Lecture Mearsheimer Moscow-Offensive Realism in explaining the current and future US-China relations

Lecture №1 John Mearsheimer October 17, 2016 MGIMO Moscow

[goodstorysaloon]

An incredibly powerful, cohesive, and logical presentation. John has never been in better form. This extended seamlessly into his Q & A with the same unstoppable train of thought.

[matthewjackson]

I love the part where he say" when you dial 911 there is no one at the end of the other line, so you better take care of yourself". I need to frame that statement and post in on my bathroom wall.

[abdullah.bofficialchanel]

this is a rational speech. it is rational to a level that the speaker John Mearshimer knows what he says, and why he say it. He reflects what the international system is. but his visit to Russia tells Russian to worry about china not the USA. China is Russia's neighbor. as China rises then Russia should worry about China's intention.

[edwardbrennan]

Interesting presentation by Mr. Realist.

[februarynow]

Mearsheimer was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War in 2003 and was almost alone in opposing Ukraine's decision to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 and predicted that, without a deterrent, they would face Russian aggression.

[goedelite]

Prof. Mearsheimer's last assumption is that states are "rational actors." I think this is an over-simplification stemming from the supposition that the decision-making is unitary, of a single purpose. Survival, the desire to survive, is not always foremost because sometimes states do not feel an imminent survival threat. In such cases, secondary purposes become the determinants of policy. For example, the enrichment of a particular sector of the ruling class or the political success of a particular sector may determine foreign policies that are really detrimental to the survival of the state in the long term. US foreign policy directed at controlling the world's petroleum resources is a class enrichment policy. US support of Israel is a result of the quest for political power by persons seeking elective office and needing funds for their campaigns. Both policies are detrimental to US power in the world, both hard and soft power. The cost of maintaining the US hegemony over global petroleum resources is in the trillions of dollars. The cost of supporting Israel against the weight of international law and world opinion weakens the claims of the US that its exceptionalism is based on its civilized leadership. In these two important examples, the US behaves against its long term survival prospects as the unchallengeable leader of the world and violates Mearsheimer's last assumption: that it is a rational actor.

[kilpatrickkirksimmons]

It drives me batshit crazy to hear people glibly talk about "engagement" like it's a panacea. When has economic interdependence ever stopped a war? It didn't even stop the War of 1812 between two very closely related nations. The closer you are, the more friction there is. So absent any political alliance the economics mean almost nothing. We need more people like Mearsheimer in charge.

[goedelite]

Omitted from discussion is the elephant in the parlor, namely severe climate change. It is one of the factors that could prevent the continuing phenomenal growth of China. China has always had to contend with water management problems, flooding and aridity. They could be much worse in the future. The US also has its areas of aridity, in the US southwest and in the central valleys of California where much agriculture is now conducted. The coming severities make predictions of international relations and competitions risky.

[colorado]

1. Anarchic realist system
a. Systems, not ideals, shape incentives
b. Hobbesian state of nature leads from anarchy to hierarchy, but a monopoly on violence in a world-wide state
will not happen
2. All states have some military capability
a. Military force is not a magic tool
3. Another state's intentions cannot be known for certain - uncertainty about intentions especially in future
a. Marriage to non-soulmate
4. Principle goal of states is survival
a. No survival, no actions
b. States fear each other, especially powerful ones.
c. If you get into trouble, there is no authority to call
d. Anarchic system = self-help system
i. Machiavelli said that God helps those who help themselves.
e. States maximize their power to prevent being attacked.
5. Goal of country is to become regional hegemon
a. Conquer huge amount of territory
i. French, British, Spanish empires eliminated
b. Eliminate peer competitors
i. See world War II and cold war
ii. America sided with Soviets because Germany was the greater threat
c. Regional hegemon is highest power
i. United States is secure in western hemisphere, so military pokes into various parts of world
ii. United States does not know what it is doing with foreign policy
d. Monroe Doctrine is codification of anarchic principle
i. Founders' intention
6. Theories are simplifications of reality
a. Work 75% of the time
b. Structural theories generally work as long as they apply to all states
c. Russia is not a threat as hegemon to United States, but China is
i. United States is concerned about China setting up military alliance with China or Latin America countries
ii. East Asia is becoming the new focus of American concern, because China is a potential hegemon
1) Korean war was a Chinese-American war
d. Theories are constantly refined over time
e. Engagement v. containment
f. America is regional hegemon, not unipolar hegemon

[sihamalfaris]

when d0oes mhe talk about why he thinks the US should bomb Iran??

[hanweiwong]

Seems like he’s wrong about things after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict

[bloominarty]

lets just make this clear…. it is definitely not an anarchic system. its a hierarchical system because of federations, comonealth and vassal alliances,