中華文明正在融合人性化西方獸性文明

 --- Mearsheimer 中國人是現實主義 在中國比在西方自在

   李洪德 2014年11月5日

https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDUyMjU2

https://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/72696/202411/2427.html 

中華文明起源於融合眾多族裔大一統和平環境，用禮樂和儒學教人做人，律己奉公，己所不欲勿施於人，形成儒家集體主義文明，伴隨集體主義價值觀和追求和平基因。因此，相對長時間享受和平繁榮的生活。

西方文明起源於多如蟻窩的邦國，邦國太多無法避免血拼，用宗教洗腦民眾撕裂人性和社會，互相仇殺求生，形成西方利己主義文明，伴隨利己主義價值觀和好戰基因。因此，私慾驅使不斷戰爭處於悲慘生活。

中國和平繁榮的生活促進人民大腦神經元的發育，具有全球最高平均智商115-118，追求和平。歐洲人平均智商96-112，殺戮和掠奪。

西方文明的根基，價值體系決定，必須支持勞工不勞而獲，以保護人權，失去生存資料生產的根基。民主治理的失敗，判西方文明死刑。

美國靠美元掠奪全球國家生存，波動利率就能颳走他國人積累的財富，如今，全球國家躲避美元如同躲避新冠病毒，以加速度逃離美元，美國40州的貨幣獨立，摧毀生存根基，美國聯邦將在2050年內肢解。因為，民主就是助邪惡人竊取國家機器方向盤，本性難改，小國繼續自殺玩完。

2021年，橋水基金創始人兼聯席董事長雷·達利奧發文Changing World Order, Where We Are and Where we're Going《改變世界秩序，我們在哪裡，我們要去哪裡》，基於對中國的哲學、人文、法律、道德體系的理解，揭示了中國和美國文化價值體系決定的人的品質和社會治理的差異；美國人將個人置於一切之上，而中國人視家庭和集體高於一切。中國領導人管理國家像嚴格的父母一樣，政府是自上而下運行的（像一個家庭），為集體利益優化，而美國政府是自下而上運行的（兒戲民主），為個人利益優化。

中國和西方文明的價值觀和基因不同，中國人性，西方獸性。利己主義文明不符合需要群居互助求生的人類，一切社會元素都在滿足反人類的獸性私慾泛濫，具有自殺基因。本文告訴您，利己主義文明已經走到終點。中華文明正在以自己的價值觀與和平基因，融合和重塑人類文明。

1973年，英國歷史學家湯因比（1889-1975）與日本著名社會活動家池田大作就人類社會和當代世界對話並發表Looking forward to the 21st century - Toynbee and Daisaku Ikeda dialogue,湯因比博士指出:“Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state as the United States is in now.”"歷史上出現過的二十二種文明，其中十九種在達到美國現在的道德狀態時就崩潰了"。

可見，早在半個世紀前，湯因比博士就認定，道德上，美國已經崩潰了。他希望重生在中國，因為，做中國人，能夠做一些有價值的事情。中國人保護了一個超級文明，人類未來的希望在東方，中國將引領世界文明，和平地融合人類世界。  

我反感約翰·米爾斯海默 John Mearsheimer 教授，他搖頭晃腦，鼓吹誰是老大，誰是老二，中國正在取代美國統治世界，道德崩潰的美國如何才能贏，等等。

  與中國打交道要小心點。

2024年4月16日，YouTube: Is India On Track To Be A Great Power? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMAjrO2PqQ&t=4s

然而，最近英國人對他採訪，改變了我對他的看法。他說，只有到了中國，才感覺自己回到人的世界，中國人和我屬於同一類人，有共同語言，大多數中國人是現實主義者。

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John Mearsheimer: How the ‘realists' won。

談到中國，米爾斯海默表示在思想層面上，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。

在這次對話，約翰·米爾斯海默說出了真理，許多中國人自己也沒有意識到，中華民族是現實主義者，關注努力付出是否能改善生活。而西方人務虛不務實，關注努力付出是否能展示自己道德高尚。

正是因此，西方玩民主政治的政客，張口閉口喊叫價值和人權，浪費自己國民的活命錢，在世界各地傳播已經玩完了自己國家的自由價值觀。不斷地挑起顏色革命，不斷地發動戰爭，推翻他國政府。

為實現自己的祖先杜撰的虛假美好幻覺，為實現祖先好心好意給他們認的不存在的眾多上帝乾爹的願望，歐美人，自古在家園互相玩命殺戮，然後玩命殺戮全球至今。因為務實，中國人長時間享受和平生活，2000多年前就開發絲綢之路，供養西方禽獸們互相玩命。

在加拿大，我的鄰居白人老太太，問我信仰什麼宗教？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乾爹，浪費不老少。

剛到加拿大時，與一位台灣來的老移民領教加拿大的風土人情。介紹了加拿大掩藏在美麗民主、價值和人權外衣下的，種種社會醜陋。有一件事兒印象深刻，他說，自己剛到加拿大時，積極參與教堂的活動，還捐款捐物。直到有一次，他親眼目睹教堂的牧師等人，為分配捐贈物大打出手，高聲叫罵嫖髒話。從此，他再也不去教堂了。

德國法學家費爾巴哈（1804—1872），以《黑格爾哲學的批判》和《基督教的本質》名聲大噪。在《基督教的本質》中，用蟻獅和蜘蛛的行為比喻宗教的本質。您看那沙漠蟻獅挖的坑多麼漂亮，您看那蜘蛛織的網多麼美妙，它們辛苦地這樣做是為什麼呢？謀食。

當年歐洲傳教士進入中國傳教，政府並沒有限制。然而，傳教士玩命給同胞們洗腦，禁止同胞尊孔祭祖，同胞們急眼了，打跑了傳教士，火化了教堂。傳教士們也急眼了，我們認的上帝乾爹，中國人不認啊。火急火燎地把消息傳給歐洲的教皇，教皇也火急火燎，特批，允許中國人尊孔祭祖，只要不拒絕我們的乾爹上帝就行了。

儘管如此，在世界成功的傳教，在中國失敗。其實，歐洲人也不信別人給自己認的乾爹上帝。布魯諾說：是地球圍着太陽轉，不是太陽圍着地球轉，寓意為，上帝這小子根本不存在。教皇急眼了，這小子是誠心敗了我們的騙人買賣啊，命令人把布魯諾點了天燈。

現在，許多中國人也被洗腦，迷信民主政治，迷信價值和人權，迷信玩慘西方的宗教，也瘋狂地玩西方禽獸的鬼裝鬼節，撅屁股望天有眼無珠，無視西方國家已經被民主政治和劇毒意識形態玩完了。

約翰·米爾斯海默說，I've been to China many times, I love going to China, I love the Chinese people and in fact I'm more at home intellectually in China than I am in the west,  because the Chinese are basically realists, whereas in the west people are instinctively liberal and they instinctively don't like realism, because it's such a pessimistic way of thinking about the world in past years.我去過中國很多次，我喜歡去中國，我愛中國人民。事實上，從思想上講，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，而西方人本能地是自由主義者，他們本能地不喜歡現實主義，因為在過去的幾年裡，現實主義是一種非常悲觀的世界觀。

When I've gone to China I've often started my Talks by saying 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,when I'm in China. but intellectually the Chinese are my kind of people, they're realists very interested in theory, I've never gone to any country where people are more interested in international relations theory and talking about the big issues.當我去中國時，我經常以回到我的人民中間真好開始我的演講。我一句中文也不會說，當我在中國時，我感覺自己在文化上就像一條離開水的魚。但從思想上講，中國人和我屬於同一類人，他們是現實主義者，對理論非常感興趣。我去過許多國家，從來沒有人像中國人這樣對國際關係理論和討論大問題感興趣。

當然，約翰·米爾斯海默說法的改變，不是因個人思想素質的提高，也不是真心尊敬中華文明，而是，眼見美國民主政治不斷地賞權給智障，把美國無可救藥地玩完，他本能地放棄掙扎。識時務者為俊傑用於米爾斯海默並不合適。

比較而言，哥倫比亞大學經濟學教授傑弗里·薩克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）才是真正理解人類文明的人，他說新冠病毒是美國製造的，2021年5月發文批評美國在毫無證據情況下污衊中國在新疆進行“種族滅絕”。薩克斯人性化的品格來自他的親身經歷。2001年至2018 年，他曾擔任聯合國秘書長特別顧問，主持千年發展目標 ，旨在到 2015年減少極端貧困、飢餓和疾病。

比較而言，John Mearsheimer 似乎一直在做書蟲，在書堆里折騰，沒有實踐的洗禮。2024年9月8日至10日, All-In 峰會在加州洛杉磯舉行,John Mearsheimer 和 Jeffrey Sachs自然是座上賓。在會上，John Mearsheimer 還是販賣他的《大國政治的悲劇》The Tragedy of Great Power Politics，鼓吹攻勢現實主義，認為世界處於列強之間的衝突中，並且永遠不會結束。

John Mearsheimer 的迷信，恰恰佐證了我國政府推進一帶一路的努力，能夠解決人類的災難：大國政治的悲劇。

為什麼為什麼約翰·米爾斯海默說自己生活在西方不自在呢？因為，在自己的國家，有人用政治迫害追殺那些膽敢說真話的人。因此，在這種被邪惡扭曲的社會，每個人都必須掩蓋自己的真實靈魂，時時刻刻處於過鬼節狀態，用死鬼惡魔的鬼裝打扮成鬼魂幽靈。

約翰·米爾斯海默對中國文化的理解和迷戀，讓我想起另外一個中國迷基辛格。2023年10月24日，美中關係全國委員會在紐約舉行年度頒獎晚宴，向美國前國務卿基辛格頒獎，表彰他為中美關係發展所作的卓越貢獻。

100歲的基辛格演講，我半生時間用在中美關繫上。我喜歡中國人，對中國文化印象深刻。但是職務所限，必須為美國利益著想。

華人的驕傲李光耀，以民主做幌子，用英國人折磨新加坡人的鞭刑，鐵腕獨裁打造花園城市新加坡。他說新加坡沒有資源，每個人都必須努力工作活命。鐵腕打壓頑劣，決不允許破壞他艱苦建立的國家。在李光耀治下，普世價值和人權是幌子，工會玩不轉。1980年，新加坡航空工會組織大罷工。已經花白頭髮的李光耀街頭搭台，要求立刻復工，否則解散航空公司重建，幾個小時後，工會組織乖乖復工。

看過報道，西方人憎恨的獨裁者李光耀，到美國就住在基辛格的家裡。2015年，親自出席李光耀的葬禮，足見基辛格的理性。

想起另外一個中國迷，英國歷史學家湯因比博士。

他說，如果能夠重生，希望生在中國，做為中國人，能夠做一些有價值的事情。他說，中國人保護了一個超級文明，人類未來的希望在東方，引領世界文明的將是中國，和平地融合人類世界。

因為，湯因比博士清醒認知，有史以來，玩民主在西方國家引發內部矛盾和分裂，製造悲劇。因為所有人都想獲取政治權利，以自己的意願來改變國家的政治格局。西方和中國學者喜聞樂道的雅典文明，實行民主制度，內部分裂毀滅了受人吹捧敬仰的古老文明。

歐洲掠奪殺戮血腥的非人基因獸性化的人，總是以非人的靈魂驅使非人的欲望爭強好勝，為財富，為信仰，為爭第一而進行掠奪殺戮，幼稚的爭鬥，像街頭混混一樣，有着永遠長不大的幼稚天性。西方人就是以這樣幼稚來看今天的中國。

西方那些所謂的歷史學家，身上流淌着歐洲掠奪殺戮血腥歷史的血液，從一本書學到另一本書，從一個道聽途說學到另一條道聽途說，沒有真正學到歷史的本質；然後以偉大的歷史學家為榮，以欺騙為生。導致錯誤地看中國，不能人性理解中國是儒家文化和平國家，追求和平；唯一的戰爭是反侵略。

面對英國最偉大的歷史學家、歷史哲學家湯因比（1889-1975）的十二卷本 A Study of History (1934–1961)《歷史研究（1934-1961）》的傑作，沒有人敢說自己是最好的歷史學家。

1973年，湯因比博士與日本著名社會活動家池田大作（1928-2023）就人類社會和當代世界進行了長達兩年、共計10天、長達40小時的對話，發表Looking forward to the 21st century - Toynbee and Daisaku Ikeda dialogue，被譯成多種文字出版。

Meeting between Dr. Toynbee and Mr. Ikeda (London, May 1973)

https://events.daisakuikeda.org/2021/0908-toynbee-ikeda-ar/

以下是英國歷史學家湯因比的《中華文明將統一世界—預言》的節選。

在回答“如果你重生為人，你願意生在哪個國家，從事什麼工作？”時，湯因比博士毫不猶豫地回答：“我願意生在中國。因為我覺得中國在未來對全人類將扮演非常重要的角色。如果我生為中國人，我想我可以做一些有價值的事情。”作為中國人，“如果世界還沒有融合，我會努力融合。如果世界已經融合，那麼我會努力將世界從物質中心轉變為精神中心。”

池田大作說，人類的和平融合與精神文化的復興也是湯因比博士託付給他的課題，而湯因比博士為此所提出的方法就是“對話”。

對於湯因比博士“未來的可能性是中國統治世界，殖民世界”的評論，池田大作在書中，而非當面反駁，我的想法是，與其說中國是一個宣揚征服信念的國家，不如說是一個天性追求和平與安全的保守國家。其實，只要有人不先侵略中國，中國就絕不會先發制人。近代以來，鴉片戰爭、甲午中日戰爭、朝鮮戰爭，以及迄今為止與中國有關的戰爭，都可以稱為自衛戰爭，是不得不做的正常反應。

請記住，這個對話是在1973年，那時侯的中國，還沒有進行經濟改革，經濟形勢正處於最困難時期，根本看不到任何希望。

很顯然，著名歷史學家湯因比博士對中國的評價，是歷史地看待文明的，湯因比博士不願談論西方獸性文明，他說：“歷史上出現過的二十二種文明，其中十九種在達到美國現在的道德狀態時就崩潰了。”

作為偉大的歷史學家，湯因比博士對人類文明的了解，顯然比其他任何歷史學家的了解都要深刻，他最了解哪種文明是真正的人性化的人類文明，不願意在非人性的文明上浪費時間。

這裡要指出的是，湯因比博士雖然理性，但擺脫不了歐洲掠奪、殺戮、血腥思想的束縛，認為中國可以統治和殖民世界，就像西方非人性人一樣，這是當今西方對中國的主流看法。

如你所見，池田大作的觀點是截然不同的；因為他的基因大多來自中國的儒家文化，自古，日本人亦步亦趨學中國。後來，1853年，日本被美國黑船艦隊獸性化，殺戮3千多萬亞洲人。

我特意搜索池田大作背景 特別優秀

池田大作 Ikeda Daisaku(1928—2023), 日本東京人,畢業於日本富士短期大學。哲學家、宗教家、作家、攝影師，並有世界桂冠詩人稱號。曾任日本創價學會會長（1960─1979）。與英國歷史學家湯因比博士著《展望二十一世紀》，與戈爾巴喬夫著《二十世紀的精神教訓》，與金庸著《探求一個燦爛的世紀》，並與世界上眾多有識之士進行對談。池田與創價學會致力於推動文化、教育、和平，於1983年獲聯合國和平獎章，生平共獲超過四百項榮譽稱號，獲中華人民共和國中日友好使者、中國人民的老朋友”等稱號。

按湯因比博士預言 中國正在融合世界

湯因比博士說：“歷史上出現過的二十二種文明，其中十九種在達到美國現在的道德狀態時就崩潰了。”可見，早在半個世紀前的1973年，湯因比博士就說，在道德層面，美國已經崩潰了。

鮮明的對照，看看我們自己的祖國的實踐，正在按半個世紀前湯因比博士的認定，作為地理和文化軸心，用中華文明融合被西方杜撰上帝乾爹們洗腦，和邪惡價值觀仇恨地獸性碎片化的世界。

中國正在用王滬寧提出一帶一路，幫助其它國家建設基礎設施，發展經濟，融合世仇國家的經濟和文化，促進互相理解，消除和避免衝突，發展和平共榮的世界。中國調節沙特與伊朗恢復大使級的外交關係，中東的敵對國家，出現了“大和解”的浪潮。或自己聯繫和解，或求助中國調節，實現了更大範圍和解，追求和平。敘利亞外長訪問沙特、也門衝突各方會談、卡塔爾和巴林恢復關係，等等。重歸於好的仇敵國家對賬本，反思敵對事件的歷史，結果，發現很多引發彼此仇恨衝突的事件，都是他人故意製造的。

美國經濟戰略家和作家David Goldman說，美國把全球南方人看作包袱，所以我們不把它們當回事。中國人則認真對待它們，把他們帶進世界經濟，幫助他們的收入從每天2美元提高到10-15美元，從遭受貧窮落魄到開始有尊嚴生活。對美國在世界影響力的長期最大挑戰是中國將數十億邊緣化人群融入世界經濟的能力。

好戰基因人稱之為銳實力，中國不占領土地只占領人心。

2022年10月28日，文章《外媒：民調顯示發展中國家民眾對華好感度上升去》說，英國劍橋大學民調，自2013年中國提出“一帶一路”倡議，已經同147個國家和32個國際組織簽署了200余份合作文件，用來建設能源基礎設施和交通運輸項目。在獲得“一帶一路”倡議支持的國家的民眾當中，有近三分之二的人對中國持正面看法。

2023年11月3日，華爾街日報中文網發文《全球經濟日益割裂，美中兩大對立陣營逐漸成形》，說，貿易和投資流正圍繞美國和中國這兩個相互競爭的權力中心形成新格局，重大風險隨之而至。去年秋中國跨越了一道重要的里程碑：其與發展中國家的貿易額自40多年前改革開放以來，首次超過與美、歐和日本的貿易額之和。在數十年間，美國等西方國家曾尋求讓中國在這些最富裕國家所引領的單一全球經濟中充當合作夥伴和消費者。華盛頓以投資限制和出口禁令向中國施壓，中國把經濟的大的組成部分從西方轉向發展中世界。

我注意到，該文是譯自英文，作者是華爾街日報駐新加坡記者Jason Douglas和華爾街日報駐法蘭克福記者Tom Fairless。文章所說的“重大風險隨之而至”，應該是中國將貿易重點從西方轉向發展中世界，擺脫了西方國家制定的單一全球經濟體系讓中國充當他們合作夥伴和消費者企圖的控制，讓他們感到重大風險美夢落空。

民主治理的失敗 判西方文明終結

我斷言，西方的邪惡軸心美國聯邦，將在2050年內肢解為眾多小邪惡國，因為，民主政治的本性，就是讓邪惡者當政。

看看我的2024年10月13日文章美國人自己買材料偷偷修路，被政府起訴，為什麼美國基礎設施破落不堪。只有中國人才能發現病根，為了吸引政府投資，故意地破壞基礎設施。美國和某些歐洲人，已經把這種反社會的行為視為正常行為。為欺騙民眾選票，民粹政客支持這種行為。這是民主社會的晚期癌症：視勞工不勞而獲，才符合人權。反之，認真工作創造社會財富，是強迫勞動。

在美國，招工必須詢問人種，必須保留崗位給那些沒有人願意雇用的人，避免被起訴種族歧視。看看航運領頭羊美國領波音客機，看看智能手機鼻祖加拿大黑莓手機，看看製造業明星德國去工業化，荒謬民主政治和劇毒意識形態，徹底摧毀生存根基。

魯莽美國政客利用一切作惡，把美圓作為武器制裁他國，導致美元成為新冠病病毒，各國恐躲避不及，加速去美元化，美國40州貨幣獨立玩完美元。特朗普上台，獅子血盆大開口，巨齒咬向盟友，徹底剷除美國的盟友。失去跟幫的協作作惡，美國再也不能發威。

民主政治是西方文明的根基，民主治理失敗，判西方文明死刑。

滿足邪惡需求 民主被玩命吹捧

玩耍民主的人都沒有理性思維的能力，不知如何正確地治理國家。民主之所以被吹捧，是因為玩命的人渣需要玩弄民主享受人民的供養，用人民的活命錢盡情享樂。

在2022年雅典民主論壇，歐盟委員會主席馮德萊恩說：為民主而戰是每一代人的任務，我們要全力保護民主政體不受專制政體的干擾。顯然，按馮德萊恩的說法，為保護民主政體不受專制政體的干擾，所有平民都必須拼盡性命殺戮。請看這個母煞蟲為何這樣說。

2016年5月，文章Luxury EU Junkets for MEPs Cost Taxpayer Over euro 5m a Year《歐盟議員的豪華旅遊花費每年超過500萬歐元》稱，歐盟議員每年超過500萬歐元用於事實調查，由僕人團隊陪同，到世界最豪華的地方遊玩。

2019年1月，文章 EU on the brink: German eurosceptics threaten 'DEXIT' unless EU parliament is ABOLISHED《歐盟瀕臨崩潰：德國疑歐派威脅“脫歐”，除非歐盟議會被廢除》稱，歐洲議會有751名議會議員、44,000名官員和11,000名員工，每年耗費超過80億歐元；其中 4,000人的年收入超過29萬歐元，超過德國首相安格拉·默克爾的工資。

2023年1月，文章The EU's "crazy salary increase" caused controversy; von der Leyen's daily salary exceeded 1,000 euros《歐盟“瘋狂加薪”引發爭議，馮德萊恩日薪突破1000歐元》稱，歐盟民眾都在與高通脹作鬥爭，歐盟官員卻瘋狂加薪，5萬名歐盟員工可期待6個月內第二次加薪7%，工資加津貼，馮德萊恩的年薪達43.2萬歐元，日薪超過1000歐元。這些加薪都是由歐洲的納稅人承擔，在人們遭受通貨膨脹困難生活的情況下，德國普通工人的工資並沒有得到調整。

不僅僅是歐盟，許多民主國家的政客，都給自己高額工資，豪華社會福利和特權。在人們遭受通貨膨脹困難生活的情況下，都給自己增加了工資。

看看Google搜索團隊的關注：

看看下面的視頻，約翰·米爾斯海默教授想的還是老大老二，究竟誰勝誰負，沒辦法，祖傳基因註定如此。

約翰·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

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。但隨着西方對烏克蘭、以色列甚至中國的干涉主義不斷增加，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

 普通路人Y 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面上，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，自己雖然在文化層面上無法和中國人產生共鳴，但是在思想層面上，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裡，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制中國發展是正確的？米爾斯海默稱自己確實這麼提過，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，並儘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麼，所以他認為中國應該主宰東亞，而美國應該盡全力去制衡中國發展。

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。