中华文明正在融合西方兽性文明

 --- Mearsheimer 中国人是现实主义 在中国比在西方自在

   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 

中华文明起源于融合众多族裔大一统和平环境，用礼乐和儒学教人做人，律己奉公，己所不欲勿施于人，形成儒家集体主义文明，伴随集体主义价值观和追求和平基因。因此，相对长时间享受和平繁荣的生活。

西方文明起源于多如蚁窝的邦国，邦国太多无法避免血拼，用宗教洗脑民众撕裂人性和社会，互相仇杀求生，形成西方利己主义文明，伴随利己主义价值观和好战基因。因此，私欲驱使不断战争处于悲惨生活。

中国和平繁荣的生活促进人民大脑神经元的发育，具有全球最高平均智商115-118，追求和平。欧洲人平均智商96-112，杀戮和掠夺。

西方文明的根基，价值体系决定，必须支持劳工不劳而获，以保护人权，失去生存资料生产的根基。民主治理的失败，判西方文明死刑。

美国靠美元掠夺全球国家生存，波动利率就能刮走他国人积累的财富，如今，全球国家躲避美元如同躲避新冠病毒，以加速度逃离美元，美国40州的货币独立，摧毁生存根基，美国联邦将在2050年内肢解。因为，民主就是助邪恶人窃取国家机器方向盘，本性难改，小国继续自杀玩完。

2021年，桥水基金创始人兼联席董事长雷·达利奥发文Changing World Order, Where We Are and Where we're Going《改变世界秩序，我们在哪里，我们要去哪里》，基于对中国的哲学、人文、法律、道德体系的理解，揭示了中国和美国文化价值体系决定的人的品质和社会治理的差异；美国人将个人置于一切之上，而中国人视家庭和集体高于一切。中国领导人管理国家像严格的父母一样，政府是自上而下运行的（像一个家庭），为集体利益优化，而美国政府是自下而上运行的（儿戏民主），为个人利益优化。

中国和西方文明的价值观和基因不同，中国人性，西方兽性。利己主义文明不符合需要群居互助求生的人类，一切社会元素都在满足反人类的兽性私欲泛滥，具有自杀基因。本文告诉您，利己主义文明已经走到终点。中华文明正在以自己的价值观与和平基因，融合和重塑人类文明。

1973年，英国历史学家汤因比（1889-1975）与日本著名社会活动家池田大作就人类社会和当代世界对话并发表Looking forward to the 21st century - Toynbee and Daisaku Ikeda dialogue,汤因比博士指出:“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.”"历史上出现过的二十二种文明，其中十九种在达到美国现在的道德状态时就崩溃了"。

可见，早在半个世纪前，汤因比博士就认定，道德上，美国已经崩溃了。他希望重生在中国，因为，做中国人，能够做一些有价值的事情。中国人保护了一个超级文明，人类未来的希望在东方，中国将引领世界文明，和平地融合人类世界。  

我反感约翰·米尔斯海默 John Mearsheimer 教授，他摇头晃脑，鼓吹谁是老大，谁是老二，中国正在取代美国统治世界，道德崩溃的美国如何才能赢，等等。

  与中国打交道要小心点。

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，最近英国人对他采访，改变了我对他的看法。他说，只有到了中国，才感觉自己回到人的世界，中国人和我属于同一类人，有共同语言，大多数中国人是现实主义者。

2024年11月1日，英国新闻网站Unherd在youtube发布与美国国际关系学者约翰·米尔斯海默的访谈，当今世界战争、和平和政治上的问题John Mearsheimer: How the ‘realists' won。

谈到中国，米尔斯海默表示在思想层面上，自己在中国比在西方更有归属感，因为，他觉得中国人基本都是现实主义者，而西方人则强调自由和道德，认为现实主义是一种很悲观的看待世界的方式。

在这次对话，约翰·米尔斯海默说出了真理，许多中国人自己也没有意识到，中华民族是现实主义者，关注努力付出是否能改善生活。而西方人务虚不务实，关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，张口闭口喊叫价值和人权，浪费自己国民的活命钱，在世界各地传播已经玩完了自己国家的自由价值观。不断地挑起颜色革命，不断地发动战争，推翻他国政府。

为实现自己的祖先杜撰的虚假美好幻觉，为实现祖先好心好意给他们认的不存在的众多上帝干爹的愿望，欧美人，自古在家园互相玩命杀戮，然后玩命杀戮全球至今。因为务实，中国人长时间享受和平生活，2000多年前就开发丝绸之路，供养西方禽兽们互相玩命。

在加拿大，我的邻居白人老太太，问我信仰什么宗教？我说宗教骗人, 我不信那玩意儿，老太太竟然被惊吓，立刻后跳一步。她每周自费打的上教堂，为孝敬祖先给她认的上帝干爹，浪费不老少。

刚到加拿大时，与一位台湾来的老移民领教加拿大的风土人情。介绍了加拿大掩藏在美丽民主、价值和人权外衣下的，种种社会丑陋。有一件事儿印象深刻，他说，自己刚到加拿大时，积极参与教堂的活动，还捐款捐物。直到有一次，他亲眼目睹教堂的牧师等人，为分配捐赠物大打出手，高声叫骂嫖脏话。从此，他再也不去教堂了。

德国法学家费尔巴哈（1804—1872），以《黑格尔哲学的批判》和《基督教的本质》名声大噪。在《基督教的本质》中，用蚁狮和蜘蛛的行为比喻宗教的本质。您看那沙漠蚁狮挖的坑多么漂亮，您看那蜘蛛织的网多么美妙，它们辛苦地这样做是为什么呢？谋食。

当年欧洲传教士进入中国传教，政府并没有限制。然而，传教士玩命给同胞们洗脑，禁止同胞尊孔祭祖，同胞们急眼了，打跑了传教士，火化了教堂。传教士们也急眼了，我们认的上帝干爹，中国人不认啊。火急火燎地把消息传给欧洲的教皇，教皇也火急火燎，特批，允许中国人尊孔祭祖，只要不拒绝我们的干爹上帝就行了。

尽管如此，在世界成功的传教，在中国失败。其实，欧洲人也不信别人给自己认的干爹上帝。布鲁诺说：是地球围着太阳转，不是太阳围着地球转，寓意为，上帝这小子根本不存在。教皇急眼了，这小子是诚心败了我们的骗人买卖啊，命令人把布鲁诺点了天灯。

现在，许多中国人也被洗脑，迷信民主政治，迷信价值和人权，迷信玩惨西方的宗教，也疯狂地玩西方禽兽的鬼装鬼节，撅屁股望天有眼无珠，无视西方国家已经被民主政治和剧毒意识形态玩完了。

约翰·米尔斯海默说，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.我去过中国很多次，我喜欢去中国，我爱中国人民。事实上，从思想上讲，我在中国比在西方更自在，因为中国人基本上都是现实主义者，而西方人本能地是自由主义者，他们本能地不喜欢现实主义，因为在过去的几年里，现实主义是一种非常悲观的世界观。

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.当我去中国时，我经常以回到我的人民中间真好开始我的演讲。我一句中文也不会说，当我在中国时，我感觉自己在文化上就像一条离开水的鱼。但从思想上讲，中国人和我属于同一类人，他们是现实主义者，对理论非常感兴趣。我去过许多国家，从来没有人像中国人这样对国际关系理论和讨论大问题感兴趣。

当然，约翰·米尔斯海默说法的改变，不是因个人思想素质的提高，也不是真心尊敬中华文明，而是，眼见美国民主政治不断地赏权给智障，把美国无可救药地玩完，他本能地放弃挣扎。识时务者为俊杰用于米尔斯海默并不合适。

比较而言，哥伦比亚大学经济学教授杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）才是真正理解人类文明的人，他说新冠病毒是美国制造的，2021年5月发文批评美国在毫无证据情况下污蔑中国在新疆进行“种族灭绝”。萨克斯人性化的品格来自他的亲身经历。2001年至2018 年，他曾担任联合国秘书长特别顾问，主持千年发展目标 ，旨在到 2015年减少极端贫困、饥饿和疾病。

比较而言，John Mearsheimer 似乎一直在做书虫，在书堆里折腾，没有实践的洗礼。2024年9月8日至10日, All-In 峰会在加州洛杉矶举行,John Mearsheimer 和 Jeffrey Sachs自然是座上宾。在会上，John Mearsheimer 还是贩卖他的《大国政治的悲剧》The Tragedy of Great Power Politics，鼓吹攻势现实主义，认为世界处于列强之间的冲突中，并且永远不会结束。

John Mearsheimer 的迷信，恰恰佐证了我国政府推进一带一路的努力，能够解决人类的灾难：大国政治的悲剧。

为什么为什么约翰·米尔斯海默说自己生活在西方不自在呢？因为，在自己的国家，有人用政治迫害追杀那些胆敢说真话的人。因此，在这种被邪恶扭曲的社会，每个人都必须掩盖自己的真实灵魂，时时刻刻处于过鬼节状态，用死鬼恶魔的鬼装打扮成鬼魂幽灵。

约翰·米尔斯海默对中国文化的理解和迷恋，让我想起另外一个中国迷基辛格。2023年10月24日，美中关系全国委员会在纽约举行年度颁奖晚宴，向美国前国务卿基辛格颁奖，表彰他为中美关系发展所作的卓越贡献。

100岁的基辛格演讲，我半生时间用在中美关系上。我喜欢中国人，对中国文化印象深刻。但是职务所限，必须为美国利益著想。

华人的骄傲李光耀，以民主做幌子，用英国人折磨新加坡人的鞭刑，铁腕独裁打造花园城市新加坡。他说新加坡没有资源，每个人都必须努力工作活命。铁腕打压顽劣，决不允许破坏他艰苦建立的国家。在李光耀治下，普世价值和人权是幌子，工会玩不转。1980年，新加坡航空工会组织大罢工。已经花白头发的李光耀街头搭台，要求立刻复工，否则解散航空公司重建，几个小时后，工会组织乖乖复工。

看过报道，西方人憎恨的独裁者李光耀，到美国就住在基辛格的家里。2015年，亲自出席李光耀的葬礼，足见基辛格的理性。

想起另外一个中国迷，英国历史学家汤因比博士。

他说，如果能够重生，希望生在中国，做为中国人，能够做一些有价值的事情。他说，中国人保护了一个超级文明，人类未来的希望在东方，引领世界文明的将是中国，和平地融合人类世界。

因为，汤因比博士清醒认知，有史以来，玩民主在西方国家引发内部矛盾和分裂，制造悲剧。因为所有人都想获取政治权利，以自己的意愿来改变国家的政治格局。西方和中国学者喜闻乐道的雅典文明，实行民主制度，内部分裂毁灭了受人吹捧敬仰的古老文明。

欧洲掠夺杀戮血腥的非人基因兽性化的人，总是以非人的灵魂驱使非人的欲望争强好胜，为财富，为信仰，为争第一而进行掠夺杀戮，幼稚的争斗，像街头混混一样，有着永远长不大的幼稚天性。西方人就是以这样幼稚来看今天的中国。

西方那些所谓的历史学家，身上流淌着欧洲掠夺杀戮血腥历史的血液，从一本书学到另一本书，从一个道听途说学到另一条道听途说，没有真正学到历史的本质；然后以伟大的历史学家为荣，以欺骗为生。导致错误地看中国，不能人性理解中国是儒家文化和平国家，追求和平；唯一的战争是反侵略。

面对英国最伟大的历史学家、历史哲学家汤因比（1889-1975）的十二卷本 A Study of History (1934–1961)《历史研究（1934-1961）》的杰作，没有人敢说自己是最好的历史学家。

1973年，汤因比博士与日本著名社会活动家池田大作（1928-2023）就人类社会和当代世界进行了长达两年、共计10天、长达40小时的对话，发表Looking forward to the 21st century - Toynbee and Daisaku Ikeda dialogue，被译成多种文字出版。

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

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

以下是英国历史学家汤因比的《中华文明将统一世界—预言》的节选。

在回答“如果你重生为人，你愿意生在哪个国家，从事什么工作？”时，汤因比博士毫不犹豫地回答：“我愿意生在中国。因为我觉得中国在未来对全人类将扮演非常重要的角色。如果我生为中国人，我想我可以做一些有价值的事情。”作为中国人，“如果世界还没有融合，我会努力融合。如果世界已经融合，那么我会努力将世界从物质中心转变为精神中心。”

池田大作说，人类的和平融合与精神文化的复兴也是汤因比博士托付给他的课题，而汤因比博士为此所提出的方法就是“对话”。

对于汤因比博士“未来的可能性是中国统治世界，殖民世界”的评论，池田大作在书中，而非当面反驳，我的想法是，与其说中国是一个宣扬征服信念的国家，不如说是一个天性追求和平与安全的保守国家。其实，只要有人不先侵略中国，中国就绝不会先发制人。近代以来，鸦片战争、甲午中日战争、朝鲜战争，以及迄今为止与中国有关的战争，都可以称为自卫战争，是不得不做的正常反应。

请记住，这个对话是在1973年，那时侯的中国，还没有进行经济改革，经济形势正处于最困难时期，根本看不到任何希望。

很显然，著名历史学家汤因比博士对中国的评价，是历史地看待文明的，汤因比博士不愿谈论西方兽性文明，他说：“历史上出现过的二十二种文明，其中十九种在达到美国现在的道德状态时就崩溃了。”

作为伟大的历史学家，汤因比博士对人类文明的了解，显然比其他任何历史学家的了解都要深刻，他最了解哪种文明是真正的人性化的人类文明，不愿意在非人性的文明上浪费时间。

这里要指出的是，汤因比博士虽然理性，但摆脱不了欧洲掠夺、杀戮、血腥思想的束缚，认为中国可以统治和殖民世界，就像西方非人性人一样，这是当今西方对中国的主流看法。

如你所见，池田大作的观点是截然不同的；因为他的基因大多来自中国的儒家文化，自古，日本人亦步亦趋学中国。后来，1853年，日本被美国黑船舰队兽性化，杀戮3千多万亚洲人。

我特意搜索池田大作背景 特别优秀

池田大作 Ikeda Daisaku(1928—2023), 日本东京人,毕业于日本富士短期大学。哲学家、宗教家、作家、摄影师，并有世界桂冠诗人称号。曾任日本创价学会会长（1960─1979）。与英国历史学家汤因比博士著《展望二十一世纪》，与戈尔巴乔夫著《二十世纪的精神教训》，与金庸著《探求一个灿烂的世纪》，并与世界上众多有识之士进行对谈。池田与创价学会致力于推动文化、教育、和平，于1983年获联合国和平奖章，生平共获超过四百项荣誉称号，获中华人民共和国中日友好使者、中国人民的老朋友”等称号。

按汤因比博士预言 中国正在融合世界

汤因比博士说：“历史上出现过的二十二种文明，其中十九种在达到美国现在的道德状态时就崩溃了。”可见，早在半个世纪前的1973年，汤因比博士就说，在道德层面，美国已经崩溃了。

鲜明的对照，看看我们自己的祖国的实践，正在按半个世纪前汤因比博士的认定，作为地理和文化轴心，用中华文明融合被西方杜撰上帝干爹们洗脑，和邪恶价值观仇恨地兽性碎片化的世界。

中国正在用王沪宁提出一带一路，帮助其它国家建设基础设施，发展经济，融合世仇国家的经济和文化，促进互相理解，消除和避免冲突，发展和平共荣的世界。中国调节沙特与伊朗恢复大使级的外交关系，中东的敌对国家，出现了“大和解”的浪潮。或自己联系和解，或求助中国调节，实现了更大范围和解，追求和平。叙利亚外长访问沙特、也门冲突各方会谈、卡塔尔和巴林恢复关系，等等。重归于好的仇敌国家对账本，反思敌对事件的历史，结果，发现很多引发彼此仇恨冲突的事件，都是他人故意制造的。

美国经济战略家和作家David Goldman说，美国把全球南方人看作包袱，所以我们不把它们当回事。中国人则认真对待它们，把他们带进世界经济，帮助他们的收入从每天2美元提高到10-15美元，从遭受贫穷落魄到开始有尊严生活。对美国在世界影响力的长期最大挑战是中国将数十亿边缘化人群融入世界经济的能力。

好战基因人称之为锐实力，中国不占领土地只占领人心。

2022年10月28日，文章《外媒：民调显示发展中国家民众对华好感度上升去》说，英国剑桥大学民调，自2013年中国提出“一带一路”倡议，已经同147个国家和32个国际组织签署了200余份合作文件，用来建设能源基础设施和交通运输项目。在获得“一带一路”倡议支持的国家的民众当中，有近三分之二的人对中国持正面看法。

2023年11月3日，华尔街日报中文网发文《全球经济日益割裂，美中两大对立阵营逐渐成形》，说，贸易和投资流正围绕美国和中国这两个相互竞争的权力中心形成新格局，重大风险随之而至。去年秋中国跨越了一道重要的里程碑：其与发展中国家的贸易额自40多年前改革开放以来，首次超过与美、欧和日本的贸易额之和。在数十年间，美国等西方国家曾寻求让中国在这些最富裕国家所引领的单一全球经济中充当合作伙伴和消费者。华盛顿以投资限制和出口禁令向中国施压，中国把经济的大的组成部分从西方转向发展中世界。

我注意到，该文是译自英文，作者是华尔街日报驻新加坡记者Jason Douglas和华尔街日报驻法兰克福记者Tom Fairless。文章所说的“重大风险随之而至”，应该是中国将贸易重点从西方转向发展中世界，摆脱了西方国家制定的单一全球经济体系让中国充当他们合作伙伴和消费者企图的控制，让他们感到重大风险美梦落空。

民主治理的失败 判西方文明终结

我断言，西方的邪恶轴心美国联邦，将在2050年内肢解为众多小邪恶国，因为，民主政治的本性，就是让邪恶者当政。

看看我的2024年10月13日文章美国人自己买材料偷偷修路，被政府起诉，为什么美国基础设施破落不堪。只有中国人才能发现病根，为了吸引政府投资，故意地破坏基础设施。美国和某些欧洲人，已经把这种反社会的行为视为正常行为。为欺骗民众选票，民粹政客支持这种行为。这是民主社会的晚期癌症：视劳工不劳而获，才符合人权。反之，认真工作创造社会财富，是强迫劳动。

在美国，招工必须询问人种，必须保留岗位给那些没有人愿意雇用的人，避免被起诉种族歧视。看看航运领头羊美国领波音客机，看看智能手机鼻祖加拿大黑莓手机，看看制造业明星德国去工业化，荒谬民主政治和剧毒意识形态，彻底摧毁生存根基。

鲁莽美国政客利用一切作恶，把美圆作为武器制裁他国，导致美元成为新冠病病毒，各国恐躲避不及，加速去美元化，美国40州货币独立玩完美元。特朗普上台，狮子血盆大开口，巨齿咬向盟友，彻底铲除美国的盟友。失去跟帮的协作作恶，美国再也不能发威。

民主政治是西方文明的根基，民主治理失败，判西方文明死刑。

满足邪恶需求 民主被玩命吹捧

玩耍民主的人都没有理性思维的能力，不知如何正确地治理国家。民主之所以被吹捧，是因为玩命的人渣需要玩弄民主享受人民的供养，用人民的活命钱尽情享乐。

在2022年雅典民主论坛，欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩说：为民主而战是每一代人的任务，我们要全力保护民主政体不受专制政体的干扰。显然，按冯德莱恩的说法，为保护民主政体不受专制政体的干扰，所有平民都必须拼尽性命杀戮。请看这个母煞虫为何这样说。

2016年5月，文章Luxury EU Junkets for MEPs Cost Taxpayer Over euro 5m a Year《欧盟议员的豪华旅游花费每年超过500万欧元》称，欧盟议员每年超过500万欧元用于事实调查，由仆人团队陪同，到世界最豪华的地方游玩。

2019年1月，文章 EU on the brink: German eurosceptics threaten 'DEXIT' unless EU parliament is ABOLISHED《欧盟濒临崩溃：德国疑欧派威胁“脱欧”，除非欧盟议会被废除》称，欧洲议会有751名议会议员、44,000名官员和11,000名员工，每年耗费超过80亿欧元；其中 4,000人的年收入超过29万欧元，超过德国首相安格拉·默克尔的工资。

2023年1月，文章The EU's "crazy salary increase" caused controversy; von der Leyen's daily salary exceeded 1,000 euros《欧盟“疯狂加薪”引发争议，冯德莱恩日薪突破1000欧元》称，欧盟民众都在与高通胀作斗争，欧盟官员却疯狂加薪，5万名欧盟员工可期待6个月内第二次加薪7%，工资加津贴，冯德莱恩的年薪达43.2万欧元，日薪超过1000欧元。这些加薪都是由欧洲的纳税人承担，在人们遭受通货膨胀困难生活的情况下，德国普通工人的工资并没有得到调整。

不仅仅是欧盟，许多民主国家的政客，都给自己高额工资，豪华社会福利和特权。在人们遭受通货膨胀困难生活的情况下，都给自己增加了工资。

看看Google搜索团队的关注：

看看下面的视频，约翰·米尔斯海默教授想的还是老大老二，究竟谁胜谁负，没办法，祖传基因注定如此。

约翰·米尔斯海默:'现实主义者'如何获胜

John Mearsheimer: How the 'realists' won

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCfyATu1Pl0

UnHerd 2024年11月1日

不久前，“现实主义”的国际关系方法被认为是一个危险的想法。但随着西方对乌克兰、以色列甚至中国的干涉主义不断增加，曾经被自由学术圈驱逐的思想家突然获得了支持。约翰·米尔斯海默教授是“现实主义”方法的最早支持者之一，他与 UnHerd 的弗雷迪·塞耶斯一起谈论了战争、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

美国学者米尔斯海默：我在中国比在西方更自在，因为中国人基本上都是现实主义者

 普通路人Y 12小时前

英国新闻网站Unherd在当地时间11月1日的时候，在其youtube的官方频道上，发布了一个与美国国际关系著名学者约翰·米尔斯海默的访谈视频。从视频的标题以及简介来看，该访谈主要讨论了一下在“现实主义”者的眼中，当今世界上的战争、和平和政治上的一些问题。

在谈到中国时，米尔斯海默表示在思想层面上，自己在中国比在西方更有归属感，因为他觉得中国人基本都是现实主义者，而西方人则本能地秉持自由主义，认为现实主义是一种很悲观的看待世界的方式。

他还表示，自己虽然在文化层面上无法和中国人产生共鸣，但是在思想层面上，他和中国人是一类人，大家都是现实主义者。

他说在自己去过的国家里，没有哪个国家的人会比中国人对国际关系理论以及探讨重大问题更感兴趣的了。

主持人还问到，你是否有跟中国人提到过你认为美国遏制中国发展是正确的？米尔斯海默称自己确实这么提过，但他还表示自己也认为中国应该努力主宰东亚，他表示如果自己是中国的国家安全顾问，那他的主要工作就是将美国人赶出东亚，并尽可能的拉大中国和日本、印度等国之间的实力差距。

米尔斯海默进一步解释称，自己的观点是国际格局基本上会告诉各个国家该做什么，所以他认为中国应该主宰东亚，而美国应该尽全力去制衡中国发展。

米尔斯海默还提到，他承认美国是个冷酷无情的大国，因为从定义上来说，大国就应该是冷酷无情的，因为它必须要竭尽全力来保证自己足够强大。如果做不到，那就会被其他更强大的大国欺压。