Geopolitical Realism versus Ideological Obstinacy on Ukraine, Israel-Hamas and more : A third Way anyone ?
Really fascinating from an epistemological perspective.
Fifty minutes of conversation on the issue of Ukraine illustrating the stark difference between geopolitical Realism (John Mearsheimer) and ideological Obstinacy (Piers Morgan).
A THIRD WAY ANYONE ?
Serving the people, developing one’s own abilities for listening to the others’ perspectives and international collaboration, for example …
Moreover, Mearsheimer is a dazzling geopolitical scholar of the Realist school and treated like a rock star within the Beijing academic circles precisely because of his capacity of seeing reality. So I’m flummoxed that he’s so misguided concerning the Taiwan issue. Mearsheimer doesn’t seem to understand that Taiwan is an absolute red line for the Chinese government. No one is perfect, innit ?!!
Yeah, Mearsheimer has gulped all the coolaid on Taiwan. He is a China hawk to his bootstraps as I see it. No sense or interest in history and the Japanese colonial adventures in the early 1900’s.
Very odd.
Hi, Uncle Tungsten,
So many supposed “liberals” are Sinophobic, sad to say.
Jeff
Thanks for your comment, Uncle Tungsten.
Right ! He’s definitely a China hawk. Ironically, it comes from the combination of his Realist perspective and the fact that he has some respect for China since he assessed China as being the only peer competitor of the US, so for him China has to be ABSOLUTELY checked and contained. That’s his Realist geopolitical school mindset.
For a Realist like Mearsheimer, states want to survive and more. The best way to achieve that goal is to be the most powerful one within the global system. And the first step to being the most powerful one within the global system is to be first a regional hegemon. It is obvious that China is returning to her preeminence regionally in East Asia so Mearsheimer, because of his vision of the World, is worried for the US and wants to curb China’s progress.
From his standpoint (I put myself in his place), I have to admit that he’s not wrong conceptually speaking. But our human minds don’t have to be the prisoners of those small ideas, partially exact at a lower understanding of life but not the whole truth. We’re all capable of seeing life at a higher viewpoint and it doesn’t mean to be gullible but having an overture for the idea of sincere collaboration among great powers and at the same time keeping at bay things that don’t align with our national interests needless to say.
We need an epistemological shift to a higher mentality among the leaders (political, cultural, intellectual, economic, etc.) of our times.
As Jeff wrote, the ‘liberals’ are not really what they claim to be. *Liberal* is in the same family lexically speaking than *liberty* Their minds are not so free apparently …