bullet proof system called “Tenure”. You pretty much can’t be fired, can spout off inanities with no consequences, and your customers (students) don’t know enough to call you out, or dare not do so. So maybe Mearsheimer isn’t so dumb after all.
Thanks for this. I always knew there was something not quite right about Mearsheimer's analyses. His views seem to be founded on a sad vision of humanity that posits only power as a motivating factor. In addition, he (and often his sympathetic interviewers) always seem to believe that only they are right, everyone else is a dupe, and there seems to be an indulgent smugness about that, so that the listener feels he or she is lucky to be getting the real scoop from the likes of him. Does he really believe everything he says? Or has it become his "shtick" which gets him airtime and keeps him in the conversation? He's an environmental economist, he doesn't have much background in politics or political science and the only experience he can draw on is interactions with people his positions as an economic consultant have brought him into contact with. And there seem to be a LOT of assertions and a difficulty in producing written evidence...just hearsay here and a dubious supposition there also not based on much solid evidence. I don't think he has been making great contributions to the political discourse at all. In fact, i don't think his analyses are constructive, and leading in a positive direction. I'm sure he's really gifted but...
It is interesting that you call Mearsheimer "anti-American." America's fundamental founding principle and value was individual liberty. Individual liberty seems a foreign concept for Mearsheimer, hence his preference or at least neutrality for Iran over Israel or Russia over Ukraine.
And he treats nations as if they are individuals with well defined interests, which he assumes the are those of the most crude homo economicus. But nations are collections of individuals, with differing interests. And, as you point out, these include all sorts of moral values. Perhaps his amoral collectivism explains why he sides with thugs like Putin and Khamenei, but regardless, it is contrary to America's founding principles. I think your characterization of Mearsheimer as anti-American is correct and profound.
Excellent. You really hit the nail on the head. When we don’t question our assumptions and theoretical frameworks, it becomes easy to fall into error in order to keep our egos intact.
It would be very interesting to hear Ayaan debate Mearsheimer - I’m sure his arguments would be shown for what they are: post modernist drivel and arrogant rhetoric.
I would so like to hear this! Thank you for the idea.
Mearsheimer is a realist focused on power politics everywhere except in the Middle East.
There, a powerful strongly pro-American country is able to strike breathtaking blows against the greatest enemies of the United States in the region, Hezbollah, Assad, Iran but instead of viewing it as a terrific US ally, he prefers to side with its, and America's, enemies.
It's the exact opposite of what his theories suggest. Nothing to do with the Jewish character of Israel, of course.
You present the arguments in a way that shows the kind of depth I rarely find in analysis. Your ability to identify the source of misunderstanding of many liberals is unmatched.
Did he really think that Iran will be effectively counterbalanced by Sunni states? That's funny.
He's right about Ukraine though.
Because why? That Putin has decided that NATO's proximity is reason to invade an independent country? Ukraine did NOT pull the trigger in NATO membership, but even so, the fear of it made the dictator of Russia decide to invade. Mearsheimer's cheerleading has been instrumental in the forward movement of Russia's violation. This US academician has a lot to be sorry for.
No, he's not. His position is another tiresome example of his amoralism, his refusal to give any weight to values such as freedom, and his foolish apologizing for foreign tyrannies.
I respectfully disagree. His position is one that has been held for the most part by many geopolitical analysts across the political spectrum, from Chomsky to Kissinger. Putin's war in Ukraine didn't come out of nowhere; it was the result of foolish Western policy since the fall of the USSR in 1991. We in the West - and certainly the United States - would never tolerate such an encroachment upon our near abroad as Russia has suffered over the last couple of decades.
Thanks for the comment, Mark. My response... First, I don't think there's a commonality running through Kissinger, Mearsheimer, and Chomsky. They are vastly different. But I admit it's possible I don't understand Mearsheimer's position on Ukraine sufficiently, as most of what I've read from him is either very general or focused on the Middle East.
Second, I strongly disagree with the argument that it is Western policy that created Russian belligerence. Most of Russian policy developed from from Russia's internal politics. Putin was always opposed to the end of the Soviet Union and to a liberal society, and it has been in his mind to restore the empire. The people with whom he surrounded himself were from the security services and military, and since his first term as president he has systematically centralized his power.
His invasion of Ukraine developed from his failures to subvert Ukrainian politics in 2004 and 2014. If Ukrainians can develop western style free institutions, so can Russians, and that's dangerous for Putin. NATO was no threat at all to Russia, but Ukrainian democracy is a deadly threat for Putin and his regime.
The only reason Ukraine is considered Russia's "near abroad" that Russia should dominate, rather than Russia as Ukraine's "near abroad" that Ukraine should dominate, is that Russia is bigger. I don't think that is a very good argument.
It strikes me as strange when I hear Westerners confuse Putin's interests with Russia's interests. They aren't the same. And when I hear Westerners, and especially Americans, attribute developments in Russian politics to America's foreign policy, I'm reminded of when I offered this thesis to a former Soviet official, who snorted back "you Americans think everything is about you."
When I first heard of Mearsheimer's work years ago, I was at first quite favorable, because it is important to understand things from opponents perspectives, their conceptual frameworks and interests, and some schools of foreign policy seem to be not much more than moral hectoring. But Mearsheimer seems completely amoral to me.
Charles, thank you for your extensive and considered reply. It is much appreciated. As for your first point, you are correct about the lack of commonality between Kissinger, Mearsheimer and Chomsky, but that is kind of the point. Despite their differences, this is a topic about which they more or less agree with each other.
In response to your second point however, I very much believe that it has been Western policy that has created Russian belligerence. In the early years of his presidency, Putin was very open to building a cooperative relationship with the West. After the September 11th attacks, he was one of the first leaders to express solidarity with the United States, offering intelligence sharing and logistical support for the Afghanistan operation. He also agreed to having U.S. military bases in Central Asia, a region Russia regards as being in its sphere of influence. In 2002 Russia and NATO even established the NATO-Russia Council, showing willingness to engage on security issues. He was also interested in seeking closer ties with the EU and showed interest in actually joining NATO under certain conditions. This was of course rooted in pragmatism, as he expected some reciprocity, showing respect for Russia’s interests and recognition of its Great Power status. Instead, the West disregarded Russia’s concerns and embarked upon a huge eastern expansion of NATO. Russia warned time and time again about the consequences of doing this but put up with it until the meddling in Ukraine in 2014, which was a broken red line too far.
Russia during the ‘90s was a basket case; it was effectively survival of the fittest and run by powerful mafia figures who evolved into the oligarchs. The entire economy was in chaos, with former state assets up for grabs for whoever was able to take them and keep them. It was in the process of being asset-stripped by the Oligarchs in league with Western banks, who saw an opportunity to control the vast natural resources of Russia. Yeltsin had been corrupted by the Oligarchs and had the Communists breathing down his neck, ready to send him and his daughter to Siberia if they were ever able to regain power. Putin was hand-picked by Yeltsin to be Prime Minister because he was neither a communist nor an oligarch. Once Yeltsin resigned at the end of ’99 and Putin became President, he quickly brought the Oligarchs to heel and marginalised the communists by consolidating and strengthening the federal government’s authority. The result has been remarkable for Russia; the country went from being effectively a failed state to being stabilized in a very short period of time. Is he a ruthless autocrat? Yes, of course, but this is Russia we’re talking about; if he were like Justin Trudeau, he wouldn’t have lasted five minutes. I’ve never really understood this demonisation of Putin; he’s no more or less of an autocrat than someone like Mohammed bin Salman, with whom we’re quite happy to do business, even though he had a journalist brutally murdered just a few years ago. Putin of course has been accused of having many of his opponents killed, although I’m not so sure about that. Many of them are perhaps more likely to have been killed by others (Boris Berezovsky?) with more motive than Putin. In any case, Putin’s self-described ‘number one enemy’, Bill Browder, is still walking around very much alive, which is something of a surprise, given the supposed ruthlessness of Putin towards his critics. It’s true that he has expressed regret at the demise of the Soviet Union, but I don’t believe he wishes to re-create the USSR. That at least is the impression I got from listening to his Tucker Carlson interview a while back. In any event, Russia hasn’t even been able to subdue Ukraine after almost four years of war, so I doubt they would be able to even if they wanted to.
You suggest that Ukraine is only considered to be Russia’s near abroad because Russia is bigger. It is Ukraine’s unfortunate fate to act as a buffer zone between Europe and the Russian heartland and it has been that way for centuries. The long march through Ukraine defeated both Napoleon and the Wehrmacht. It may be true to say that NATO is no threat to Russia, but it is certainly perceived as such by the Russians. That much has been understood by just about every foreign policy expert: Kennan, Kissinger, McNamara and many others over the years have all talked about the folly of expanding NATO’s borders up to Russia. You can even find a video clip of a much younger Joe Biden in the 90s, warning about the danger of admitting the Baltic States to NATO. If you’re interested, the first hour or so of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Jeffrey Sachs (first one, I think) is worth listening to, as Sachs lays it all out in a very clear way.
We had a golden opportunity in the ‘90s to build a ‘normal’ relationship with Russia; one that treated them with respect and would have allowed us to build an alliance with them to counter China, our most dangerous rival over the rest of this century. Instead, we’ve alienated them, driven them closer to China and have made the world a much more dangerous place. Very, very stupid in my view.
I wish u were on CNN
Thanks for this excellent article, Ayaan. I have been waiting years to hear a cogent rebuttal of Mearsheimer's flawed theories, and you've nailed it. I loathe the way he keeps talking about what he calls irrefutable evidence of Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing without any reference whatsoever to the law. He maintains that Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel and is silent on Iran's participation or the effect it will have on the global jihadi cause if their dreams are not entirely and unambiguously shattered by the resolve of Israel and the IDF. I especially love his defence when citing his The Israel Lobby - "some of my best friends are Jewish".
Yes Thanks Ayaan
As you conclude, "Time to move forward with clear eyes" Eyes that have seen the coming..of a Glorious future..
free from the misguided ..The GREAT LAKES Region where two Nations share the longest Border in the Western World is going to practice the srt science and reality of Balance and coperation and Brotherly Love not just Sea to shining Sea East to West but from the Gulf to the Arctic