On Mearsheimer
Anarchy vs. a Global Government without contradiction
Published: 2024-04-07
My first introduction to John Mearsheimer was hearing that he had declared that the result of war between the US or US/NATO and Russia in Ukraine would be the destruction of Ukraine. He, I'd heard, had made this prediction before Russia's entry into the Ukrainian civil war, when it declared its Special Military Operation and invaded parts of eastern Ukraine.
At the time, I considered this result likely, and that perhaps Mearsheimer was a reasonable analyst. Over time, I have come to consider this as not a terribly insightful analysis. This is what happens, consistently, to nations in which the US and whichever allies it can cobble together wage war.
During this same period I listened to the odd interview with the revered Chicago based Professor of International Relations. What I heard was a realist accounting in part, but also a very US centric analysis. He came across as an element in a system of thought which embraces US exceptionalism. His phraseology was limited to a post-WWII history of US dominance. I stopped listening to interviews for I failed to see any original thought.
Yesterday, I saw re-published at "Natylie's Place: Understanding Russia" an interview with Mearsheimer which N.S. Baldwin introduced with a single sentence:
Excellent interview from start to finish.
As I have developed a respect for Baldwin due to the quality of the material on Russia which she collates and publishes at her site. I packed up my previous judgments on Mearsheimer and set myself to listen again.
I stopped listening at 00:07:27 into 03:26:41 to make this note. The reason for this was the immediate confirmation of the paucity of the foundation upon which he bases his analysis, the first topic he presented in the interview. Recall, he is participating in an interview which he must already have understood would last for potentially hours. He had no need to draw simplified pictures.
He stated that the nation state system is essentially anarchic. In this he meant that there is no hierarchy. There is no higher power. It is flat. He, in this, is pointing to the Westphalian system. In its current state there is a higher power, the UN. This super-state power is intentionally weak. It is also dysfunctional in that its power is susceptible to being wielded by the powerful. But, ignore this for now. Let's accept the simplistic picture he paints. He employs the metaphor for the world's states as balls on a pool table. In this he implies that they are permanent and individual. This is also false (the result of the war in Europe in 1999 was the destruction of Yugoslavia and the creation of ‘successor’ states). But, let’s also let that go.
He answers his question of why states are interested in power with a schoolyard analogy. To resist being bullied around by other states, each state will seek to acquire as much power as possible to increase longevity or wellbeing, for itself and its citizens.
He then expresses the sources of state power as being population size and total national wealth. This is, again, overly simplistic (nuclear weapons, for example), but lets also let that stand.
His implication is that to escape the dog eat dog world of states seeking power over one another, a state should attempt to increase its population size and wealth. Through this, or perhaps other methods, a state can acquire power to resist being bullied.
At this point, my brain rejected his framework. There is another solution to this problem which we see occur in reality, both at the state and human level. Indeed, the solution is built into our DNA. It has been our survival strategy. One enters a community.
Instead of exploring this possibility, Mearsheimer is demanding that one of two paths exist. Either the seeking of power, or the attempt to convert the flat, anarchic system into a hierarchical one in which there is a higher power.
He ignores reality, which is that states or individuals form associations or communities for protection through solidarity and community. He also ignores the implication of path two, creating a hierarchy. If this is done and your nation does not agree with the directives of the higher power, then you have no escape. You are entirely dominated.
Seeing as Prof. Mearsheimer has developed notoriety in academic circles there must be more to his analysis that this empty simplicity. However, I see no point in continuing to listen to the man if, in a public interview, this is how he introduces his framework for the consideration of geopolitical power. It is bunk.
Sources
Lex Fridman Interviews John Mearsheimer on Russia-Ukraine, NATO, China, Israel-Palestine and WWIII, Lex Fridman, Natylie's Place: Understanding Russia, 2024-06-06
"Excellent interview from start to finish." Nope. Fails at the start.
Culture
The Unguarded Moment (2002 Digital Remaster), The Church, from their 1981 debut album “of skins and heart”, uploaded 2015-09-30
Copyleft: CC0
Thank you. I, too, have been pleased with some of the good Professor's analysis about NATO and the Ukraine war while squirming every time he spoke about China as the real enemy for the US to confront. His characterization of power seeking was also suspect. I tend to agree that cooperation is fundamental to humanity (from the very beginning of the species) and that "protection through solidarity and community" is a better Way.
Except that a community of cultures could only be achieved if the West gave up most of it's power. So zero chance then.