From one piece John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 15 beliefs · youtube.com
-
korrents.com
The October 7th attack was resistance to the Israeli occupation, not a response to the Saudi normalisation talks.Their words
I think the main driving force is that the Palestinians feel oppressed as they should, and that this was a resistance move. They were resisting the Israeli occupation.
-
korrents.com
In a world of mutual assured destruction, nuclear weapons are used to manipulate risk rather than to win a battle.Their words
The way you use nuclear weapons in that world is you use them for manipulation of risk purposes, demonstration effect. You put both sides out on the slippery slope.
-
korrents.com
Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons in 1993, and keeping them would have made this war far less likely.Their words
So that's why I argued in '93 that if Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons that made war down the road much less likely. And I believe I was correct.
+ 12 more
-
korrents.com
The war in Ukraine will not end in a peace agreement but in an unstable frozen conflict.Their words
I don't think there's any real prospect of a meaningful peace agreement. I think it's almost impossible. I think the best you can hope for at this point is, at some point the shooting stops, you have a ceasefire, and then you have a frozen conflict. And that frozen conflict will not be highly stable.
-
korrents.com
Removing Putin would not end the war, because whoever replaced him would be more hawkish than he is.Their words
My second point is if he doesn't remain in power and he's replaced, I would bet a lot of money that his replacement will be more hawkish and more hard line than Putin is.
-
korrents.com
Russia's refusal to accept NATO on its border is exactly what the United States demands for its own neighbourhood.Their words
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And if we don't like great powers coming into our neighborhood, it's hardly surprising that the Russians did not want NATO on their doorstep.
-
korrents.com
NATO expansion into Ukraine was the principal cause of the war, which makes the West principally responsible for it.Their words
And of course, what they were negotiating about was NATO expansion into Ukraine, which was the principal cause of the war. People in the West don't want to hear that argument because if it is true, which it is, then the West is principally responsible for this bloodbath that's now taking place.
-
korrents.com
There is no evidence Putin intended to conquer Ukraine, and the army he sent could not have done it.Their words
There's no evidence he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine. There was no evidence beforehand that he was interested in conquering any of Ukraine. And there's no way that an army that had 190,000 troops, at the most, could have conquered all of Ukraine, it's just impossible.
-
Their words
And I believe that there is a good chance you would've had World War II in the absence of Hitler. I believe that Germany was very powerful, it was deeply worried about the balance of power in Europe, and it had strong incentives to behave aggressively in the late 1930s, early 1940s.
-
Their words
I'm not a defensive realist, I'm an offensive realist. And my argument is that states look for opportunities to gain more power, and every time they see, or almost every time they see an opportunity to gain more power, and they think the likelihood of success is high and the cost will not be great, they'll jump at that opportunity.
-
korrents.com
Economic interdependence does not prevent war, because survival always trumps prosperity.Their words
The point is that economic interdependence at its root has prosperity as the core variable. In the realest story, the core variable is survival, and survival always trumps prosperity.
-
korrents.com
Whether a state is a democracy or an autocracy makes no difference to how it behaves abroad.Their words
A realist like me would say that it doesn't matter whether a state is a democracy or not, all states behave the same way because the structure of the system, getting back to our earlier discussion about international anarchy, the structure of the system leaves those states no choice, whether they're democracies or autocracies.
-
korrents.com
States are not inherently aggressive; anarchy leaves them no choice but to behave aggressively.Their words
So it's very important to understand that I'm not arguing that states are inherently aggressive. My point is that as long as states are in anarchy, they have no choice but to behave in an aggressive fashion.
-
korrents.com
A state's power rests on two material foundations only: the size of its population and its wealth.Their words
The two key building blocks of power are population size and wealth. You want to have a lot of people and you want to be really wealthy.
-
Their words
I believe that power is the currency of international relations, and by that I mean that states are deeply interested in the balance of power and they're interested in maximizing how much power they control.