How superpowers survive: War, Money, Size | John Mearsheimer and Lex Fridman

[@LexClips]

Full podcast episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGXafYuErsmtm7s Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzbin.info Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.

[@leopoldmerrick6942]

This level of realism is very refreshing

[@magg93]

I'll give you realism, mate

[@sniderstyle]

Respect for Lex because he platformed this Professor.

[@pabis6817]

No 😂 this professor is an absolute clown.

[@magg93]

he got served bigtime

[@mostlynicely]

@@magg93 mbp

[@ast3077]

Yuppers

[@DonG-1949]

what do you mean@@magg93

[@bluefanta7668]

John Mearsheimer is a gem. I have learnt more listening to him in 20 minutes than in my whole school education. I did not know anarchy was the opposite on hierarchy. This professor is a beast.

[@somethingginterestingg4275]

Totally agree although most of us didnt have the same interest in school than we do now. Lots of stuff was taught that a lot of us didnt care to remember or think deeply about.

[@bluefanta7668]

​@@somethingginterestingg4275 You have got a point. As students, oftentimes we fail to engage in school. Changing perspective on some courses that seem boring initially can open the door to new venues. Graduating from a Data Science Degree, I rediscover literature and history. Ancient Greece and Persian histories are fascinating.

[@jackbradley3388]

Mearsheimer is great, I really feel sad that he and other realists are so often reviled. So many misunderstandings exist regarding realism (such as the equation of power with aggression which the Dr. alludes to)

[@lebronjamesharden3958]

I like John, John is good

[@zeytelaloi]

He's great but he focuses a lot on the incentives placed on states. What I'm missing in this explanation is the incentives placed on leaders, who in turn lead the states. For example a leader might do something for regime security that is ultimately against the good interests of the country itself. It might mean invading another country to divert attention from domestic problems, or burning fossil fuels for short-term economic benefits but to the long-term detriment of the country.

[@joshuarodriguez6621]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@zeytelaloiyou just described the term “warmongering” at its finest

[@chrisdupre2862]

​@@zeytelaloi You would really enjoy the book "The Dictator's Handbook" if you haven't read it already!

[@james432ful]

He is just a blabbering fool with fancy words from 100s of books written before he was born. His understanding is very derivative of other people. He is famous because he is the most articulate of the idiots on his side

[@rasyidizulkifli2285]

Lex: "Democracies elect people who want peace." heck no, the US keeps electing warmongers 😂😂😂

[@lovelife1867]

because money comes from military industrial machine. There is no profit in peace

[@DillingerEscapeMan]

How many wars started under Trump?

[@richardloach610]

The US is a great power that is a hegemon. As the "biggest and baddest dude on the block" it has to constantly be flexing it's military muscles to put down challengers. International relations are not governed by internal politics within a nation, they are driven by the geopolitical realities around a particular nation

[@ernest1520]

​@@DillingerEscapeMan this is a very simplistic, shortsighted question. Trump actually laid ground for disastrous events that we've been witnessing after his tenure. He laid ground for rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan (which in turn hurt the US' opinion and undermined its global dominance status), antagonised China and at the same time weakened the balancing coalition against it in the region, the result of which we're seeing in South China sea and Taiwan strait tensions. That doesn't mean other presidents- both democrats and republicans- hadn't been making mistakes. They had, but their decisions had been at least driven by structured agendas, while Trump had been making many chaotic, ad hoc decisions with very little understanding of their nuances and potential consequences, purely motivated by satisfying the hardcore electorate. Pretty much all former presidents had been conducting their agendas in light of T. Roosevelt's words: "speak softly and carry a big stick". Trump did the opposite, being an entertainer of the masses, but causing more harm than good overall, with very little essence to his words.

[@lovelife1867]

@@ernest1520 trump was ready to negotiate which is hell of a lot more than what biden administration ever did. Did Bidy ever tried to broker any sort of deal between ukraine and russia? Nope , but sent Pelosi to drive more weapons into ukraine. Democrat misdeeds are obvious to a 5 year old but everyone is closing their eyes and pretending nothing is happening .

[@nalanala9725]

Thank you for this interview, he is a diamond and so are you.

[@amania9254]

The boy is outclassed again and again! The professor is good 👍

[@Destrolll]

there is no shame to be outclassed by Mearsheimer

[@sultanfarouk5518]

It's not a debate for Lex to be outclassed...this is just an intellectual conversation and Professor Mearsheimer happens to be an expert on the topic of discussion..

[@amania9254]

@@sultanfarouk5518 You sound like 14, you can be outclassed even without speaking. You'll understand that!

[@amania9254]

@@Destrolll of course, outclassed by a professor means you have a lot to learn. No one is talking about shame here.

[@davidnikon8501]

Great conversation.

[@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns]

"Power is the currency of international relations". Well, money is the currency of wealth and what is wealth? Control over material power. He's stating the obvious but it's sad and amazing how many people swallow the propaganda that we act altruistically, albeit sometimes making "honest mistakes" like destroying Iraq for no good reason. It's all about power. Politics. Diplomacy. Economics.

[@burnzz69]

To wield power you need energy and a stable natural environment.

[@magg93]

There are no good or bad people, only varying degrees of conditioning.

[@frankjennings4489]

@@magg93I don’t think that’s true. Malignant narcissists and psychopaths are bad people.

[@magg93]

They are not born entirely this way, there has been some form of conditioning.

[@frankjennings4489]

@@magg93 Not really. Psychopathy is mostly genetic.

[@paulsalele3844]

This was a great guest!!

[@Flylikea]

I appreciate the fact that an important concept was, even briefly, discussed here: in the realist sense, anarchy is just the opposite of hierarchy which then implies that there is nowhere to turn to if 💩 hits the fan. Something that clearly a lot of people don't get at all. I am not talking about: don't get to an extent. No, nothing. Zero. There have been times in history where states existed in pure anarchy. We are clearly not in this kind of global system currently, but there have been periods. In an oversimplified analogy, that meant if conflict broke out, if you got into trouble, you'd have to find your way out or literally die trying. Now, unless you are dumb or suffer from a personality disorder, you should be able to tell why this is an extremely dangerous way of existence, particularly as technology advances.

[@lizardking3979]

I don’t know but this old dude has been right about the Ukraine war…. That’s good enough for me😂

[@ernest1520]

Yes he's been right about Ukraine. He's been predicting that Russia won't tolerate a democratic Ukraine that's a member of the western security framework, but the west didn't listen. Instead of limiting relations and business with Russia, and speeding up Ukraine's NATO membership, the west chose profit over security, the results of which we are facing today. But thankfully the West came to its senses, and is helping out Ukraine, ramping up its military production and support for Ukraine, thus reducing Russia's relative power. Just as John Mearsheimer and the theory of offensive realism predicts.

[@dankmemes6053]

he was also right that China and the U.S. will eventually turn into rivals or enemies (he made this point I think two decades ago)

[@musclemannn]

Y'all are old 😑

[@TheElMuffin]

I find that this ties in well into the Fermi Paradox. The concept of state is scalable, so if you imagine the state as a whole civilization, even in the absence of other civilizations, that civilization will behave as if others exist as well . There is a bone chilling idea presented in The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino. Without ever meeting an alien civilization it is possible to boil down alien behaviour down to three concepts: 1 Their survival will be more than our survival. If forced to choose between them and us, they will always choose themselves. 2 They will be intelligent, alert, industrious, aggressive, and even ruthless when necessary. That's what it takes to survive. 3 They will apply the same three concepts to us.

[@Larkinchance]

A conflict between Ukraine and Russia presented a strategic opportunity for NATO/US. Crimea, with its 75% Russian population didn't mean much to Ukraine but to NATO/US, with the Russian naval base at Sevastopol would go control of the Black Sea and defense of all of Russia. This is why Putin invaded Ukraine.

[@Business.Marketing.Davidd]

He already had it for like 12 years. Already. .but now he wants more land and more resources....and then next is moldova

[@raminsafizadeh]

This view of inter state dynamics is good for the first year students of international geopolitics! Otherwise, there are more exceptions to the rule than, than the rule itself! The smaller states partake in the security provided by the dynamics of contention between the more powerful states, whether or not these bigger states would prefer to provide such protection or not!

[@nicholascushman3069]

So basically we have a bunch of different theories that are each trying to boil down an extremely complex set of concepts into more or less absolute terms. The problem I see is that when you arrive at a point where several different theories are all able to gain prominence, the truth is likely far more nuanced than any 1 of them is able to account for.

[@pedrod.7576]

From what I understand, there is a constructivist theory that blends elements from realism with elements from liberalism.

[@allendover7480]

I wouldn’t use the term theory here. There are a lot of philosophies, none of which can be tested in a lab or via experiment. That does, however, make me wonder when we’ll have enough processing power to provide an AI with a lab and see what it says about the accuracy of these philosophies.

[@pedrod.7576]

We didn't say they are laws, we said they are theories. Also, humanities exist and they are not the same as natural sciences.@@allendover7480

[@TheLockon00]

Yes. That's something Mearsheimer has talked and written about. Basically, he claims you're trying get a sense of what's most important. A good theory in this context explains why things happen a majority of the time, not all the time.

[@dieuetmondroithonisoitquim338]

The truth is what happens and the results of those theories not what should happen for everyone to benefit the most

[@dennish5150]

The moral of the story is, there is no moral, just power and everything that goes along with it.😂😂😂

[@lizardking3979]

Amen. If anyone tells you otherwise he is foocking your wife😂

[@mikexhotmail]

AKA. Thomas Hobbes

[@andrewlim7751]

Hate those hypocrites whom fill their mouth with freedom and democracy.

[@maqboolmangrio]

Really wonderful discussions love to learn great efforts

[@Mark-v9y8w]

I really enjoyed this discussion about the different types of ideas regarding Geo-political power.

[@jayzee316]

basically a prisoner's dilemma with states underpinned by law of the jungle.

[@renardfox328]

Good point, the international system is one of strategic interdependence.

[@jayzee316]

@@renardfox328 and distrust.

[@mikexhotmail]

What else could it possibly be?

[@goedelite]

Tragic is J.M.'s effort to make himself comfortable! Recently, in a clip with Fridman, he declared, "...but I am an American and therefore...." I am at an advantage to Mearsheimer in that nothing that contributes to my view of the world is based on my being an American. As an American, I do join proudly with voices such as Noam Chomsky's and, in the distant past, with Bertrand Russell's in repudiating American foreign policy as criminal in the eyes of any decent human being. To go so far as that, it seems, one cannot do and be an honored professor at the University of Chicago.

[@vorlonzevatron7142]

Democracy is not a synonym for peace.

[@kz7822]

Only power matters and democracy is vehicle in competition

[@Alexamw]

Great conversation.Lex looks great unshaved.

[@Lesminster]

Great clip. Very interesting point of view.

[@richardloach610]

The only part of the world that the democratic peace theory tends to hold true is Latin America and Europe. The latter is actually kept in check by the overwhelming presence of NATO and the institutions that follow such as the EU. Latin America has only had democratic stability for 30 years or so, and geographically its populations are isolated for the most part along coastal urban areas. The interior where conflict could potentially flare up and actually sometimes do (ie Peru-Ecuador war of 1998) are mostly sparsely populated and are lightly controlled by the central states

[@chrisbarnes2973]

I will say that the Harvard and yales have absolutely blew it! In leadership roles!, we need both!

[@mragoffi]

First time I smash the like button even before the start of the clip

[@janklaas6885]

📍15:41

[@edjones3410]

If you have ever played the game civilization it gives you a good understanding of this way of thinking.

[@lingbojiang7784]

Competition for power is a toxic of human nature, but it is true.

[@codycast]

7:45 disagree. A country like Canada can get away with spending nearly $0 on military with no negative consequences. In fact they can use that money to much better uses.

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

Since when does nearly $0 mean tens of billions of dollars? They spend 1.2% of their gdp on military which is slightly below average but they are planning to increase military spending.

[@codycast]

@@KZbinWatcher9000 sorry if I wasn’t clear…. I’m saying they COULD SPEND nearly $0. Not that they ARE SPENDING nearly $0 Same with EU. Mexico. And others. As an American I’m glad other countries pay for their defense as it would be easy for Canada and others to rely on American military spending.

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

@@codycast oh, that makes a lot more sense. Although, I don’t think they could get away with that. Why should the US protect them if they don’t even try to protect themselves. If they just stopped spending money on their military, there would be no benefit for the US to continue supporting them.

[@codycast]

@@KZbinWatcher9000 it would be nice to think that all modern democracies would come to the aid of any country that was trying to be taken over by another country. So if someone attacked Canada the US would help because 1) they’re our ally 2) we share cultural history 3) they’re on our border so there is a self interest 4) it’s the right thing to do But I see your point. If Canada had a threat from, say, Russia. I could see the US saying “look. We got your back if shit goes down but you’re going to have to at least try to put up some defense. We can’t carry the whole load” It would be nice if all the scumbag countries out there knew that all other countries were going to stand behind one another. Sort of like a global nato.

[@sofiwuu3001]

Indeed...however your much wealth hold in few individuels, not in state In this trade, the power game shifts Now today happens

[@jfp17]

Interesting discussion.

[@broadmeadowluck]

And this is why knowing world history is vitally important to people!

[@Pixelarter]

So what I get from this is that the world would be a lot better with a "hierarchical" structure, so countries wouldn't need to keep competing for power like animals and doing BS. If something like the UN was promoted to a world police of sorts (or the globe's 911), and could really enforce countries to comply to democratically established global rules, then most wars would be suppressed and the world could be more stable. Then a lot of the resources wasted in building power out of fear, could be better employed in progressing humanity and bringing prosperity, rather than barbaric competition for survival. Analogous to the transition from a harsh hunter-gather life to a more structured agriculture based one, that enabled better use of resources and greater development by escaping from the state of constant threat. Then humanity would have the achievement of also being civilized in a global scale, instead of just locally.

[@juanchojack]

Don’t think one entity holding governance over the entire world is such a good idea.

[@Pixelarter]

@juanchojack I think it would, but it needs to be well structured to be fully democratic and have well designed weights and balances to prevent abuse or misrepresentation. It would also improve our capability to respond to external threats to humanity and our planet, and make global efforts more efficient.

[@juanchojack]

@@Pixelarter agree to disagree🤝

[@omarshehab585]

Beautiful talk.

[@lovelife1867]

Smartest person in existence today.

[@JohnCox-ut3cv]

What gets me is that yanquiland is now the equivalent of napoleonic France. Overstretched and awaiting its Waterloo. This will happen overseas. First, however, the expense of its overseas adventures will cause the domestic to implode.

[@JohnCox-ut3cv]

Due to its century and more of anti communism, however, the domestic power will not be communist but populism that is of a small america and lacking an international vision.

[@JoeCharogoff]

Whoa, that's a lot! I think it's important to note these definitions of state behavior are based on just that, and not what's ideal. I think international anarchy and international hierarchy are bad ideas, but human weakness ensures it's one or the other.

[@JohnCox-ut3cv]

They want to act communally. Elites are not like this.

[@mazamatov]

"...They beat her, saying: "You are abundant; so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent '" so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters-to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak-therefore you are wrong; hence, you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty-therefore you are right..." -Joey Steel

[@abhishek.ytconnect]

When security/ survival (Realism) and prosperity(Liberalism) come in conflict, security/ survival trumps prosperity.

[@MrWuwho]

Great insights. Basically taking the morality factor out of the context and just seeing everything as components of a system, a lot of things make sense.

[@anthonybenic]

Would love to see Lex interview author Robert Caro.

[@mouthtomouth33]

Around the min. 8.00 the truth is revealed and the hypocrisy of its way to find peace. Make a great day!

[@brettg1]

they defined what realism is, most people define it as common sense.

[@Randsurfer]

I haven't seen all of this interview but from what I've seen, there is no mention of the motivation of wealth acquisition by individual leaders from the aggression of the nations they lead. In other words, the examination of the War Machine, War Industry as a business opportunity for various individuals, aside from the interests of the nation as a whole. Bluntly, how often is "national security" used as a cover for War grifting?

[@mitnick212]

Wealth is just a tool in politics. It's a mean, not an end

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

You should have Mearsheimer and Michael Malice on an episode together. Michael malice is an anarchist and mearsheimer said multiple times anarchy creates violence and power struggles. I think the debate would be interesting.

[@sababaratashvili8629]

"anarchy creates violence and power struggles" It does.

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

@@sababaratashvili8629 yes and countries with governments are all peaceful utopias. There will always be violence and power struggles, with or without anarchy, but would anarchy be better than democracy? I’m not an anarchist, I’m more of a libertarian, but I think people too often associate anarchy with chaos and people like Michael Malice believe there is a way to have an organized society without government. It’s an interesting idea.

[@sababaratashvili8629]

@@KZbinWatcher9000 "yes and countries with governments are all peaceful utopias. " Did I say they were? "It’s an interesting idea." No, it's an idea usually born from people from developed countries. People who have not lived in poor countries full of corruption where government does not give a shit. Plenty of countries like that out there, they are pretty close to anarchy, where government is basically just another power trying to take advantage of you, they are also horrible places to be. It's not going to work in practice, anarchy will develop into some kind of order just like how order will develop into anarchy at some point.

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

@@sababaratashvili8629 Michael malice was born in the Soviet Union, his whole family is from there. Government corruption is one of the reasons many people become anarchists. Developing countries with corrupt governments aren’t anarchistic, anarchy means no government. Developing countries have governments and most of them make their countries worse by establishing themselves as the only authority in the country and using that authority for their own benefit. You are using anarchy to mean chaotic or lacking order. There can be order in an anarchist society, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, it just wouldn’t be enforced by a government. Anarchy does not equal chaos, and government does not equal order. Essentially it would just be replacing government agencies and functions with companies and corporations which rely on customers who choose to give them money to make a profit and stay in business instead of saying “give us your money or we’ll send guys with guns to your house to throw you in prison and if you don’t like how we spend your money, too bad”. I’m not saying it would work flawlessly or that it is achievable, I’m saying it’s worth looking into. I’m a libertarian because there are a few government functions which I don’t think could be replicated by private companies, but I’m open to hearing how they could. It seems like you have completely written it off without looking into it.

[@HkFinn83]

Can’t you just read each of those people’s work for yourself? Debate is a waste of time other than for entertainment, you will just agree with whoever is the better speaker

[@accountantabed-il8ou]

watch this video if you wanna understand dating, business, sociality, life

[@vmoses1979]

It's good Lex let Mearsh do his thing because his questions had little depth or analysis.

[@Alberich5335]

Defensive Realism ist in my Opinon the best Strategy to survive for small states without natural resources as Switzerland. China was for 2'000 Years the greatest oeconomic power of the world, without territorial expanding and only weekly armed. One emperor even let burn down the whole warships. His argument was, that the chinese Navy would frighten trade partners and damage the chinese economy. Concerning Japan, Britain etc. that was not the best strategy. But the idea, that also great power can be overstrechted is a valid an argument. The One-China-Policy ist a US-american concept. The USA-plan was, to support the defeated Kuomintang under Tshang-Kai-Tshek, fled from Mao's troups to Taiwan after Japan was beated and to requoncer the "renegade continental China". Therefore Republic of China (Taiwan) was founding member of the UNO and Veto-Power. In the late 1960tys this plans were given up by the US, the People's Republic of China became the "one China". Therefore the Biden China Policy seems a little bit strange. Chinese people are super pragmatic people and President Biden should consider, that the Taiwanese probably wan't end as the Ukrainians, who have to die for "the freedom of the whole free world", democracy or the higher moral of the political "West".

[@DavidRanalli]

The world and people exist as both anarchy and hierarchy at the same time.

[@arcad1an292]

Power in good hands = Peace and Freedom

[@mikexhotmail]

Power in good hands Brave new world Power in democracy hands = 1984 Power in the Green hand - Logan's Run i

[@xXxXxX-x-XxXxXx]

good hands dont usually get to power.

[@skiptomile]

ain't no such thangggg

[@iTuber012]

So never then?

[@Lora_Lynn]

Table tennis game. Does anybody remember that? We built China's sucess. We did we support a monster or create an adversary in our image?

[@michaelhuang7842]

Compared to other countries, such as India and Brazil. The US does not give China super treatment or special privileges. 😂😂The success of a country depends more on the vitality and healthy development of its society and the hopes, dreams and beliefs of its people. These are domestic issues. America doesn't build anything on China. Over the past 30 years, America's GDP has grown slightly more than China's.

[@MrWuwho]

As much as it makes sense, it got me worried what if it is how the universe works, not just on earth?

[@Alberich5335]

As European I hope, the USA will choose to be the greatest Great Power in world instead of a weaker and weaker only Superpower.

[@djngdhn]

How do you explain the third Taiwan strait crisis? When an invasion of Taiwan was attempted?

[@shafthespaceegg]

The USA has positioned itself as that “higher authority” that he describes that its allies can turn to for help

[@arminius6506]

14:49 the last 5 keaders you guys elected nullify your argument.

[@iglowinlight]

I humbly disagree that states seek power for survival. In my opinion, #1 Not all states seek power in the sense that the US do, for example. #2 States seek power to protect their wealth and not for survival. #3 powerless states exist and they still survive.

[@BillzWhite]

Protecting your wealth is survival and no state is powerless or it would cease to exist it might be powerless in comparison to the biggest powers but still a power none the less

[@iglowinlight]

@@BillzWhite there is no need to eliminate any state when you can sponge off the people within.

[@AlissasCouch]

Nations just need to chill out and stop trying to dominate everyone.

[@estevesmartins7935]

3D Chess…The game that very few are able to perceive and master..

[@inception727]

Only few have the ability to play . Most countries are just pawns not players

[@sigma4471]

My understanding; The world is an anarchic system.

[@lattehour]

if this is your teacher in usa then you are to be short lived , power is simple you go fight for it you go at war

[@fallbro]

I survive because of war, money, and power 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽 (I’m depressed)

[@lizardking3979]

Pills can help u 😂

[@Turnsnap]

This is just game theory modern powers edition

[@wasumyon6147]

God is above the nations and he dictates with the brush of reality and the ink of history.

[@azeclecticdog]

Thank you for that definition of anarchy.

[@josboersema1352]

Well, I could stomach 5:22 of this, so maybe this is premature but: very one sided answers, all from the side of evil and this sounds really American again. It seems to be an American habbit of believing that everyone is as evil as they are, or worse. Power, domination, profit, wars, and then a rationale for it. It makes them feel good, it enhances their _power._ On a conceptional level though: if you are bullied by someone, the obvious way to deal with it is to form an alliance with the other victims, and overpower the Tyrant with a Parliament. Also this _state of anarchy_ is completely pulled into an extreme, as if people where non stop at war with each other. Maybe that's what you do in America, everyone hating each other, wanthing to kill plunder and rape each other, fine that's your problem. In much of the world however, people also _cooperate_ with each other, which is probably by far the biggest share of their expended energy, even including during warfare itself. It's all co-operation. If you don't co-operate, you are nothing. All power (almost all) is in co-operation, and this is even intrinsic in what was claimed about power, because if you don't co-operate with each other, you are not even "a people" and certainly not "an army", you have zero power. It is quite a normal situation for people to be in a state of so-called anarchy, because there are many (although still not enough) freedoms (no right to land still, which is destroying the world), and when you excersize them, you are basically making your own decisions. If you are a good person, you listen to morality, and if you do, you will likely have a lot more success in co-operating with other humans, especially those who do the same, because a moral decision is usually (if not by definition) one which (ultimately) benefits the whole. You can do this also in international relations, in which you are just as free and Sovereign as a State, as an individual is when they make a choice about where to go on holiday, or what to eat for breakfast, or with whom to make friends, and so on. You can as a State also make moral decisions, which will likely earn you credit with another Nation, and you can have frdiendly relations with them, just as you can have friendly relations with your neighbors in the street. I don't say that therefore you don't need to be powerful, that's not the point. The point is to say that there is another side to the viciousness of American modern ideology, which reminds me of the ideology of criminals, although even and especially higher ranking criminals do a lot of cooperation themselves, even with a limited form of morality into it because with out it, it would collapse and their earnings would be less. Example: they honor a deal (moral), beacuse they don't want to be murdered (enforcement). I guess you have to go to the University to find people who are even more vicious than organized crime ? lol Anyway (please excuse my vitriole): the point is that there are two sides to power, and one is to be capable of violence and defense, to dominate, to defeat to destroy (in other words, Americans values), but the other side is that of co-operation, morality, honor, goodness, etc, which is by far the greater; as argued above, even the side of evil and crime and viciousness "baddest boy on the block" is -especially on the level of the State which is a vast co-operation- all eventually coming from its morality. Even the Zun Tsu says in the Art of War: the army which gives reward and punishment accurately and honestly, is the army which will win. Hence it is not true that there is nothing above the State, except in the case of an immoral criminal State and Empire (such as the USA). For honest and good people, there is always something higher above them, which is the morality, goodness, honor, truth, peace and Justice which they strive for - which are principles and ideals, ideals which work and which generate or at least stimulates (should stimulate) the greatest power on Earth, which is that of co-operation between humans. I think that this is why you see Nations who have had a moral Revolution rise in power so tremendously above all others. The examples are many, from ancient Israel to even America itself with its civil rights and so on (now in a state of decadence and probably soon falling into Tyranny). Netherlands had a moral Revolution (1566), and soon was a World Power despite its size. Swiss is another example, where they threw out the bully (Habsburgers if I recall) by working together, and they set up a democracy which is probably still the most advanced democracy in the world - incidentally, quite a cute country as well, with well maintained roads, and also so strong that they somehow survived World War 2 between the axis powers (!), without even being attacked (which may have had other reasons as well, but still). This argument should however not be confused with the idea that we don't need an army. You probably still need to be very wary of Empires like the USA with all their tricks such as financing the Nazis to bring another Nation into war with you and you don't even know they do it, so they can conquer you later and subjugate you as a Vassal. You more or less need to be as honorable as you can, making fair deals with other Nations where possible, but have the ability to defeat them if they came for a war. Yeah really a loathsome kind of ideology is promoted here (the next 20 seconds). As if you have no choice to be evil, and therefore we are supposed to worship American power because "aww they had no choice". If you are a man and there is a vacuum of power, then that is your chance to declare morality, peace and Justice, will be the structure to which we will listen. The other choice is to become the "baddest bully on the block", and tell yourself "you had no choice, it was someone else's their fault", which is pathetic and dishonorable. Peace and Justice are also powerful as ideals themselves, and although there is a tremendous amount of lying in this world, the truth coupled with a justified demand, is or should be the most powerful morale engine also for an army to win a war if necessary. Well, let's just put it this way: we will defeat you evil people, sooner or later.

[@wilbers1970]

Launching new Super Power soon, need a nap.

[@cosmocalisse]

It seems like a big oversimplification though; many countries are able to rely on proximity to allies (like Canada), and others just don't have meaningful enough tensions with neighboring countries to even warrant having much of a defense program at all. Sometimes a strong army just constitutes wasteful spending. Using military might as if it were a reliable model for a country's success seems unnecessarily simplistic. America itself made its way to the top of the world economy with virtually no military might at all until the World Wars

[@richardloach610]

Take a good hard look at these "non-aggressive" nations you are alluding to. Have a think about who is there to keep the peace and it will invariably be the US, since it is the world hegemon. Also consider how wealthy that nation actually is, if it's a dust ridden impoverished region of Africa then peace tends to be a function of the complete lack of infrastructure and organization. Add to that the lack of interest or demand in those regions resources and it's obvious that large conflicts will not break out there. What will definitely exist in those regions is a level of tribalist tension that is never reported in the news and makes us Westerners think they are very peaceful

[@lordlee6473]

I can’t find a more hierarchical structure among states than the so called rule based international order, in which US is at the top, Israel and Anglo-Saxon states are right below it, then Western European countries, then Japan, Korea and Singapore, then Middle Eastern Allies, then Eastern European, then Southern European, then Latin America, then Southeast Asia, then Africa and Pacific Islanders, then near the bottom, North Korea, Cuba and Iran because they are industrial but rebellious states. And at the very bottom, Venezuela, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan because they are poor and rebellious.

[@tooltalk]

>> among states than the so called rule based international order,

[@lordlee6473]

@djsngolossy6237 if it’s based on a country’s own strength, why do you think US kept fooling its population that Ukraine would win?

[@BillzWhite]

A hierarchy means the lesser parties obey the hierarchy This not a hierarchy this is a food chain Big fish eat little fish unless little fish does what I want

[@mitnick212]

Where's China and Russia?

[@lordlee6473]

@@mitnick212 just above Iran and North Korea, as they are nemesis of US. Americans would have been able to do anything they want like a thug if not for these two and a united global south.

[@JohnCox-ut3cv]

It is the elites we have to identify and overcome. Maybe, at one time, the elites were not committed to self interest and their own concerns. The yanqui multi-national corporate elite have only their own interests at heart. Any other concern is massively less important to them.

[@frankjennings4489]

Oh course they have their own self interests at heart and almost always have. The key is putting yourself in a position where your interests align with their interests. Removing the elites is a fool’s errand. If you fail, you will be destroyed. If you succeed, you are just as likely to destroy yourself.

[@chrisbarnes2973]

When the Olds talkd about power! And rightfully so, they are great minds. THEN YOU HAVE A GUY LIKE DAVID GRU. WHO goes under OATH and says the things he does, now were #oes the old man mind goes?

[@mouradmhm3244]

It's clear from Lex's questions in this podcast that he's an idealist living in fairytales; he wasn't ready for the exploration of the brutal reality of geopolitics.

[@gov4130]

The only reason I know that I have enemies out there in the world is my government tells me so.

[@h.l.malazan5782]

Iceland speaks in Onlyfan: "The imperialists in my country can cry in Ferraris when they grow up."

[@folag]

"States are not inherently aggressive." Right, Prof. Mearsheimer. Only the United States of America is aggressive.

[@somethingginterestingg4275]

You missed the point

[@chrisbarnes2973]

And if David G. Was lying! He would be under arrest but he's not. Think about it. What I like is that he is history!

[@kludgedude]

Countryballs, sure countries are just people writ large

[@chain8847]

America is the most powerful country in the world. Despite the fact that the US is 32 trillion in debt. A further 3 billion in debt every day. You keep your power through imperialism. 800 foreign military bases. Russia has 21. That is how you stay on top. And the petro dollar.

[@askeladd60]

Not that powerful when you have such a high national debt and you rely on foreign countries fund your government budget deficit

[@LCculater]

Damn Coke Zero and water ?

[@frankdefranco9436]

In the current Ukraine - Russia conflict both Russia and Europe were interdependent on each other. Also there was no clear security risk or threat to Europe from Russia at all. How come EU completely turned on Russia after decades long economic corporation ? I think in a realist world there are enemies of the liberal democratic order. Greedy corporate capitalism, Zionism and Fascism are few of those enemies. If we all can address these things I think all those 3 theories can thrive forever. I know It's a continuous pursuit, nevertheless we must do it.

[@allendover7480]

His ideas certainly go a long way toward explaining why the US attacked Iraq after 9/11.

[@heyboss15]

Greed and power is realism Religious peace driven cultures are screwed

[@coastofkonkan]

India is where all sophisticated western theories go to grave.

[@MRTylerSalley]

My mans got his hair clicked way back

[@wrathofgrothendieck]

Oil slick

[@p.m.8316]

Banks are above states.

[@skiptomile]

banks devour everything... they eat each other up and then they crash. a new bank emerges then cycle repeats again.

[@askeladd60]

They are not

[@kenlewis2253]

It’s not just population and wealth that underpin power its cohesiveness and organizational strength, which is why India is not powerful.

[@joseleon8235]

Structural realism acts as finantial theory.

[@genelarson6849]

Hey mearsheimer name two true democratic nation's that went to war with one another it doesn't happen

[@Robosci]

Wait , you drink coke out of all the drinks ????

[@rey82rey82]

Ukraine lost the war

[@jacoblongbrake8230]

Everybody will

[@Randsurfer]

A lot of small (population) nations that have been very powerful throughout history. Certainly population matters, but wealth trumps all. Especially as wealth acquires technology.

[@turf9232]

State power is basically high agency asshole for hire. lol. We need them, but gotta rail them in from time to time.

[@turf9232]

But Sam, power is power. lol, yes, until you meet god.

[@skiptomile]

some heads are needed to roll from time to time.. just to keep things in check

[@locle7998]

Wow

[@CuchBe]

❤

[@EURASIAPLUS]

Тема Исав и Иаков, Исава Бог возненавидел а Иакова полюбил, Исав человек поля, Иаков человек шатров. Исав это объединённый, коллективный запад и вся его партия, они любят войну , а Иаков это верный остаток, кроткий праведник ожидающий Машиаха . Верный остаток ждёт пришествия Машиаха и это будет означать что Израиль искупил покоянием свои грехи и отступничество и пришло время вернуться в землю обетованную, тогда к верному остатку присоединиться великое множество святых от всех концов света и все как один народ поклоняться Богу живому. Но есть ослепшее стадо, те кто считает себя Израилем, те кто не приняли Иешуа в духе и истине , те кто не приняли Мухаммада мир ему , те кто переставляют слова местами и меняют смысл истины, это дети ехиднины, это дети дъявола, это партия Исава, эти дети лжи используют ложь как оружие, они не хотят ждать и каяться, не хотят совершать тшуву, они считают что уже искупили свои грехи и уже сейчас достойны благословений, они разорили закон Моисея и пути праведности извратили, это политический Сионизм. Сионизм - это сатанизм внутри иудаизма, переворачивание всех основ. Если в иудаизме надо ждать пришествия Машиаха, то в сионизме еврей - это уже бог. Если сионизм как бы вышел из иудаизма, то он же сионизм есть противник иудаизма, так Господь возненавидел Исава в утробе матери, а Иакова возлюбил. Дети дъявола принимают его посланников и хотят исполнять похоти отца своего, они последовали за антихристами Шабтай Цви, Шимон бар Кох и остальные, потому и написано что яхуды будут последователями антихриста, даджаля, так как истинного мессию не приняли. Не обманывайтесь все любящие неправду, написано вам что первые станут последними и последние станут первыми, увидите Авраама, Исаака и Иакова и множество святых от всех концов света, а себя обнаружите изгоняемыми вон. Как написано в сияюшем Коране все вы вернётесь к Аллаху и он поведает вам в чём вы заблуждались, соревнуйтесь же в добрых делах. Итак написано не всякий говорящий мне Господи, Господи войдёт в Царствие Небесное , но исполняющий волю Отца Небесного..... И вам яхуды написано Вот, оставляется дом ваш пуст. И не только евреев Бог выводил, но и другие народы, он выводил филистимлян, армян и других. Псалом 118 : 113 Вымыслы человеческие ненавижу, а закон Твой люблю. Политический Сионизм ненавижу, а верный остаток люблю. Северный полюс Сатурна, звезда дъявола, чёрный квадрат, символ политической власти этого мира - ненавижу. Рассеянный верный остаток люблю. וּנְשָׂאתֶ֗ם אֵ֚ת סִכּ֣וּת מַלְכְּכֶ֔ם וְאֵ֖ת כִּיּ֣וּן צַלְמֵיכֶ֑ם כּוֹכַב֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם לָכֶֽם׃ (Amos 5-26): “And ye shall wear Sikkut your king, and Kiyun your idols, the star of your god, which ye have made for yourselves.” ✡ - North Pole of Saturn (Ам.5-26): “И будете вы носить Сиккута, царя вашего, и Кийуна, - идолов ваших, звезду божества вашего, которых вы сделали для себя.” ✡ - Северный полюс Сатурна. "Тит обрезал леса и натянул на попу евреев"