Episode 248

Ukraine & the Era of Great Power Competition | John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

start listening

Episode 248

J. Mearsheimer & S. Walt

Ukraine & the Era of Great Power Competition | John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

start listening

summary

In Episode 248 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with professors of international relations John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Professor Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of multiple books including “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” “Why Leaders Lie,” and “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities.” Professor Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also the author of several books including “Revolution and War,” “Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy,” and most recently “The Hell of Good Intentions.” They both have appeared separately on the podcast before: professor Walt for a conversation on the decline of US primacy and professor Mearsheimer on the power of nationalism in international affairs.

They are also both prominent members of the so-called “realist school” and their views have often run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy in Washington, which one could broadly characterize as interventionist. John Mearsheimer especially has caught flak for his views on Ukraine, which went viral after the recent Russian invasion. Just one of his videos on YouTube alone has been seen over 26 million times. Demetri asks him about that experience, why he thinks his views have resonated so strongly with the public, and if there’s a connection between peoples’ views on Ukraine and their positions on the larger culture wars that seem to be dividing so many of us in Western societies today.

Of course, the conversation veers well beyond Ukraine, which is just the touching off point for a much larger discussion about the future of great power competition, the endurance of the alliance between Russia and China, America’s pivot to Asia and how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could actually make that easier, and what should the goals of American foreign policy be.

You can access the full episode, transcript, and intelligence report to this week’s conversation by going directly to the episode page on our website and clicking on “premium extras.” All subscribers gain access to our premium feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.

If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:

Write us a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify

Subscribe to our mailing list at https://hiddenforces.io/newsletter/

Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas

Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou

Subscribe & Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.io

Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod

Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas

Episode Recorded on 05/10/2022

bio

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He graduated from West Point in 1970 and then served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. He then started graduate school in political science at Cornell University in 1975. He received his Ph.D. in 1980. Professor Mearsheimer has written extensively about security issues and international politics more generally. He has published six books: Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss, Jr., Book Award; Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014), which won the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize and has been translated into nine different languages; The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), which made the New York Times bestseller list and has been translated into twenty-four different languages; Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics (2011), which has been translated into twelve different languages; and The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018) which has been translated into five different languages.

Stephen Walt (born July 2, 1955) is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He previously taught at Princeton and at the University of Chicago, where he served as Master of the Social Science Collegiate Division and Deputy Dean of Social Sciences. He has been a Resident Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also served as a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the National Defense University. He presently serves on the editorial boards of Foreign Policy, Security Studies, International Relations, and Journal of Cold War Studies, and he also serves as Co-Editor of the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs, published by Cornell University Press. Professor Walt is the author of The Origins of Alliances (1987), which received the 1988 Edgar S. Furniss National Security Book Award. He is also the author of Revolution and War (1996), Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy (2005), The Israel Lobby (2007), and most recently The Hell of Good Intentions (2018).

transcript

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Putabam equidem satis, inquit, me dixisse. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet.

Bonum liberi: misera orbitas. Positum est a nostris in iis esse rebus, quae secundum naturam essent, non dolere; Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum; Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Stoici scilicet. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes;

Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Negare non possum. Videsne ut, quibus summa est in voluptate, perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. At hoc in eo M.

Erat enim Polemonis. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas. Gerendus est mos, modo recte sentiat. Quae sequuntur igitur? Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Sit enim idem caecus, debilis.

HFT_EP_248

Full Episode

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliter homines, aliter philosophos loqui putas oportere? Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. At quanta conantur! Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse nostrum! Incendi igitur eos, qui audiunt, vides. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.

Aut unde est hoc contritum vetustate proverbium: quicum in tenebris? Itaque ne iustitiam quidem recte quis dixerit per se ipsam optabilem, sed quia iucunditatis vel plurimum afferat. Mene ergo et Triarium dignos existimas, apud quos turpiter loquare? Materiam vero rerum et copiam apud hos exilem, apud illos uberrimam reperiemus.

Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Quid ergo dubitamus, quin, si non dolere voluptas sit summa, non esse in voluptate dolor sit maximus? At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas. Quonam modo? Apud imperitos tum illa dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum; Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo; Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico.

At certe gravius. Quo tandem modo? Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. At enim hic etiam dolore. Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam. Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio?

intelligence report

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Partim cursu et peragratione laetantur, congregatione aliae coetum quodam modo civitatis imitantur; At Zeno eum non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est. Et nemo nimium beatus est; Erit enim mecum, si tecum erit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.

Ut in voluptate sit, qui epuletur, in dolore, qui torqueatur. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. Sed id ne cogitari quidem potest quale sit, ut non repugnet ipsum sibi. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora. Quid enim possumus hoc agere divinius? Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum. Ergo in utroque exercebantur, eaque disciplina effecit tantam illorum utroque in genere dicendi copiam. Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio?

At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Nos autem non solum beatae vitae istam esse oblectationem videmus, sed etiam levamentum miseriarum. Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Itaque his sapiens semper vacabit. Ergo hoc quidem apparet, nos ad agendum esse natos. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. De hominibus dici non necesse est. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Tubulo putas dicere? Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho;

Quam si explicavisset, non tam haesitaret. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Quid enim ab antiquis ex eo genere, quod ad disserendum valet, praetermissum est? Hic ambiguo ludimur.

HF_IR_248

extra material

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Itaque quantum adiit periculum! ad honestatem enim illum omnem conatum suum referebat, non ad voluptatem. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ergo in utroque exercebantur, eaque disciplina effecit tantam illorum utroque in genere dicendi copiam. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus;

Quae autem natura suae primae institutionis oblita est? Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Tantum dico, magis fuisse vestrum agere Epicuri diem natalem, quam illius testamento cavere ut ageretur. Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Nobis aliter videtur, recte secusne, postea; Animi enim quoque dolores percipiet omnibus partibus maiores quam corporis. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Quonam modo? Cur igitur, inquam, res tam dissimiles eodem nomine appellas? Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos.

Nisi autem rerum natura perspecta erit, nullo modo poterimus sensuum iudicia defendere. Ostendit pedes et pectus. Certe nihil nisi quod possit ipsum propter se iure laudari. Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam. At eum nihili facit; Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Nam si +omnino nos+ neglegemus, in Aristonea vitia incidemus et peccata obliviscemurque quae virtuti ipsi principia dederimus; Tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea tenebas?

Itaque eos id agere, ut a se dolores, morbos, debilitates repellant. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Haec dicuntur fortasse ieiunius; Qui est in parvis malis.

related episodes

Episode 113

John Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer | The Failure of American Hegemony & the Power of Nationalism

Episode 93

Stephen Walt

Stephen Walt | America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy

Episode 235

Dmitri Alperovitch

Russia-Ukraine War & Risks of NATO-Russia Escalation | Dmitri Alperovitch

Episode 240

Jon Wolfsthal

Risks of Nuclear War & the Escalation Ladder | Jon Wolfsthal

Episode 111

Stephen F. Cohen

Nuclear Crisis: How America Lost Post-Soviet Russia | Stephen Cohen

Episode 205

Laurel Miller

America’s Withdrawal from Afghanistan & Implications for U.S. Policy in Asia | Laurel Miller

Episode 106

Joshua Landis

Joshua Landis | US Withdrawal and the End of the Rules-Based Global Order

Episode 141

Joseph Nye

Co-Founder of Neoliberal School on the Foreign Policy of Presidents from F.D.R. to Trump | Joseph Nye

Episode 158

Charles Kupchan

Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself from the World | Charles Kupchan

Video

content locked

or Subscribe to Access Premium Content

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed quid sentiat, non videtis. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Si quicquam extra virtutem habeatur in bonis. Totum autem id externum est, et quod externum, id in casu est. Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Igitur ne dolorem quidem. Polycratem Samium felicem appellabant. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn.

Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Nec enim, omnes avaritias si aeque avaritias esse dixerimus, sequetur ut etiam aequas esse dicamus. In qua si nihil est praeter rationem, sit in una virtute finis bonorum; Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas?

Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata. Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret.

Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Sed in rebus apertissimis nimium longi sumus. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Item de contrariis, a quibus ad genera formasque generum venerunt. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Iam doloris medicamenta illa Epicurea tamquam de narthecio proment: Si gravis, brevis; Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Laelius clamores sofòw ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros.