Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Wayne McMillan's avatar

Peter, Your comments about Mearsheimer reflect a complete ahistorical understanding of international relations, agreements and arrangements over the last 55 years.

See https://youtu.be/uvFtyDy_Bt0?si=Pn03jtnNEUO7H2bH for a more informed discussion with both John Mearsheimer and Jeffery Sachs.

Expand full comment
Mark McDonnell's avatar

Hello Peter

I think your argument is well sustained and exposes weaknesses in Mearsheimer's work very well. I for one am pleased you have taken the trouble to set it out in some detail. One small point is that the different assessments he makes of the Russian and Israeli wars has one thing in common; namely, he sees his own country as invariably culpable notwithstanding his inconsistent treatment of each case. More importantly, military aggression is always an exercise in "might is right" irrespective of how it is justified, as the victor secures an outcome that may not have been possible by other means. In this sense, it is largely irrelevant as to whether one believes Russia was unreasonably "provoked" in its decision to invade Ukraine, or not. Like you, I think this argument is nonsense, but unlike you I think it is no more than a propagandist's side-show and is of little if any real consequence, as the more important issue is whether Russia prevails or secures some longer term advantage as a result of its military incursion into Ukraine. Similar considerations apply in the case of other wars, including that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Once a war begins, the only thing that really matters is who wins.

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts