Prof Diesen has had on some people recently that have explained the suicidal imbecility of European political elites as being completely America's creation. All those extra mega billions the CIA started receiving in the 00s had to go somewhere.
And Europe/UK got quite a lot of attention.
That's why none of it makes sense from a European (Or rational) perspective. These people will get paid, as the populations are rounded up violently and shoved to a certain death on the steppes, and when they retire, it will be to far away, such as a Florida mansion. Probably right next to Zelensky, with whom they share several moral characteristics.
On Mearsheimer, my own criticism is that he ONLY sees your Dominance model as a behavioural pattern, he cannot see how nations can work together peacefully, resolving issues of dominance through outlets of peaceful competition - like the previously never-ending warring Scandinavian nations now do.
He simply cannot conceive that if China achieved the dominant status that the USA had in 1945, that they may not behave in the same globally exploitative, Hegemonic manner.
For Mearsheimer, there is no such thing as a win-win in IR.
Apart from that, I appreciate him for his ballsiness, his release of 'The Israel Lobby' seems to have seared him so badly he just says whatever he feels like now. One of the few academics in the West to have the courage to stand up immediately and point out that Russia had been very, very VERY much provoked.
Not only Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs also has long been exposing Israel's perfidy plus the madness of Europe supporting the Ukrainian war against Russia. Sachs speaks constantly about the failure of US diplomacy, in fact the abandonment by the Trump administration of any effort at true diplomacy.
Agreed. Trump is utterly incapable of diplomacy as that involves acknowledging one has obligations and the other side has rights. He doesn't believe he has any obligations and the only right is his right to snatch what he can. However, in this, he is simply channelling US bipartisan policy over the past 150 years.
Absolutely. They have both been stars in this period, though the whole situation hangs heavier on Jeff than John. I guess Sachs feels more personal responsibility.
Yes, as an American Jew, it is likely that Sachs feels it more personally and also because he has always advocated strongly for diplomacy rather than war, whereas Mearsheimer seems to regard war as an inevitability.
Whether Mearsheimer himself regards war as inevitable isn't clear but it is definitely true that a lot of idiots like Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, Bessent et al will look at his doctrine of offensive realism and say: "Hey,, he says war is inevitable so we'd better get in first." The doctrine becomes self-fulfilling, which is exceedingly dangerous. The reason his concept fails is because it is descriptive only, with no explanatory value.
Unfortunately, it's the ones in power. Ordinary Europeans have far more interesting and important things to do that charge across the steppes attacking Russia. They've all read their history.
Prof Diesen has had on some people recently that have explained the suicidal imbecility of European political elites as being completely America's creation. All those extra mega billions the CIA started receiving in the 00s had to go somewhere.
And Europe/UK got quite a lot of attention.
That's why none of it makes sense from a European (Or rational) perspective. These people will get paid, as the populations are rounded up violently and shoved to a certain death on the steppes, and when they retire, it will be to far away, such as a Florida mansion. Probably right next to Zelensky, with whom they share several moral characteristics.
On Mearsheimer, my own criticism is that he ONLY sees your Dominance model as a behavioural pattern, he cannot see how nations can work together peacefully, resolving issues of dominance through outlets of peaceful competition - like the previously never-ending warring Scandinavian nations now do.
He simply cannot conceive that if China achieved the dominant status that the USA had in 1945, that they may not behave in the same globally exploitative, Hegemonic manner.
For Mearsheimer, there is no such thing as a win-win in IR.
Apart from that, I appreciate him for his ballsiness, his release of 'The Israel Lobby' seems to have seared him so badly he just says whatever he feels like now. One of the few academics in the West to have the courage to stand up immediately and point out that Russia had been very, very VERY much provoked.
Not only Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs also has long been exposing Israel's perfidy plus the madness of Europe supporting the Ukrainian war against Russia. Sachs speaks constantly about the failure of US diplomacy, in fact the abandonment by the Trump administration of any effort at true diplomacy.
Agreed. Trump is utterly incapable of diplomacy as that involves acknowledging one has obligations and the other side has rights. He doesn't believe he has any obligations and the only right is his right to snatch what he can. However, in this, he is simply channelling US bipartisan policy over the past 150 years.
Absolutely. They have both been stars in this period, though the whole situation hangs heavier on Jeff than John. I guess Sachs feels more personal responsibility.
Yes, as an American Jew, it is likely that Sachs feels it more personally and also because he has always advocated strongly for diplomacy rather than war, whereas Mearsheimer seems to regard war as an inevitability.
Whether Mearsheimer himself regards war as inevitable isn't clear but it is definitely true that a lot of idiots like Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, Bessent et al will look at his doctrine of offensive realism and say: "Hey,, he says war is inevitable so we'd better get in first." The doctrine becomes self-fulfilling, which is exceedingly dangerous. The reason his concept fails is because it is descriptive only, with no explanatory value.
Absolutely. If they had read (True) History they should know Russia saved Europe from Nazism.
But now this is another level of History. There's Ukraine, the Middle East, Trump's (negative) particular way towards Europe (EU) and NATO.
Many Europeans are clueless as to the way forward. Is Russia, really, an enemy?
Short answer to your question posed, albeit quizzical is NO.
"Are the Europeans completely mad?"
No. Maybe some are.
Unfortunately, it's the ones in power. Ordinary Europeans have far more interesting and important things to do that charge across the steppes attacking Russia. They've all read their history.
David Irving perhaps? He is a very astute historian as is the Russian Nikolai Starikov.