John J. Mearsheimer — Two Worlds, Two Playbooks: Why Moscow and Washington Don’t Understand Each Other

John J. Mearsheimer is a US foreign policy realist, who is opposed to idealism such as neoconservatism and liberal internationalism.

This week, Mearsheimer, a living classic of political realism, attended a discussion at the Valdai Club Conference Hall in Moscow, which brought together scholars, diplomats and journalists.

During the debate, Mearsheimer outlined the ongoing tensions as a conflict between the two perspectives of international relations, the realist and the liberal internationalist, with the latter still dominating in the western world. Liberal interventionism has the upper hand in academic debates in the United States because of the unprecedented might and influence that Washington gained after the end of the Cold war, and with it, the commitment of the US political establishment to global dominance, according to Mearsheimer.

“We wanted to dominate the entire globe,” Mearsheimer said. “The United States was the indispensable nation, which stands taller and sees further.”

According to the Mearsheimer, this position is based on three premises: the country is incredibly rich, incredibly secure and its military force allows it to intervene around the world without alienating society.

This almost unlimited use of military force, leading to local wars every two-three years is foolish, Mearsheimer said. Political realists like him and Stephen Walt from Harvard call for restraint, but so far to no avail.…

While liberal internationalism remains the dominant school of thought in the United States, Western Europe and countries like Japan and South Korea, political realism has long ago taken hold in Russia and China, according to Mearsheimer.

“As a realist in a liberal internationalist world, you’re a fish out of water. Intellectually, I’m much more at home in China than I am in the United States […] and, by the way, I’m much more at home here in Russia. Culturally, I don’t speak a word in Russian, it’s a foreign culture to me, just like the Chinese culture, but intellectually, most Russians, like most Chinese, speak realpolitik,” Mearsheimer said.…

“Russia operates according to a realist playbook. The United States operates according to a liberal interventionist playbook.”

The key question for the realist paradigm is what the United States’ strategic interests are, Mearsheimer posited.…

Valdai Club
Two Worlds, Two Playbooks: Why Moscow and Washington Don’t Understand Each Other
John J. Mearsheimer | R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

Leading American Political Scientist John J. Mearsheimer: Arming Ukraine Solves Nothing (NYT OpEd)

Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for arming Ukraine. A recent report from three leading American think tanks endorses sending Kiev advanced weaponry, and the White House’s nominee for secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, said last week to the Senate armed services committee, “I very much incline in that direction.” 

They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.…

To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine’s economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone’s interest.…

Crimea, a casualty of the West’s attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia’s doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done — to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.

What is the logic of tiptoeing with North Korea, which has limited to nuclear weapons and delivery systems and risking war "to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," as flirting with Russia, which along with China, is the only country that not only has nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems, but also has deployed sophisticated anti-missile defense? There is no logic there. It is irrational, driven by ideology that is almost sure to backfire not only the the US but also the world. The US is trying to create the impression that Russia is a rogue state, but many see the US in the light already owing to its reckless military adventurism, and arming Ukraine (and providing advisors, since advanced weapons require special training) would just add some big logs to the fire. It's nutty, so to mention upping the ante where it is Ukrainians on both sides that are the chips.

Russia Insider
Leading American Political Scientist: Arming Ukraine Solves Nothing
John J. Mearsheimer | Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago

John J. Mearsheimer — The US Caused the Ukrainian Crisis by Pushing NATO and the EU to Russia's Borders

Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

In this, the third of the three pieces published by Foreign Affairs, Professor John Mearsheimer responds to the criticisms by former US Ambassadors Michael J. McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich of his original article in Foreign Affairs, which criticised US foreign policy towards Russia from a “realist” position. You can find Professor Mearsheimer’s original article here and those of McFaul and Sestanovichhere and here.

Russia Insider
The US Caused the Ukrainian Crisis by Pushing NATO and the EU to Russia's Borders

John J. Mearsheimer | Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago