風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
Mearsheimer 中國人現實主義 在中國比西方自在
https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDUyMjU2
https://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/72696/202411/2427.html
注：2024年11月1日，英國新聞網站Unherd在youtube發布與美國國際關係學者約翰·米爾斯海默的訪談，當今世界戰爭、和平和政治上的問題。談到中國，米爾斯海默表示在思想層麵上，自己在中國比在西方更有歸屬感，因為，他覺得中國人基本都是現實主義者，而西方人則強調自由和道德，認為現實主義是一種很悲觀的看待世界的方式。
我很反感米爾斯海默搖頭晃腦，預言誰是老大，誰是老二，中國將取代美國統治世界。不過這個對話，他倒是說出了真理，許多中國人自己也沒有意識到。這就是為什麽，美國、英國和美國脅迫的西方人，在世界各地努力傳播自由價值觀。挑起顏色革命，推翻他國政府，甚至發動戰爭。滿世界駐軍和特務機構，時時刻刻在不效忠的國家和製造騷亂，替換政府。
為虛假美好的幻覺，為不存在的上帝幹爹，歐美人自古殺戮至今。中國人務實，長時間享受和平生活，2000多年前開發絲綢之路，供養西方禽獸們互相殺戮。
在加拿大，我的鄰居白人老太太，問我信仰什麽宗教？我說宗教騙人，我不信那玩意兒，老太太竟然被驚嚇，立刻後跳一步。她每周自費打的上教堂，為孝敬祖先給她認的上帝幹爹，浪費不老少。
現在，許多中國人也被洗腦，迷信民主政治，迷信價值和人權，也玩鬼裝鬼節，無眼看真實世界，癡迷玩民主，西方國家已經被自己祖先發明的混賬民主政治玩完了。
為什麽生活在西方不自在，因為，必須偽裝自己的真實靈魂，整天過鬼節，把自己打扮成鬼魂幽靈。
翰·米爾斯海默:'現實主義者'如何獲勝
John Mearsheimer: How the 'realists' won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfyATu1Pl0
UnHerd 2024年11月1日
UnHerd 的弗雷迪·塞耶斯與約翰·米爾斯海默教授坐在一起。在 UnHerd 網站上觀看：https://unherd.com/watch-listen/were-...
前往 http://lumen.me/UNHERD 可享受 15% 的購買折扣
不久前，“現實主義”的國際關係方法被認為是一個危險的想法。但隨著西方對烏克蘭、以色列甚至中國的幹涉主義不斷增加，曾經被自由學術圈驅逐的思想家突然獲得了支持。約翰·米爾斯海默教授是“現實主義”方法的最早支持者之一，他與 UnHerd 的弗雷迪·塞耶斯一起談論了戰爭、和平和政治。
John Mearsheimer: How the 'realists' won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfyATu1Pl0
UnHerd 2024年11月1日
UnHerd's Freddie Sayers sits down with Professor John Mearsheimer. Watch it on the UnHerd website: https://unherd.com/watch-listen/were-...
Head to http://lumen.me/UNHERD for 15% off your purchase
The 'realist' approach to international relations was not long ago considered a dangerous idea. But with increased Western interventionism in Ukraine, Israel and even China, thinkers that were once exiled from liberal academic circles have suddenly gained ground. Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the earliest proponents of a 'realist' approach, joined UnHerd's Freddie Sayers for a conversation about war, peace and politics.?
Introduction
0:00
it forces great powers to act in ruthless ways what happened is that we
0:05
produced One failure after another today that line of argument is in complete
0:10
tatters I believe the United States and Britain are complicit in that genocide I
0:16
make people angry on both sides hello and welcome back to unheard
0:22
with me in the studio today is the world-renowned international relations professor John mimer in recent years he
0:29
has has gone from being an esteemed member of the academy to something of a renegade icon saying politically
0:37
unacceptable things about the war in Ukraine Israel potential standoffs in
0:42
China and the rest with his permission we're going to try and take advantage of his presence here in the studio to ask a
0:49
big question is realism the school of foreign policy that Professor Mir shimer
0:56
is world famous for winning the argument what does realism actually mean you hear
1:03
it bandied about quite a lot these days but what does it actually mean and how does it apply to China to the Middle
1:10
East conflicts and to Ukraine most pressingly are either of the candidates
1:16
for president realists or are they both to some degree so will we find out in
1:23
two weeks time that in some way we're all realists now so at the end of this
1:28
hour what I want is that you the audience will be able to know to what extent you yourself find yourself a
1:35
realist in your world viiew and to be able to use that term with confidence
1:42
when arguing with friends or non-friends over dinner Professor M shimer welcome
1:47
back to unheard glad to be here Freddy this episode is sponsored by Lumen Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic
1:54
coach it's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on the app it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs and gives you
2:01
tailored guidance to improve your nutrition workout sleep and even Stress Management all you have to do is breathe
2:06
into your Lumen fing in the morning and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism Lumen will tell you if you're burning mostly fat or carbs then Lumen
2:13
gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements you can also breathe into it before and
2:19
after workouts and meals so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time and Lumen will give you tips
2:24
to keep you on top of your health game it can also track your cycle as well as the onset of menopause and adjust your
2:30
recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy throughout the hormonal shifts so you can keep up your energy and
2:35
starve off Cravings so if you want to take the next step in improving your health go to lumen.me unheard to get 15%
2:42
of your Lumen that is l m en. me/ unheard for 15% off your purchase so
2:51
as I said there we're hoping for a little bit of a tutorial during this session I hope that's okay start with
2:57
the big question what is real ISM in international relations realism is a
Prof. John Mearsheimer explains realism
3:03
theory of international politics it's a theory about how the world works that
3:08
says that states care more than anything else about the balance of power this is
3:14
not to say they don't have other interests it's not to say that states sometimes can't behave in idealistic
3:20
ways but when push comes to shove it's the balance of power that matters the most to States and States want to make
3:27
sure that they have lots of power and that their potential adversaries have as little power as possible and the
3:34
principal reason for this is because in the International System there is no
3:41
higher authority there's no ultimate Arbiter there's no Leviathan that can
3:46
come to the rescue of States if they get into trouble if you are a state and
3:52
you're weak and a more powerful State comes after you you can't turn to a
3:57
higher authority to rescue you because there is no higher authority the system is not hierarchic it's anarchic in the
4:05
sense that it's flat and in a world like that you have to take care of yourself
4:12
it's what we call in international relations lingo it's a self-help world
4:18
and what you want to do in that self-help world is be as powerful as possible because if you're really
4:24
powerful it's highly unlikely that anyone will attack you now what this
4:29
means in terms of liberal values in terms of idealism is that there going to
4:36
be cases where an idealistic policy lines up with a
4:46
realist policy defeating Adolf Hitler in World War II makes sense from a strategic point of view from a realist
4:53
point of view there's no question about that the United States does not want Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich to
4:58
dominate Europe for good realist reasons at the same reason it makes perfect sense from a liberal point of view or
5:06
from an idealistic point of view to want to defeat Adolf Hitler for reasons I
5:11
don't have to explain to you so in that case right the two approaches go
5:17
together the question is what happens when the arrows point in different
5:23
directions and realism calls for pursuing a ruthless foreign policy and
5:29
liberalism does not which of the two approaches wins out and the answer from
5:36
a realist point of view is that realism would Dominate and the reason is because
5:41
realism is really all about survival realism is predicated on the assumption
5:47
that survival is the highest goal that a state can have and therefore if survival
5:53
is the highest goal that means realism Will trump uh idealistic logic and by
5:58
the way Freddy it will also Trump economic logic if the two are in
6:04
conflict and just to give you a good example that highlights this that really I think illustrates what realism is all
6:12
about once China becomes a great power we're talking roughly 2017 and it is seen by the United States
6:20
as a peer competitor the United States has a vested interest in making sure
6:27
that it has much more power than China has the United States wants to check the
6:33
growth of China as a great power and accelerate its own growth so that the
6:39
power gap between the two countries is as great as possible in favor of the
6:45
Americans but what this means is that the United States is going to have to pursue economic policies that are going
6:51
to hurt the United States economically a lot of people say to me John if we get tough with the Chinese as we are now
6:57
doing economically it's going to Dam Dage the United States it's going to hurt the American economy it's going to
7:03
slow down American economic growth my response to that is that's true but
7:08
that's the price you have to pay to make sure that you can contain China so you
7:14
see the economic Arrow right and the realist Arrow are pointing in opposite
7:19
directions so is it an amoral school is it that you are observing the way the
7:27
world actually works and that there is mer in being truthful and realistic in observing those Dynamics or do realists
7:36
actually think there is moral value in survival and your first duty is to your
7:43
own citizens and therefore it is kind of morally acceptable to pursue self-interest ruthlessly I would make
7:50
the argument that it is an amoral and very important to emphasize I'm not saying immoral it is an amoral Theory
7:58
and we all have uh moral compasses in our head and those moral compasses
8:04
influence how we think about the world just the way realism does and as I said when they're in Conflict the realist
8:12
Compass so to speak dominates the moral compass but realism by itself in my opinion is an amoral Theory now some
8:21
people argue that it's not and you were going down this road which is not to say you believe this but one could argue
8:27
that survival is the high goal of a state and it is a virtuous or morally
8:32
correct goal and therefore anything you do to enhance your survival is morally
8:38
correct I think if you make that argument a great power can go out and
8:44
behave in the most incredibly ruthless ways and you can defend it as morally
8:50
correct because it is facilitating that great power survival and I think if you
8:55
go down that road then it's hard to distinguish moral behavior from immoral
9:02
Behavior or ethical from unethical behavior and I think that's kind of not
9:07
the way to go so it's more a theory of the way the world actually works than any kind of Hope of the way the
9:15
world should work well it is the way the world works and uh my argument is is
9:21
reflected in my most important book where I lay out my realist Theory it's
9:27
called The Tragedy of great par politics and I think this is a tragic situation I
9:32
think the structure of the International System forces States forces great Powers
9:38
especially whether it's the United States Germany Japan China the Soviet
9:43
Union Russia it forces great powers to act in ruthless ways uh they have no
9:48
choice because in a world where there is no higher authority and another state may attack you you have a vested
9:55
interest a profound interest in making sure you're powerful and sometimes that requires doing ruthless things and I
10:03
think this is a tragic situation so if those people who started listening are
10:09
still with us and they hasn't got too theoretical for them I'm guessing a lot of people might be thinking hm I guess
10:15
maybe I'm a little bit of a realist a lot of people were very disappointed by
10:20
the Misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that whole sense of kind of liberal interventionism this fantasy
10:28
that we were going to impos democracy all around the world that was a sort of unrealistic worldview and doesn't feel
10:35
very popular anymore and a lot of people are also pretty skeptical about
10:40
overarching International institutions such as the UN having much
10:45
influence these days so if you're listening to this and feeling this is beginning to align with
10:52
my worldview do you think those kinds of issues are are likely to make you a
10:57
realist with a small r at least civil and realist yeah I think you're right I
11:03
mean what happened here in my opinion Freddy is that when the Cold War ended
11:09
and then when the Soviet Union collapses in December of 2001 uh we move into what is usually
11:16
called the unipolar moment and that means there's only one great power on the planet and that's the United States
11:22
of America which is incredibly powerful and in a very important way realism gets
11:28
put in the back clock it or gets put on the back burner because there's no more great power competition the United
11:34
States does not have to worry about the balance of power because it's so incredibly powerful so what the United
11:41
States does during the unipolar moment because it's a thoroughly liberal state
11:46
is it pursues a liberal foreign policy it's in the first time in its history
11:52
free to put aside realist concerns and behave in a very liberal way and of
11:58
course the British Bri which or or Britain which is another thoroughly liberal country uh becomes part of a tag
12:05
team with the United States and the British and the Americans run around the world trying to spread liberal values
12:13
sometimes at the end of a rifle barel and what happened uh is that we produced
12:20
One failure after another this turned out to be a disastrous foreign policy so
12:27
what happens in 20 2017 with the coming of multipolarity
12:33
remember in about 2017 you move from a unipolar world to a realist world what roughly happens in 2017 is that realism
12:41
is back for the United States because we're now in a multipolar world there
12:46
are great powers out there China and Russia to be specific that's number one
12:53
but number two what happens is that people understand that a liberal foreign policy what I like to call liberal
13:00
hegemony our policy from roughly 2001 to 2017 has been I think is fair to say a
13:08
colossal failure so people are much more sympathetic to realism starting in
13:15
roughly 2017 moving forward than they were during the unipolar moment and of course
13:22
most people and this includes people like you grew up came of age in the unipolar moment so realism was something
13:29
something that was easy to be critical of to dismiss during the unipolar moment
13:34
and most people in the liberal West were feeling really good about what liberalism could do it was the Frank
13:40
fukiyama view of the world what Frank said when the Cold War ended is that the future is liberalism we liberals have
13:49
the wind at our back and what's going to happen is the world is going to become increasing the liberal by 2017 that line
13:56
of argument was not looking good and to that line of argument uh is in complete
14:02
tatters and when liberalism fails like that and when you have two other great
14:09
powers in the system China and Russia realism is going to make a comeback and
14:14
that's what we see happening here so people are more sympathetic to realism
14:19
for sure than they were in let's say 2000 or 2010 let's try and get specific
Should America be hawkish towards China?
14:26
with some of this because so far it might seem quite an uncontroversial set
14:31
of statements that you've made I think most people would sign up to the failures of that kind of liberal way of
14:38
thinking during those years but in recent concrete examples what you've been saying has been very controversial
14:44
a lot of people have been upset by it they think it's um inappropriate so there is still a lot of energy in the
14:51
idealistic or non-realistic worldview let's do a bit of a Whistle Stop tour and people can feel if they
14:58
agree with you when it when we get specific starting if we could with China
15:04
because I know you have most recently been there you you just came back from a trip earlier this month is that right I
15:10
did yes so I'm I'm guessing your your head is full of thoughts about China on this example you take a different view
15:17
to other people who you've maybe agreed with on other areas such as Ukraine and
15:23
Israel and you think it would be in America's interest to have really quite
15:29
an aggressive vantage point or aggressive posture towards China to prevent its increase in power to prevent
15:36
it becoming the Hedon talk us through that what what would that actually look like well let me just start by saying
15:43
that in the early 2000s uh in 2001 in particular when I
15:48
published The Tragedy of great power politics and China was not a great power it was a good 15 plus years away from
15:55
that I made the argument that China could not rise peacefully and the United
16:00
States of course was pursuing a policy of Engagement toward China which was designed to help China grow economically
16:07
and my argument at the time was that if China grew economically it would translate that economic might into
16:13
military might and it would try to dominate Asia East Asia the way the United States dominates the Western
16:19
Hemisphere and the United States of course would go to Great Lan to try to contain China hardly anyone agreed with
16:28
me uh in the west and when I went to China there were a few people who
16:34
thought there was a real danger that that would happen but most people in China thought that it could rise
16:39
peacefully so I was a real outlier I think what's happened since then proves that I was basically right that you were
16:46
going to get an intense security competition once China began to grow economically and again it gets back to
16:52
the basic logic that I laid out to you at the start of the show which is to say that the best way to survive Fortune
16:58
China in the International System is to be especially powerful and if you're
17:03
weak uh you suffer what the Chinese suffered between the late 1840s and late
17:09
1940s they call it the century of national humiliation you never want to be weak in international politics
17:15
because the other great powers in the system will take advantage of you so what we see happening today in East Asia
17:24
is that number one China is growing more and more powerful
17:29
it's Translating that economic might into military might and it's beginning to talk about dominating Asia right and
17:37
not only dominating Asia they're building a bluew Navy to project power all over the world they are in a very
17:44
important way following in the footsteps of the United States now what is the United States and most of China's
17:51
neighbors doing they're very scared they do not want China to dominate Asia the
17:57
United States does not want to PE Regional hedgemon so what we're doing to
18:02
get to the heart and soul of your question is we're pursuing a containment strategy against China right we're
18:09
trying to contain China's growth to make sure it doesn't dominate Asia and that
18:15
containment strategy has two strands to it right one is a military Strand and
18:21
the other is an economic strand the military strand is a lot like what happened in the Cold War the United
18:27
States is Crea an alliance structure in East Asia that is designed to work with
18:33
countries like Japan the Philippines and so forth and so on to contain Chinese
18:39
military power to make sure China doesn't militarily dominate the region
18:44
much the way we worked to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating Eurasia uh
18:49
in the Cold War that's strand number one the other strand is an economic Strand and it has to do with Cutting Edge
18:57
Technologies the United States lives in Mortal fear that China because it has
19:02
all of this terribly impressive human capital is going to be able to dominate
19:09
the United States when it comes to developing Cutting Edge Technologies and
19:14
that matters greatly for producing wealth number one and number two it
19:19
matters greatly for the military weaponry that you develop so what we're
19:25
trying to do is make sure that we win the race to develop sophisticated
19:34
new technologies over time so you see this military competition which is all
19:39
about containment and you see this economic competition that is all about Cutting Edge Technologies that's all
19:46
designed to to contain China and allow the United States to remain the only
19:53
Regional hedgemon on the planet but is that a good strategy because that you're rough describing what the United States
20:00
government is currently trying to do are you saying that that's the right approach because there will be people
20:07
watching who think this is more getting towards warmongering this
20:12
is all being driven by people who want big defense contracts and military
20:18
spending and so on and might be very worried about that and feel like we should be stepping back from competing
20:24
in Asia and it's not even anywhere near us and we should leave it alone but are you saying that's wrong and that the US
20:31
should be pursuing this quite aggressive containment strategy I am saying it's
20:36
wrong uh that I think if China dominated Asia and had a blue water Navy that had
20:42
significant power projection capability all around the world that would not be good for the United States and I think
20:48
we have a deep-seated interest in containing China I think this is a tragic situation I'm not enthusiastic
20:55
about it all I've been to China many times I love going to China I love the
21:00
Chinese people and in fact I'm more at home intellectually in China than I am
21:06
in the west because the Chinese are basically realists uh whereas in the west uh uh people are instinctively
21:14
liberal and uh they instinctively don't like realism because it's such a pessimistic way of thinking about the
21:22
world so you know so did you say all this in China in recent weeks oh sure
21:29
you felt comfortable doing that not I I didn't I didn't say it this time but in
21:35
in past years when I've gone to China I've often started my Talks by saying
21:40
it's good to be back among my people I don't speak a word of Chinese and I feel like I'm a fish out of water culturally
21:48
culturally when I'm in China uh but intellectually the Chinese are my kind
21:54
of people they're realists very interested in theory uh I've never gone to any country where people are more
22:01
interested in in international relations Theory and talking about the big issues but did you say to them that you think
22:08
it's right that the US is containing them oh yes and they feel how do they
22:13
respond to that well let me let me make it clear I also say to the Chinese I think they should try to dominate Asia I
22:21
I say if I was the National Security advisor in Beijing I would want to dominate Asia one of my principal goals
22:27
would be to push the American out beyond the first island chain push the Americans out beyond the second island
22:32
chain and get the Americans out of East Asia and then i' do everything I can to maximize the power gap between China and
22:39
Japan China and India and so forth and so on this is going to make some people a bit uncomfortable if they are now not
22:47
exactly an enemy but a non-friendly power at this point to have an esteemed
22:52
American Professor going and giving them tips on how better to expel the Americans from their spirit of influence
23:00
a lot of Americans might be a bit uncomfortable hearing that they may but uh I've been saying this for a long time
23:07
and uh I don't think to be honest the Chinese need me uh to tell them that this is what they should do any more
23:14
than the Americans needed me after 1783 to tell them what to do my argument is
23:20
the structure tells States basically what to do and the Chinese long ago figured out that you want to be the most
23:27
powerful state uh in Asia but at the same time I believe the United States should go to
23:33
Great Lengths to check China now the Chinese actually I believe like me very
23:41
much in good part because I tell them that the United States is a ruthless great power and I do believe the United
23:47
States is a ruthless great power I do believe the United States is deeply committed to checking their rise and the
23:54
Chinese will say that most Americans who come through say the United States is a benign great power that the United
24:01
States and China can get along but you John come in and tell the truth you
24:07
admit that the United States your country is a ruthless great power to which my response is that's correct
24:13
because great powers are ruthless by definition and the fact that great powers are ruthless is why you have to
24:18
go to Such Great Lengths to make sure your great power the state that you live in is very powerful because if you live
24:26
in a great power that's weak other power will prey on you so if you're observing
Will China or America win the coming great power conflict over Taiwan?
24:32
this potential future Clash where it is in China's interests to dominate East
24:38
Asia and it is in America's interest to prevent that happening who do you expect
24:44
to win that Clash I believe that the United States will succeed in preventing
24:50
China from dominating East Asia and becoming a peer Regional hedgemon so I
24:56
think that's true how will achiev that the United States is remarkably powerful it has lots of
25:03
nuclear weapons and it has a good number of allies in East Asia uh who will help the United States
25:11
in that endeavor up to un including
25:16
War for example Taiwan is the most talked about flasho do you think it will come to
25:24
actual conflict and you think the US will prevail in that conflict well I think this is the key issue Freddy
25:30
that's what concerns me it's not so much who wins in the end because I think that's far off and I'll be long gone
25:38
from the planet by the time that one is decided in all likelihood I think the
25:43
much more interesting question is the one you raise which is How likely it is that we'll have a war uh and you want to
25:50
remember when you talk about a war between the United States and China you're talking about a war between two nuclear armed great powers and the
25:57
potential for escalation is always there and we could you know end up incinerating each other so this is
26:05
really serious business uh and I think the key question moving forward is Will
26:10
is whether this will evolve the way the Cold War evolved during the Cold War we had a number of major crises various
26:17
crises over Berlin and most importantly the Cuban Missile Crisis but thankfully in all those crises in the Cold War
26:24
cooler heads prevailed and we did not have a shooting war and I just hope uh
26:30
that moving forward that is the case with regard to the United States and China but my point is that this security
26:38
competition is already present and it's in the South China scene not so much over Taiwan these days where you can see
26:45
the two sides maneuvering with each other and where there's real potential for conflict I think and uh I just hope
26:52
that if we have a major crisis somewhere down the road that cooler heads will
26:57
prevail on both sides so if a Chinese Senior military person was sitting in one of
27:04
your lectures in China in recent weeks and felt inspired that yes John mimer is
27:09
right we need to push ahead with making sure that we get Regional domination
27:15
we're going to take a risk we're going to have an actual standoff with the US in the South China Sea or in Taiwan
27:22
would you support the US fighting back with weapons with guns with bombs to
27:31
push that back and allow a real conflict to take place yeah I I would support it
27:36
I mean the key issue here is Taiwan and the question is will the United States fight and die to defend Taiwan if the
27:43
Chinese were to invade Taiwan and I think the answer is yes I think that we
27:48
would fight and die to defend Taiwan I think the Japanese would be with us as well I hope it doesn't come to that for
27:54
sure but I think it is important for the United States to make sure that China does not acquire Taiwan and do you think
28:03
Young Americans will enlist to go all the way to Taiwan in such a scenario to
28:10
fight and die to protect it or do you feel like among the civilian population
28:17
there is no longer appetite to take part in those kind of far away far on adventures well I think that uh should a
28:25
War break out should let's say China tries to invade Taiwan the United States
28:31
will use its existing military forces to enter the fight right so we will be in
28:38
the fight and I think the question that you're asking is whether or not we'll have to quit the fight because the
28:45
American public will say we're not going to fight this War I think that is and
28:51
I'm choosing my words carefully here extremely unlikely to happen because the government the US government will go to
28:57
Gra lengths to manipulate the discourse on what is going on in ways that present
29:04
China as a mortal threat and therefore give the American public powerful incentives to support the war to include
29:12
uh you know participating in the fighting final question on China before we move on on our little uh Global tour
29:20
of great threats do you think there's a meaningful difference between a president Harris and a president Trump
29:28
as regards China and how the US would respond to that kind of aggression what
29:33
do you think the differences are exaggerated and it might be much the same I think there's not much difference
29:41
uh I think where there is real differences on Ukraine but I I think with regard to China you want to
29:47
remember the president who abandoned engagement with China and moved
29:54
explicitly to a containment strategy was Donald Trump remember my argument was
29:59
that it was roughly around 2017 when China became a great power and Russia was resurrected from the dead and
30:07
it too became a great power Trump was the one who abandoned explicitly
30:12
abandoned engagement which was designed to help China grow economically and to get along with China and he pursued a
30:20
containment strategy and then when Joe Biden became president he followed in
30:26
Trump's footsteps so I think Trump will continue to pursue containment I think
30:33
the only meaningful difference between Trump and Harris or Trump and Biden is
30:38
how Trump deals with allies compared to how Biden has dealt with allies and how
30:45
Harris is likely to deal with allies I think Trump tends to be much too rough
30:51
with uh allies he tends to want to slap them around whereas I think both Biden
30:58
and Harris are much more interested in working with them allies in a
31:04
Cooperative way but in terms of basic policy towards China I just don't see any difference between Harris and Trump
Prof. John Mearsheimer on Israel, Gaza and Iran
31:12
let's move closer to where we are now and talk a little bit about the Middle East because that is
31:19
obviously one of the other main areas of concern there's war currently and
31:26
there's a big danger that that it might escalate in different directions what is the of
31:33
realist approach to the conflict that Israel is currently engaged in I
31:39
remember we had conversation about this before where I was perhaps naively
31:45
arguing that what Israel is doing I.E actually taking aggressive steps into
31:53
neighboring countries to defend its security as it perceives
31:58
neighboring countries or territories in in the case of Gaza that seemed kind of
32:04
realistic and I remember you said saying that was to misunderstand realism so
32:10
explain to our viewers and listeners what is the realist take on
32:17
the Israel conflict well the sort of two ways we can cut into this issue one is
32:25
to talk about what is a realist American foreign policy and then Focus instead on
32:33
Israel and say is Israel's Behavior realist in nature let's start with that
32:39
second question do you think Israel is behaving like a real realist would
32:46
advise them to do I'm not sure how to answer that the
32:51
the problem as I believe I said to you before is that the tap rot of the conflict here is between the
32:58
Palestinians and Israel right and if you look at Israel and what's happening with
33:05
regard to Hezbollah in Lebanon that's all an outgrowth of what's happening in
33:11
Gaza with regard to Israel and Hamas the only reason that Hezbollah is firing
33:19
rockets and missiles into Israel is to support Hamas and Gaza Iran is a
33:25
different matter realism does not have much to say about Israel's conflict with
33:31
the Palestinians realism as I understand it because it doesn't deal with Interstate relations it's a domestic
33:39
problem there is this entity called greater Israel greater Israel includes
33:45
Israel uh the Israel that was created in 1948 and existed until
33:51
1967 plus the two territories Gaza and the West Bank that it acquired in the
33:58
1967 war so when you talk about Israel today you're talking about greater Israel Israel basically owns Gaza and it
34:06
owns the West Bank you know we refer to them as the occupied territories but as
34:11
far as the Israelis are concerned they're part of a greater Israel and what's taking place inside Gaza today
34:18
and taking place on the West Bank is basically a civil war between Israeli Jews and
34:24
Palestinians and I don't think realist theory is I understand it has much to say about it if you want to talk about
34:31
what's realistic with a little r I think the Israelis have been remarkably
34:36
foolish over time not to create a Palestinian state that it was in
34:42
Israel's interest to give the Palestinians some form of sovereignty some sense of a viable state so that the
34:50
two peoples could live side by side I think creating a greater Israel which is effectively a an apartheid state where
34:58
the Palestinians are subjugated dominated by the Israelis is not in Israel's interest because you're going
35:04
to get what happened on October 7th just as you had a first inata and a second inata before that so from a realist
35:12
point of view with a little r I think that what the Israelis are doing is not smart and I think it is going to do
35:20
enormous damage to the country over time Iran though is a different issue Israel
35:27
and Iran are independent countries in the region and the Israelis have a deep-seated interest in number one
35:33
making sure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons and number two making
35:38
sure Iran does not become a regional hedgemon if you look at the latent power
35:44
that Iran has latent power meaning population size and wealth Iran has the
35:50
potential to dominate the region uh and the Israelis don't want that and of course they don't want them to have
35:56
nuclear weapons so that's a case where realism kicks in I would argue that
36:02
policies that the Israelis have pursued Visa the Iranians is not smart from a
36:08
realist with a capital R point of view I think for example pulling out of the
36:13
jcpa uh the nuclear agreement that the great powers and uh the European States
36:20
had fashioned with Iran was foolish I think the Israelis made a major mistake
36:26
there my is that some people listening will be a bit surprised because from how
36:32
you described realism at the start which was a sort of cleare eyed vision of
36:38
States acting in their own interests that's just the way the world is let's not pretend otherwise sometimes they
36:43
need to take hostile action in order to defend themselves and protect themselves
36:48
it feels like Israel is the kind of perfect example of that and you could
36:54
say being pretty effective at it and the desire that many people have predicted
36:59
for Israel oh this was going to lead to an incursion from Hezbollah in the north
37:05
this was all part of a uh sort of four-dimensional Chess plan that was going to um conclude with a real crisis
37:14
for Israel hasn't happened Israel currently seems like it is a effective
37:21
military player what would you say to people who said that I think it's just dead wrong and I think it reflects the
37:27
fact that the Western media's coverage of Israel is so out of touch with reality that people like you can make
37:33
those kinds of arguments uh let's talk about the three conflicts the one in Gaza the conflict with Hezbollah and the
37:42
conflict against Iran Israel has three goals in Gaza one was to decisively
37:48
defeat Hamas two is to get the hostages back and three which is unstated was to ethnically cleanse Gaza the Israelis are
37:55
bent on cleansing Gaza and the West Bank they have not decisively defeated Hamas
38:00
they're not going to decisively defeat Hamas they've not gotten the hostages back and they have not ethnically
38:06
cleansed Gaza and furthermore they're stuck in Gaza you remember they got out of Gaza I think it was in 2005 or 2006
38:14
they left Gaza because it was a hornet's nest well they're back in there and they've not defeated Hamas uh with
38:20
regard to healah uh they uh first tried to decapitate as
38:27
BL they were successful but they've been decapitating leaders in the Middle East
38:33
for uh years now it doesn't produce Victory then when decapitation failed
38:40
they went and started killing huge numbers of civilians in southern Beirut
38:46
uh and in southern Lebanon that didn't work and then they invaded on the ground on roughly October 1st they went in uh
38:55
and that hasn't worked they're getting clobbered in southern Lebanon for anybody who you know follows the
39:01
internet uh reports on this carefully they're getting clobbered and remember the reason that they tried decapitation
39:07
then they tried to kill large numbers of Lebanese and here we talking mainly
39:13
about um Hezbollah and the reason they invaded was to stop the rocket fire into
39:19
Northern Israel they've not sto the rocket fire they've not succeeded against Hezbollah and they're not going
39:25
to succeed against Hezbollah I mean at some point some negotiated settlement may be worked out who knows but the idea
39:32
that their military strategy has worked it hasn't worked against Hezbollah and it hasn't worked against Hamas and
39:39
against Iran the Iranians are still capable of
39:45
retaliating against Israel sending large numbers of ballistic missiles into isra
39:51
were the strikes on Iran not quite successful in that Iran seems to have retreated from further the Hostile
39:58
rhetoric since then it seems to have contained their aggression somewhat
40:05
at least in the short term no no I mean first of all the
40:12
evidence is now coming out that the attacks were not successful uh there were supposed to be three waves of
40:19
attacks uh the first wave did the corridor cutting the first wave involved
40:24
aircraft carrying missiles that were designed to destroy The Radars and uh
40:30
the missiles uh that the Iranians had on the ground and then the second wave in
40:35
the third raid would follow behind go into Iran and attack the targets uh and
40:43
uh the first wave of Israeli attacks against the air defense Radars and the
40:50
air defense missiles was aborted it didn't work and the second wave and the
40:55
third wave as best we can tell uh never entered Iranian airspace remarkably
41:01
little damage was done to Iran but the question I guess it's hard to know
41:06
exactly it's hard to know exactly but this is what the evidence that's now coming out says but the point is Freddy
41:13
even if they had gone in and done massive damage to Iran what do you think
41:18
the Iranians would have done they would have retaliated against Israel they have the missiles to do it why have they not
41:25
done that because the Israelis number one didn't do massive damage on
41:31
this most recent attack last Friday furthermore who's to say that the Iranians won't retaliate but the
41:38
Israelis do not have escalation dominance over Iran just very important to understand this in the old days the
41:45
Israelis had escalation dominance over almost all their adversaries if you listen to the story that I was telling
41:51
you about Hezbollah the Israelis don't have escalation dominance over Hezbollah
41:58
Hezbollah is still firing rockets and missiles into Israel and by the and by
42:05
the way now the houthis are also firing missiles into Israel what is so
42:10
interesting is that your critique in this discussion of Israel is not a moral
42:17
one because we're discussing the realist framework which as you say is a aoral way of looking at the world it's
42:24
the it's ineffective you're basically as correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying Israel
42:30
would be entitled in realist Theory to take these kinds of aggressive actions
42:37
in order to defend its existence to protect its sphere of influence but the way they've been doing
42:45
them have been ineffective is that is that a fair summary well look you raised
42:51
the issue of the effectiveness of military strategies that the is Ries are
42:58
pursuing Visa their various adversaries and that's what I addressed we we're not talking about the moral implications of
43:05
what Israel is doing in Gaza I think what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is a
43:12
genocide they are executing a genocide I want to be very clear on that and I think that is morally reprehensible and
43:19
it is a stain on Israel's reputation that will not go away for decades if not
43:26
Cent CES and I want to be very clear I believe the United States and Britain are complicit in that genocide but we
43:34
were not talking about the genocide we were talking about the effectiveness of what Israel is doing and what I'm
43:41
telling you is the conventional wisdom in the west that Israel is on a roll that Israel is in the driver seat is
43:48
simply wrong and if you look at what's happening in Gaza you look at what's happening with regard to Hezbollah and
43:55
Iran right Israel was in trouble and I want to point out here that the key variable here is the coming of
44:01
sophisticated missiles and Rockets when I was very young and used to study the
44:06
Israeli Arab conflicts right what we focused on in those days were Army to
44:13
Army and air-to-air engagements and the Israelis invariably defeated the
44:19
Israelis invariably defeated the Arab armies whether you're talking about 48 56 67 73 those big Wars and it looked
44:30
you know up until October 7th like the Israelis were really in the driver's seat that they faced no serious threat
44:37
then October 7th happened and what became manifestly apparent to all sorts of people including me was that there
44:44
was this really wicked rocket and missile threat against Israel that
44:50
Israel had no way of dealing with that's what I was saying to you before when I
44:55
talked about the effectiveness of of Israel's strategies Visa various adversary the Iron Dome is the most
45:03
effective counter rocket defense shield in the world this is a myth that the
45:08
Iron Dome was penetrated in previous uh uh attacks the first attack uh by the
45:16
Iranians was on April 14th and the second attack by the Iranians was on
45:21
October 1st and in both cases they penetrated the Iron Dome and by the way very small proportion no no I don't
45:28
think it was a very small proportion I think it was close to 50% got through if not more and every time they come
45:36
after Iron Dome it's weaker because Iron Dome expands missiles but the other
45:42
point I would make to which is a very important point is the Israelis can't use Iron Dome alone to defend themselves
45:48
against the Iranians the Americans are deeply involved we just put at least one Thad missile battery in Israel we have
45:56
all sorts naval ships that are in the Eastern Med off the Red Sea we have
46:02
tactical aircraft we meaning the Americans in the region that are helping the Israelis fend off these Iranian
46:08
attacks whether it's on April 14th or on October 1st or when another one comes
46:14
Iron Dome itself doesn't work so what do you think given everything you've said
46:21
from your Vantage Point what do you think an effective realist strategy y by
46:27
Israel would be setting aside any moral concerns if you were advising them much
46:32
as you were advising the Chinese a few weeks ago what would you advise them to do to maximize their strength and
46:39
security well I think uh with regard to the problem with Hamas and the problem
46:46
more generally with the Palestinians and with regard to the problem with Hezbollah I have a realist strategy not
46:52
with a capital R but with a little r that has to deal with half how uh Israel
46:58
treats the Palestinians and there I would Advocate a two-state solution but
47:04
there's no two-state solution in sight it's an impossible outcome at this point
47:11
in time and therefore I think Israel is doomed to endless conflict with the
47:17
Palestinians in its midst and by the way this is why the Israelis principal goal
47:22
in Gaza is ethnic cleansing they don't say it loudly and clearly there's plenty of evidence that that's what they're
47:27
doing but they want to cleanse Gaza and they want to cleanse the West Bank and they want to do that
47:34
because they understand full well as long as they have huge numbers of Palestinians in their midst they're
47:40
going to have a first inata second inata and another October 7th and they don't want that and we could get into a whole
Why John Mearsheimer annoys both sides of the political spectrum
47:48
series of arguments here around the nature of the Palestinian population in Israel and how different efforts they've
47:55
had to secure or different kinds of peaceful outcome let's avoid that cuz that could take the rest of our time out
48:02
a lot of people might have listened to the first section of this conversation about China and let's say they were on
48:08
the political right let's say they were Republican minded perhaps fans of
48:13
Elbridge Colby and the like circle of Donald Trump they would have pretty much been nodding their heads when listening
48:20
to you on China listening to you on Israel they would have been throwing up their hands in horror and saying no no
48:27
this guy is some kind of far-left uh you know activist this is the opposite of
48:32
what we want tell me about that interesting
48:37
tension how your views in on China seem to roughly align with the political right whilst your views on Israel seem
48:45
to align with the political very much left well
48:50
again I think what you say is true for sure I'm not disputing that but when you
48:56
talk about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the conflict with Hezbollah this is not in the realm of realism
49:04
realism doesn't explain everything that happens in the world this is basically a Civil War uh and what really matters
49:12
here are ideologies like nationalism and this is Palestinian nationalism up
49:18
against Zionism and Zionism is basically Jewish nationalism and I have all sorts of views on these subjects I guess I'm
49:24
more asking about what your experience is living in the US in this very heated
49:31
political climate where some of your views publicly and cogently expressed
49:37
strongly Accord with the political right and others absolutely with the left of the democratic party what's that like
49:43
for you well what it means is that uh I make
49:50
uh people angry on both sides there's just no question about that at this
49:55
point in time most of the discuss in the United States is about Ukraine and about
50:01
Palestine or Israel Palestine and there I have a whole set of individuals or
50:07
people who I agree with a and we're sort of a group that is articulating a
50:14
particular explanation for what's going on in those two conflicts so you have no political home and well when those
50:21
people hear me talk about China they find My Views to be uh wrong-headed and
50:28
they get angry at me there's no question about that I always tell people exactly
50:33
what I think I don't pull my punches and again this is not to say I'm right and
50:38
others are wrong but when I talk you know you're getting uh you know a
50:45
straight analysis of the situation whether we're talking about Israel Palestine Ukraine or China and the
50:53
really interesting question Freddy is how often am I right and how often am I aoll well that brings me nicely to the
Is the realist view of the Ukraine War becoming mainstream?
51:00
third area that we want to talk about we haven't got too much time so we'll and we've spoken about it before so we'll be
51:06
a little bit briefer here but that is Ukraine and on this area on this Central
51:12
topic so important to us here in Europe I would say that the things you were saying that were considered very very
51:18
controversial to or two and a half years ago are now said by all sorts of people
51:26
in the mainstream every day the re quote unquote realist view of the Ukraine
51:33
conflict that you have been one of the most famous proponents of critical of the actions of the West um feeling like
51:42
missteps were made all along the way and that uh some kind of accommodation was going to need to be made with Russia if
51:49
you said that two years ago you would have been branded a Putin apologist uh it would have been considered outrageous
51:56
in fact it happened to me I said something a milder version of that on a BBC television program and suddenly I
52:02
was uh you know in the pay of Vladimir Putin whilst now I hear people all across the political Spectrum including
52:09
on both sides of the aisle in the US saying things like negotiation is going
52:16
to be necessary peace will only come through diplomacy Ukraine is never going to
52:23
reconquer Crimea all sorts of things that were considered taboo two years ago Do You
52:28
observe that do you feel like the world has caught up with you on Ukraine somewhat when we talk about the world I
52:36
like to distinguish between the west and yes the rest uh when the Western world
52:41
let's say the yeah the Western world has somewhat caught up uh I think the key issue uh that has been on the front
52:49
burner for a long time is who's principally responsible for causing the war and there my argument that it was uh
52:57
NATO expansion uh bringing Ukraine into NATO is accepted by more people in the
53:03
west than was the case let's say two years ago but still is not widely
53:08
accepted in the west it's widely accepted outside the West right uh and
53:14
uh but in the west I think most people still think that Putin is the bad guy
53:19
and even though a negotiated settlement some form of diplomatic solution is
53:25
necessary now we have to keep in mind that he is a bad guy and that uh his uh invasion of
53:33
Ukraine cannot be cannot be justified or explained in any uh reasonable way so I
53:39
don't feel like everybody completely agrees with me but the fact of some kind
53:46
of negotiation being likely perhaps necessary now seems like a mainstream
53:51
view well two years ago that was not yeah there's there's no question about that and I I just think more and more
53:57
people also understand that NATO expansion was the tap rot of the problem I mean yed stoltenberg when he was the
54:04
head of NATO said exactly that two times I mean I actually privileged those two
54:11
uh quotes from him where he says basically what I've been saying for a long time uh that NATO expansion uh is
54:20
the tap rot of the problem and by the way Freddy this is a realist argument right my argument against NATO expansion
54:27
was that the Russians would view it as an existential threat and it would lead them to uh pursue a policy that involved
54:35
destroying Ukraine to prevent it from becoming part of Ukraine that was very much a realist argument but people in
54:41
the west rejected that realist argument and they were making more liberal arguments about why NATO
54:50
expansion uh was justified the argument that Ukraine has a right to join NATO
54:55
this is very much a liberal argument and the argument that people like Mike McFall made that NATO expansion was not
55:02
about containing Russia it was all about spreading uh the liberal order from Western Europe to Eastern Europe those
55:09
kinds of arguments were not realist arguments and they were the competitors to my argument so do you feel like if
Are Donald Trump and Kamala Harris both realists?
55:16
we're looking ahead to the presidential election in less than two weeks time do
55:23
you think that in to some degree both candidates are now realist on
55:30
Ukraine how would you characterize the difference or similarity facing the US on that topic
55:37
well I would you say at a very general level I think that Ukraine is the one foreign policy issue where uh Harris and
55:45
Trump are furthest apart I I think with regard to East Asia the China threat uh
55:50
with regard to the Middle East Israel Palestine there's not a lot of daylight between the two of them but I think on
55:56
Ukraine there is uh I think that Trump has long wanted to number one have good
56:04
relations with Russia and Putin in particular number two shut down the Ukraine war and number three reduce
56:12
America's commitment to Europe if not and NATO I think these are instinctively
56:18
uh the things that Trump wants to do whether he can do them is another matter I think Harris on the other hand uh will
56:25
continue if she's elected the Biden policy of doing everything possible to
56:31
continue to support Ukraine uh to remain deeply antagonistic toward uh both Putin
56:38
and Russia and to certainly continue the alliance so I think there's a fundamental difference in terms of what
56:45
their intentions are so you don't see movement there because I would say even on the Democratic side there's been a
56:51
change in rhetoric uh there have been more words of caution about escalatory
56:57
threats some kind of restraint on the use of some of the longer range missiles and and so on and a general shift in the
57:06
discourse with allowing a greater possibility of negotiation that seems to
57:12
have happened even on the Democratic side well allowing for negotiations there's no question it's because the
57:18
Russians are winning on the battlefield we're being forced to accept the fact
57:25
that some sort of deal may have to be cut to put an end to this uh but in
57:31
terms of but that will probably happen whether it's president Harris or president Trump I I think that's correct
57:36
yeah yeah so in that sense the difference is maybe more one of intention than one of outcome because we
57:43
may end up with some kind of deal within the next couple of years whoever wins
57:48
yeah I would just say I don't think you're going to get a meaningful peace agreement between Russia on one side and
57:54
Ukraine and the West on the other side no matter who is uh president it's it's
58:00
not going to happen relations are so thoroughly poisoned between both sides now that I think the best we could hope
58:07
for is a frozen conflict which will be very dangerous but I don't see a negotiated settlement uh the problem is
58:15
that Putin will drive a very hard bargain he will really want a lot and it
58:22
would be almost impossible for the West whether Trump is in power or Harris is in power uh to make all the concessions
58:29
that uh that he wants this is why I think that this crisis between Russia on
58:37
one side and Ukraine and the West on the other will continue for the foreseeable future and it will create a poisonous
58:43
strategic environment in Europe I think the decision that was made in April 2008
58:50
to bring Ukraine uh into NATO which precipitated this crisis in this war was
58:57
one of the most catastrophic decisions made uh in modern history by a great
59:03
power and I blame the United States mainly here because you want to remember the Germans and the French were both
59:10
adamantly opposed to Bringing Ukraine into NATO Angela Merkel who opposed it
59:16
at that famous April 2008 NATO Summit said that she understood that uh that
59:24
Putin would interpret this as a aration of War she understood but nevertheless she went along with the Bush
59:30
Administration and we are where we are but the consequences of this are just
59:35
disastrous so you don't believe that if Donald Trump wins he will be able to make a deal
59:43
because that's what he's been telling his supporters and you know that's what he
59:49
supposedly likes to do the art of the deal could he go to Vladimir Putin and
59:55
say here's your choice I'm going to massively ramp up support for Ukraine and I'm going to take this make this my
1:00:02
number one priority or we can do a deal and then go to zalinsky and say I'm either going to withdraw all funding or
1:00:08
you're going to come to a deal with Putin could he do that in the first weeks no no no no first of all we can't
1:00:16
do much more to help Ukraine we don't have the Weaponry uh I I mean a lot of
1:00:22
people argue now that we're not supporting Ukraine to the hilt we're not
1:00:28
giving them Weaponry that we have on the shelf that we could easily give to them
1:00:34
this is not true at all the European in inventories weapons inventories are Barren because so much Weaponry has been
1:00:41
given to the ukrainians and we don't have the industrial base in the United States or the industrial base in Europe
1:00:48
to produce you know the artillery tubes the artillery shells and the tanks that the ukrainians need but furthermore this
1:00:55
is I think the more important Point Putin doesn't trust the West at all he doesn't care whether Donald Trump is
1:01:01
president or kamla Harris is president he's not going to trust them you want to remember that Trump came into office in
1:01:07
January 2017 uh saying that he was going to improve relations with Putin and with
1:01:14
Russia more generally that never happened and when he left office relations were terrible he's the one who
1:01:20
decided that the United States will arm the ukrainians you want to understand that it was Donald Trump who decided
1:01:27
that the United States this was in December 2017 that we'd arm the ukrainians Putin is not going to trust
1:01:33
Trump and furthermore even if he did trust Trump he understands full well Trump is history in four years we're
1:01:39
assuming of course that he gets reelected or elected Putin is going to drive a hard bargain he's going to take
1:01:44
a lot of Ukrainian territory and he's going to go to Great Lengths to make sure that Ukraine is not in NATO that is
1:01:51
a genuinely neutral State uh and the the West doesn't cooperate he'll make sure
1:01:58
that it's a dysfunctional rump state so uh so there is no strategy for the West
1:02:06
at this point that can have a happy outcome no from the way you see it no no I think we're we're we're basically
1:02:12
doomed here I think this is the tragedy of as you call it the tragedy of great
1:02:18
power politics no this is not the tragedy of great power politics this is the tragedy that's created by uh
1:02:26
remarkably foolish policymaking by the West in 2008 and for moving forward uh
1:02:33
and the United States is principally responsible the decision to expand NATO into Ukraine was a colossal error and it
1:02:41
should have been clear to us after 2008 certainly by 2014 when the crisis broke
1:02:46
out remember we make the decision to bring Ukraine into nato in April 2008
1:02:53
the crisis doesn't break out until 20 2014 and of course the war breaks out
1:02:59
eight years later in 2022 okay but after 2008 at every point
1:03:05
along the road we meaning the West doubles down and it's mainly because of the Americans and we're now at a point
1:03:12
where it's almost impossible in my mind I hope I'm wrong here to see how we can
1:03:18
come up with some sort of negotiated settlement that creates a peaceful outcome for Ukraine for Russ Russia and
1:03:26
for the west and we can go back to having good relations or quasi good
1:03:31
relations with uh or between Russia uh and the West I I think those days are
1:03:37
long gone in less than two weeks time we will be waking up to unless the result is
Would Trump or Harris be better for global security?
1:03:44
very delayed and unclear at that point most likely there will be a result uh on
1:03:51
the 6th of November you've said that you are politically homeless or don't feel
1:03:56
at home with either party especially thinking purely in your
1:04:02
scholarly realist way which of those two options do you feel would be more likely
1:04:10
to maximize the security and strength of the United States internationally I I
1:04:17
don't think it matters I think that uh the United States uh will pretty much behave the
1:04:24
same way in terms of foreign policy whether you have Harris or Trump I mean I I think that uh the structure of the
1:04:32
system just doesn't leave us much choice and
1:04:37
the power of the deep state in the United States will make it virtually impossible for Trump to pursue a bold
1:04:44
foreign policy over Ukraine uh so I I just don't think it matters very much at all it's a bleak
1:04:51
note to end on Professor mimer but I always notice when we have these conversations how you remain such a a
1:04:58
sunshiny and optimistic person despite having this really quite Bleak world viiew how do you manage that well I
1:05:05
think in terms of interpersonal relations I have a very bright view of the world I thoroughly enjoy being here
1:05:11
talking to you but there's no question as you point out that the substance of our discussion is Thoroughly depressing
1:05:18
it really is depressing to think where we are today you if you go back to when the Cold War ended and what the world
1:05:24
looked like in 19 1990 and certainly in 1992 the year after the Soviet Union
1:05:30
collapsed it really looked like we were in the catbird seat and it was just sunshine and Roses moving forward and if
1:05:37
you compare that world with the world that we're in today it's thoroughly depressing I mean we haven't even talked
1:05:43
about domestic politics inside the United States and domestic politics here
1:05:49
in Europe uh you know and uh that'll have to be for a follow-up episode after the election John I've come to Chicago
1:05:55
and will thrash out the domestic scene yes I can guarantee you it will be a gloomy conversation although I will
1:06:03
again enjoy talking to you as will I Professor mimer thank you for coming to unheard my pleasure Freddy that was
01:07:12 - Concluding thoughts
1:06:10
professor John mimer of the University of Chicago an internationally renowned
1:06:15
scholar from the realist School of international relations we darted all
1:06:21
the way around the world there in that discussion but I hope there was a bit of a CO hearing thread which is to try to
1:06:28
understand realism this way of thinking which has made Professor Mir Shima so
1:06:34
famous and to try to apply it in those different scenarios and I think what is
1:06:39
so interesting and no doubt maddening to many people who follow M shima's
1:06:44
thinking is that you can strongly agree with him about one of these theaters of conflict and equally passionately
1:06:51
disagree with him about another at the end of all that whether you think of yourself as a realist is for you to work
1:06:58
out but I really enjoyed exploring it and as always with John mimer a stimulating and interesting conversation
1:07:05
thanks to him and thanks to you for tuning in this was unheard
美國學者米爾斯海默：我在中國比在西方更自在，因為中國人基本上都是現實主義者
12小時前
英國新聞網站Unherd在當地時間11月1日的時候，在其youtube的官方頻道上，發布了一個與美國國際關係著名學者約翰·米爾斯海默的訪談視頻。從視頻的標題以及簡介來看，該訪談主要討論了一下在“現實主義”者的眼中，當今世界上的戰爭、和平和政治上的一些問題。
在談到中國時，米爾斯海默表示在思想層麵上，自己在中國比在西方更有歸屬感，因為他覺得中國人基本都是現實主義者，而西方人則本能地秉持自由主義，認為現實主義是一種很悲觀的看待世界的方式。
他還表示，自己雖然在文化層麵上無法和中國人產生共鳴，但是在思想層麵上，他和中國人是一類人，大家都是現實主義者。
他說在自己去過的國家裏，沒有哪個國家的人會比中國人對國際關係理論以及探討重大問題更感興趣的了。
主持人還問到，你是否有跟中國人提到過你認為美國遏製中國發展是正確的？米爾斯海默稱自己確實這麽提過，但他還表示自己也認為中國應該努力主宰東亞，他表示如果自己是中國的國家安全顧問，那他的主要工作就是將美國人趕出東亞，並盡可能的拉大中國和日本、印度等國之間的實力差距。
米爾斯海默進一步解釋稱，自己的觀點是國際格局基本上會告訴各個國家該做什麽，所以他認為中國應該主宰東亞，而美國應該盡全力去製衡中國發展。
米爾斯海默還提到，他承認美國是個冷酷無情的大國，因為從定義上來說，大國就應該是冷酷無情的，因為它必須要竭盡全力來保證自己足夠強大。如果做不到，那就會被其他更強大的大國欺壓。
