The horrors of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing (and I was frequently in Yugoslavia before the wars broke out and it was clear that he was preparing something terrible) led to NATO’s participation and Kosovo’s independence; regardless of one’s views (I was opposed to NATO bombardment and engagement), that was not annexation. It also does not affect my statement that no rational person thought NATO was likely to invade or to annex Russian territory.
When Finland joined NATO in response to Russian aggression, Putin pulled troops from the Russian border and sent them to Ukraine. From a fear of NATO invading and annexing Russian territory? Clearly not.
I was also thinking about what M gets wrong. I like this: "Mearsheimer cannot see that Putin is not acting in Russia’s interest—he is acting in his own, and a democratic Ukraine threatens his grip on power."
Afterthought: About which other leaders can we say the same? And how does international relations theory conceptualize how interests of the country do (not) align with the interests of the leaders?
Actually, M himself wrote about the question of how the interests of states and leaders do (not) align in the book "How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy". Maybe it would be worth looking into whether what M says in this book is consistent with his views on Putin and Russia. Another question I had about M is the following. Ms theory is supposed to be descriptive, but then in all the videos I watched, he deduces policy advice from his descriptive theory. This suggests that M has a hidden agenda. Does M have a hidden agenda? What is Ms hidden agenda? Why does he use his theory to promote it?
Way back in the 90s, writing on Foreign Affairs, a smarter Mearsheimer argued that Ukraine should not surrender its nuclear weapons because Russia would not let it survive. He was closer to the truth, once.
Ukraine should have tried to stay strong when there was an opportunity. Now they are weak the best they can do is to submit. (I summarize here what I think that Mearsheimer thinks.)
"We are one people, Americans and Canadians. They speak English, we speak English, fair skin, all of that," Trump said. "And the great people of Alberta, some of them want to separate, and I can't blame them. Do you know they put French on their food labels? French! I think they're being treated very unfairly. You have to think, '49th parallel, why the 49th parallel?' 50 would be a much rounder number, but we should go farther, right? We could be, just, one people living together happily..."
When asked about the 170,000 troops amassed on the border with Alberta, he said: "You know, our guys are a military, and they need military experience, they need to be able to fight in sun and rain and snow. So in this case, Idaho, it's a good place for snow, for training in snow, and they're very good, very lethal soldiers. But they're not going to invade, they're just training there."
"No reasonable person believes that NATO was likely to invade or to annex Russian territory."
Uh, how can you make this argument when in fact, NATO (and related) HAVE ALREADY 'invaded' and 'annexed' other territories???
You have to remove this sentence to remain intellectually honest, and once you remove it, the entire premise of your argument fails. The fact is that nothing is off the table when it comes to power, and THAT is the premise of Mearsheimer's entire argument.
Sorry, but I have to side with Mearsheimer on this.
You'll need to brush up on your history...or your Google skills.
NATO illegally bombed former Yugoslavia, and annexed Kosovo.
This was a large slap in the face to Russia, who considered Serbia their 'literal brother', so to speak.
It was also a slap in the face to former Yugoslavia, as they had always considered themselves allies to the West since World War 2, when they helped the Allied war effort by overthrowing their own pro-Evil Axis government, and installed a pro Allies government, which caused Hitler to go into Russia early, causing him to lose the war.
So if NATO already did it to one Slavic country, an ally of Russia no less, why on earth would Russia assume they wouldn't do it again??
"It seems your 'brushing up' on history was done through a very selective lens. Let’s set the record straight, as reality seems to be escaping you:
The 'Annexation' that never happened: NATO did not annex Kosovo. Kosovo was placed under UN administration (Resolution 1244) and declared independence nearly a decade later, in 2008. If you’re confusing independence with annexation, you might want to look at what Russia did to Crimea—that’s the literal definition of annexation.
The 'Literal Brother' fairy tale: Yeltsin’s Russia in 1999 was an economically broken nation that didn’t lift a finger to militarily assist Milošević. They settled for diplomatic grandstanding for domestic consumption, proving that 'brotherly love' stops where empty coffers and realpolitik begin.
The Western 'Ally' and the Coup: It’s historically laughable to claim Yugoslavia was 'always an ally.' The government overthrown in 1941 had just signed a pact with the Axis. The coup that followed was the work of officers backed by British intelligence, not some spontaneous 'allied' move by a unified nation.
The Hitler 'Delay' Myth: The theory that the invasion of Yugoslavia delayed Operation Barbarossa enough to cause Hitler’s defeat is a tired myth debunked by serious historians. Muddy Russian roads and overstretched supply lines did the damage, not a few weeks in the Balkans.
The tiny detail of Ethnic Cleansing: You conveniently failed to mention why the bombing happened: the systematic massacres and ethnic cleansing of civilians by the Milošević regime. Presenting this as a 'pointless attack on a Slavic state' is like describing a fire department’s intervention as a 'pointless attack on a house,' while ignoring that the house is on fire and the owner is holding the lighter.
So, if Russia is afraid, perhaps it’s not afraid of NATO, but of the fact that in the 21st century, ethnic cleansing and invading sovereign states tend to have consequences. Although, judging by Ukraine, it seems Russia is the one that learned absolutely nothing from history."
If people had listened to Mearsheimer in 1993 regarding Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal this war in Ukraine would never have happened.
To be honest if the EU/NATO had wanted they could have forced Russia out of Ukraine and out of Crimea. Instead they have essentially set up the current stalemate that is going to inevitably cost Ukraine more than it costs Russia. "Half measures availed us nothing..." we had our Munich Moment with a world full of Chamberlains and not a Churchill to be found. We made a decision to fight Putin down to last Ukrainian and no more.
As this article points out the notion that Putin is the victim in all this is absurd. At the same time I think the notion that Putin fears a liberal democracy in Ukraine as an existential threat to his rule is exaggerated. Just as the idea that Ukraine will usher in a domino effect with liberal democracies falling before a Russian onslaught is exaggerated. Putin can't even manage to win the war in Ukraine a direct attack on NATO would be impossible for him.
Putin's real driver is the same as it has been for all hegemonic states/rulers since the dawn of history--- land, resources, markets and slaves. It is the same for Trump it is not coincidental that every conflict he has proposed or supported (including Ukraine) either involves oil or rare earth minerals. Trump hasn't gone "full Putin" because he isn't sure he can make a favorable deal for mineral extraction with Putin. When he is sure he will get what he wants he'll drop Ukraine into Putin's hands. That is the transaction Trump is wanting and waiting for.
It appears to me, looking at the arc of his work, that as the world has grown more complex, Mearsheimer has become more contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. This is evidenced by his inability to understand (or account for) the nuances of the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel. He is partly right the US/EU/NATO is partially to blame for the situation in both places--- but not for the reasons he is telling us.
He is 78 and has exhausted himself. Much of his academic legacy is quite distinguished so it sad to see him becoming a sort of intellectual troll.
Mearsheimer implicitly approves of the largest land mass country with nukes invading Ukraine because of “provocations” but Israel at nine miles wide and surrounded by existential enemies has no legitimate security concerns. It’s just a transparent grift and a product of his bigotry.
If NATO truly intended to dismantle or annex Russia, the 1990s provided the perfect "power" opportunity.
During the collapse of the USSR, Russia was at its weakest. NATO did not move a single tank across the border. Instead, the West provided billions in aid (IMF/World Bank) and integrated Russia into the G8 and the NATO-Russia Council.
If "nothing is off the table when it comes to power," why did NATO wait for Russia to re-arm before supposedly threatening its territory? The historical timeline contradicts the "predatory NATO" narrative.
I recently attended a University of Chicago event which featured Mearsheimer. I doubt that he has the flexibility of mind at this stage of his career to step beyond his paradigm. Even worse I don’t believe that he would care if his theories and propositions cause real and significant harm to people fighting autocrats and theocrats. He seems like an entertaining person to have dinner with, but his shit eating grin and flippancy over a one hour interview were terribly misplaced and render him distasteful. He should retire or be retired by the university.
I am not a historian or geopolitical expert but Mearshimers’ theory seems ridiculous in light of Russias behavior toward Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Eastern Europe, etc since WW2
The most important part of Mearsheimer’s theory of “realism” is its inconsistency. The language he uses toward the west is moralistic. He talks about how Ukraine is the West’s “fault”, but when Russia acts it is a completely amoral entity, a “bear” being “poked.” If states always just follow what is in their perceived self interest then the language of “fault” is nonsense. The West and Ukraine are no more or less at fault than Russia. But in his worldview they are at fault for not being “realists” like him and Russia and therefore understanding that Russia would inevitably react the way it did. This of course completely defeats the purpose of realism by turning it into an ideology and turning amoral self interest into a moral code.
This essay is well written and supported by proofs. It is of the utmost importance to rightly and justifiably refute Putin’s army of useful idiots within Europe and the American continent, who never tire of spreading this false message.
Excellent analysis but perhaps a mischaracterization of political "realism", at least the Kissinger variant of the method. I suggest Barry Gewen's 2020 book on the topic. Mearsheimer is simply an authoritarian revanchist masquerading as an intellectual rebel. Lately, he's become more of an internet troll than a serious political analyst.
The critique of realism’s “billiard ball” model is fair, particularly regarding regime vs. state interests. But dismissing security concerns so completely seems just as reductive as ignoring ideology.
The war likely reflects multiple layers—geopolitics, identity, and internal regime logic—not just one.
The horrors of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing (and I was frequently in Yugoslavia before the wars broke out and it was clear that he was preparing something terrible) led to NATO’s participation and Kosovo’s independence; regardless of one’s views (I was opposed to NATO bombardment and engagement), that was not annexation. It also does not affect my statement that no rational person thought NATO was likely to invade or to annex Russian territory.
When Finland joined NATO in response to Russian aggression, Putin pulled troops from the Russian border and sent them to Ukraine. From a fear of NATO invading and annexing Russian territory? Clearly not.
I was also thinking about what M gets wrong. I like this: "Mearsheimer cannot see that Putin is not acting in Russia’s interest—he is acting in his own, and a democratic Ukraine threatens his grip on power."
Afterthought: About which other leaders can we say the same? And how does international relations theory conceptualize how interests of the country do (not) align with the interests of the leaders?
That's a good question, which is why it is important to look at the empirical reality to gauge any theory.
Actually, M himself wrote about the question of how the interests of states and leaders do (not) align in the book "How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy". Maybe it would be worth looking into whether what M says in this book is consistent with his views on Putin and Russia. Another question I had about M is the following. Ms theory is supposed to be descriptive, but then in all the videos I watched, he deduces policy advice from his descriptive theory. This suggests that M has a hidden agenda. Does M have a hidden agenda? What is Ms hidden agenda? Why does he use his theory to promote it?
Way back in the 90s, writing on Foreign Affairs, a smarter Mearsheimer argued that Ukraine should not surrender its nuclear weapons because Russia would not let it survive. He was closer to the truth, once.
To be specific: "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent," Foreign Affairs 72.3 (Summer 1993), pp. 50-66.
I see this as compatible with his current views.
Care to elaborate?
Ukraine should have tried to stay strong when there was an opportunity. Now they are weak the best they can do is to submit. (I summarize here what I think that Mearsheimer thinks.)
Perhaps, though now he's blaming the aggression on the US/NATO, not a deep-seated Russian drive.
"We are one people, Americans and Canadians. They speak English, we speak English, fair skin, all of that," Trump said. "And the great people of Alberta, some of them want to separate, and I can't blame them. Do you know they put French on their food labels? French! I think they're being treated very unfairly. You have to think, '49th parallel, why the 49th parallel?' 50 would be a much rounder number, but we should go farther, right? We could be, just, one people living together happily..."
When asked about the 170,000 troops amassed on the border with Alberta, he said: "You know, our guys are a military, and they need military experience, they need to be able to fight in sun and rain and snow. So in this case, Idaho, it's a good place for snow, for training in snow, and they're very good, very lethal soldiers. But they're not going to invade, they're just training there."
Mearsheimer is an example of how very smart people can come to embrace preposterous positions that ordinary people know are ridiculous.
"No reasonable person believes that NATO was likely to invade or to annex Russian territory."
Uh, how can you make this argument when in fact, NATO (and related) HAVE ALREADY 'invaded' and 'annexed' other territories???
You have to remove this sentence to remain intellectually honest, and once you remove it, the entire premise of your argument fails. The fact is that nothing is off the table when it comes to power, and THAT is the premise of Mearsheimer's entire argument.
Sorry, but I have to side with Mearsheimer on this.
examples?
You'll need to brush up on your history...or your Google skills.
NATO illegally bombed former Yugoslavia, and annexed Kosovo.
This was a large slap in the face to Russia, who considered Serbia their 'literal brother', so to speak.
It was also a slap in the face to former Yugoslavia, as they had always considered themselves allies to the West since World War 2, when they helped the Allied war effort by overthrowing their own pro-Evil Axis government, and installed a pro Allies government, which caused Hitler to go into Russia early, causing him to lose the war.
So if NATO already did it to one Slavic country, an ally of Russia no less, why on earth would Russia assume they wouldn't do it again??
"It seems your 'brushing up' on history was done through a very selective lens. Let’s set the record straight, as reality seems to be escaping you:
The 'Annexation' that never happened: NATO did not annex Kosovo. Kosovo was placed under UN administration (Resolution 1244) and declared independence nearly a decade later, in 2008. If you’re confusing independence with annexation, you might want to look at what Russia did to Crimea—that’s the literal definition of annexation.
The 'Literal Brother' fairy tale: Yeltsin’s Russia in 1999 was an economically broken nation that didn’t lift a finger to militarily assist Milošević. They settled for diplomatic grandstanding for domestic consumption, proving that 'brotherly love' stops where empty coffers and realpolitik begin.
The Western 'Ally' and the Coup: It’s historically laughable to claim Yugoslavia was 'always an ally.' The government overthrown in 1941 had just signed a pact with the Axis. The coup that followed was the work of officers backed by British intelligence, not some spontaneous 'allied' move by a unified nation.
The Hitler 'Delay' Myth: The theory that the invasion of Yugoslavia delayed Operation Barbarossa enough to cause Hitler’s defeat is a tired myth debunked by serious historians. Muddy Russian roads and overstretched supply lines did the damage, not a few weeks in the Balkans.
The tiny detail of Ethnic Cleansing: You conveniently failed to mention why the bombing happened: the systematic massacres and ethnic cleansing of civilians by the Milošević regime. Presenting this as a 'pointless attack on a Slavic state' is like describing a fire department’s intervention as a 'pointless attack on a house,' while ignoring that the house is on fire and the owner is holding the lighter.
So, if Russia is afraid, perhaps it’s not afraid of NATO, but of the fact that in the 21st century, ethnic cleansing and invading sovereign states tend to have consequences. Although, judging by Ukraine, it seems Russia is the one that learned absolutely nothing from history."
If people had listened to Mearsheimer in 1993 regarding Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal this war in Ukraine would never have happened.
To be honest if the EU/NATO had wanted they could have forced Russia out of Ukraine and out of Crimea. Instead they have essentially set up the current stalemate that is going to inevitably cost Ukraine more than it costs Russia. "Half measures availed us nothing..." we had our Munich Moment with a world full of Chamberlains and not a Churchill to be found. We made a decision to fight Putin down to last Ukrainian and no more.
As this article points out the notion that Putin is the victim in all this is absurd. At the same time I think the notion that Putin fears a liberal democracy in Ukraine as an existential threat to his rule is exaggerated. Just as the idea that Ukraine will usher in a domino effect with liberal democracies falling before a Russian onslaught is exaggerated. Putin can't even manage to win the war in Ukraine a direct attack on NATO would be impossible for him.
Putin's real driver is the same as it has been for all hegemonic states/rulers since the dawn of history--- land, resources, markets and slaves. It is the same for Trump it is not coincidental that every conflict he has proposed or supported (including Ukraine) either involves oil or rare earth minerals. Trump hasn't gone "full Putin" because he isn't sure he can make a favorable deal for mineral extraction with Putin. When he is sure he will get what he wants he'll drop Ukraine into Putin's hands. That is the transaction Trump is wanting and waiting for.
It appears to me, looking at the arc of his work, that as the world has grown more complex, Mearsheimer has become more contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. This is evidenced by his inability to understand (or account for) the nuances of the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel. He is partly right the US/EU/NATO is partially to blame for the situation in both places--- but not for the reasons he is telling us.
He is 78 and has exhausted himself. Much of his academic legacy is quite distinguished so it sad to see him becoming a sort of intellectual troll.
Mearsheimer implicitly approves of the largest land mass country with nukes invading Ukraine because of “provocations” but Israel at nine miles wide and surrounded by existential enemies has no legitimate security concerns. It’s just a transparent grift and a product of his bigotry.
Yeah he believes Israel neighbours do not constitute an existential threat, what a clown.
He's a moron and an anti-semite.
If NATO truly intended to dismantle or annex Russia, the 1990s provided the perfect "power" opportunity.
During the collapse of the USSR, Russia was at its weakest. NATO did not move a single tank across the border. Instead, the West provided billions in aid (IMF/World Bank) and integrated Russia into the G8 and the NATO-Russia Council.
If "nothing is off the table when it comes to power," why did NATO wait for Russia to re-arm before supposedly threatening its territory? The historical timeline contradicts the "predatory NATO" narrative.
Mearsheimer belongs in the Hall of Shame for academics
I recently attended a University of Chicago event which featured Mearsheimer. I doubt that he has the flexibility of mind at this stage of his career to step beyond his paradigm. Even worse I don’t believe that he would care if his theories and propositions cause real and significant harm to people fighting autocrats and theocrats. He seems like an entertaining person to have dinner with, but his shit eating grin and flippancy over a one hour interview were terribly misplaced and render him distasteful. He should retire or be retired by the university.
I am not a historian or geopolitical expert but Mearshimers’ theory seems ridiculous in light of Russias behavior toward Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Eastern Europe, etc since WW2
The most important part of Mearsheimer’s theory of “realism” is its inconsistency. The language he uses toward the west is moralistic. He talks about how Ukraine is the West’s “fault”, but when Russia acts it is a completely amoral entity, a “bear” being “poked.” If states always just follow what is in their perceived self interest then the language of “fault” is nonsense. The West and Ukraine are no more or less at fault than Russia. But in his worldview they are at fault for not being “realists” like him and Russia and therefore understanding that Russia would inevitably react the way it did. This of course completely defeats the purpose of realism by turning it into an ideology and turning amoral self interest into a moral code.
This essay is well written and supported by proofs. It is of the utmost importance to rightly and justifiably refute Putin’s army of useful idiots within Europe and the American continent, who never tire of spreading this false message.
Excellent analysis but perhaps a mischaracterization of political "realism", at least the Kissinger variant of the method. I suggest Barry Gewen's 2020 book on the topic. Mearsheimer is simply an authoritarian revanchist masquerading as an intellectual rebel. Lately, he's become more of an internet troll than a serious political analyst.
The critique of realism’s “billiard ball” model is fair, particularly regarding regime vs. state interests. But dismissing security concerns so completely seems just as reductive as ignoring ideology.
The war likely reflects multiple layers—geopolitics, identity, and internal regime logic—not just one.