John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401

The video is about John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, discussing his views on power in international politics as outlined in his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and in his writing since then. He believes that power is the currency of international relations and states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it. He also states that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful. Mearsheimer argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.

This video by Lex Fridman was published on Nov 17, 2023.
Video length: 03:26:42.

The video is about John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, discussing his views on power in international politics.

He believes that power is the currency of international relations and that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it. He argues that power is largely a function of material factors such as population size and wealth, and that nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy. Mearsheimer's views are based on his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and his writing since then.

He also discusses the role of Thomas Hobbes in laying out the realist context of anarchic world.

• John Mearsheimer is a professor at the University of Chicago and a controversial thinker in international politics.
• He teaches and writes about the nature of power and war on the global stage.
• Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• He argues that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over power.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• Power is largely a function of material factors such as population size and wealth.
• The United States is considered a great power due to its large population and wealth.
• China was not considered a great power until recently due to its lack of wealth.
• Both population size and wealth are underpinning factors of power.
• Thomas Hobbes laid out the concept of life in the state of nature.
• In the state of nature, individuals compete with each other for power.
• The reason individuals do this is because there is no higher authority in the state of nature.
• Hobbs' view is that the way to get out of this terrible situation is to create a state, or the Leviathan.
• Anarchy is the lack of a higher authority in international politics.
• States in an anarchic system have no choice but to compete for power.
• The best way to survive in an anarchic system is to be powerful.
• The Chinese experienced humiliation in the late 1840s to late 1940s due to their weakness in the system.
• Humiliation can lead to resentment and aggression.
• The will to power is the drive to maximize one's relative power.
• The will to power is an individual's psychology.
• The will to power is a structural argument.
• The will to power is not inherently aggressive.
• The will to power is necessary for survival in an anarchic system.
• Military might is a building block of power.
• Militaries fight wars and protect states.
• A large military is necessary for survival.
• A state's military size matters in determining its power.
• A state's military size is not the only factor in determining its power.
• Military might is a key factor in determining a state's power.
• A state's military size is necessary for survival.
• A state's military size is not the only factor in determining its power.
• A state's military size is a building block of power.
• A state's military size is a structural argument.
• The United States has been a dominant power in the Western Hemisphere since the late 19th century.
• The country has gone to great lengths to maintain its dominance, including military intervention and economic sanctions.
• Other countries, such as China and Germany, would also want to dominate their respective regions for similar reasons.
• The structure of the International System, which is anarchic and survival-focused, makes it difficult for states to trust each other and increases the likelihood of conflict.
• Offensive realism, which emphasizes the importance of military capabilities and the use of force to achieve goals, is a common approach to international politics.
• Realists believe that power matters and that states compete for power, while liberals have a more idealistic view of the world.
• There are differences among realists and liberals, with offensive realists emphasizing the use of force and defensive realists focusing on self-defense.
• There are also a variety of liberal theories, including democratic peace theory, which suggests that democracies are less likely to fight each other.
• The choice between realism and liberalism depends on one's perspective on the nature of international politics and the role of power in shaping global affairs.
• Population size and wealth are two key building blocks of power in international relations.
• States with larger populations and greater wealth have an advantage in terms of military capabilities and economic influence.
• The distribution of power among states is largely determined by these factors, with some states being more powerful than others.
• The balance of power in the international system is constantly shifting, with states seeking to increase their influence and maintain their dominance.
• The pursuit of power is a central aspect of international politics, and states will go to great lengths to achieve their goals.
• Survival is the primary goal of states in the anarchic international system.
• States cannot be certain of each other's intentions, and the threat of military force is always present.
• The uncertainty involved in international politics makes states more cautious and less likely to engage in aggressive behavior.
• The pursuit of power is often driven by the need for survival, with states seeking to increase their influence and maintain their position in the system.
• The structure of the international system, which is based on anarchy and competition, is a key factor in shaping global politics.

John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 - YouTube

Introduction

• John Mearsheimer is a professor at the University of Chicago and a controversial thinker in international politics.
• He teaches and writes about the nature of power and war on the global stage.
• Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• He argues that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over power.
• Mearsheimer believes that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.

Power in International Politics

• Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• States are deeply interested in the balance of power and are interested in maximizing how much power they control.
• The question is why states care so much about power.
• In an anarchic system, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• The best way to protect oneself is to be powerful and have as much power as possible over all other states in the system.

Material Factors and Power

• Power is largely a function of material factors such as population size and wealth.
• The United States is considered a great power due to its large population and wealth.
• China was not considered a great power until recently due to its lack of wealth.
• Both population size and wealth are underpinning factors of power.
• Nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.

John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 - YouTube

Thomas Hobbes and the State of Nature

• Thomas Hobbes laid out the concept of life in the state of nature.
• In the state of nature, individuals compete with each other for power.
• The reason individuals do this is because there is no higher authority in the state of nature.
• Hobbs' view is that the way to get out of this terrible situation is to create a state, or the Leviathan.
• The Leviathan is the title of Hobbs' book that explores this concept.

The Problem of Anarchy in International Politics

• Anarchy is the lack of a higher authority in international politics.
• States in an anarchic system have no choice but to compete for power.
• The best way to survive in an anarchic system is to be powerful.
• The Chinese experienced humiliation in the late 1840s to late 1940s due to their weakness in the system.
• Humiliation can lead to resentment and aggression.

The Will to Power

• The will to power is the drive to maximize one's relative power.
• The will to power is an individual's psychology.
• The will to power is a structural argument.
• The will to power is not inherently aggressive.
• The will to power is necessary for survival in an anarchic system.

Military Might and Power

• Military might is a building block of power.
• Militaries fight wars and protect states.
• A large military is necessary for survival.
• A state's military size matters in determining its power.
• A state's military size is not the only factor in determining its power.

The Role of Military Might in International Politics

• Military might is a key factor in determining a state's power.
• A state's military size is necessary for survival.
• A state's military size is not the only factor in determining its power.
• A state's military size is a building block of power.
• A state's military size is a structural argument.

The United States as a Dominant Power

• The United States has been a dominant power in the Western Hemisphere since the late 19th century.
• The country has gone to great lengths to maintain its dominance, including military intervention and economic sanctions.
• Other countries, such as China and Germany, would also want to dominate their respective regions for similar reasons.
• The structure of the International System, which is anarchic and survival-focused, makes it difficult for states to trust each other and increases the likelihood of conflict.
• Offensive realism, which emphasizes the importance of military capabilities and the use of force to achieve goals, is a common approach to international politics.

Realism vs. Liberalism

• Realism and liberalism are two major bodies of theory in international relations.
• Realists believe that power matters and that states compete for power, while liberals have a more idealistic view of the world.
• There are differences among realists and liberals, with offensive realists emphasizing the use of force and defensive realists focusing on self-defense.
• There are also a variety of liberal theories, including democratic peace theory, which suggests that democracies are less likely to fight each other.
• The choice between realism and liberalism depends on one's perspective on the nature of international politics and the role of power in shaping global affairs.

The Role of Population Size and Wealth

• Population size and wealth are two key building blocks of power in international relations.
• States with larger populations and greater wealth have an advantage in terms of military capabilities and economic influence.
• The distribution of power among states is largely determined by these factors, with some states being more powerful than others.
• The balance of power in the international system is constantly shifting, with states seeking to increase their influence and maintain their dominance.
• The pursuit of power is a central aspect of international politics, and states will go to great lengths to achieve their goals.

The Importance of Survival

• Survival is the primary goal of states in the anarchic international system.
• States cannot be certain of each other's intentions, and the threat of military force is always present.
• The uncertainty involved in international politics makes states more cautious and less likely to engage in aggressive behavior.
• The pursuit of power is often driven by the need for survival, with states seeking to increase their influence and maintain their position in the system.
• The structure of the international system, which is based on anarchy and competition, is a key factor in shaping global politics.

Section 1: Introduction to Liberal Theories

• Liberal theories argue that democracies don't fight each other.
• Democratic peace theory is a liberal theory that says that in democracies, leaders are elected and the underlying assumption is that most people want peace, so they will elect peacemakers.
• Realist perspective says that it doesn't matter if the majority of people want peace, the structure of international politics is such that superpowers want to become more powerful and they do that through war.

Section 2: Democratic Peace Theory

• Democracies are in general more peaceful than non-democracies.
• Democracies have a healthy respect for each other and can assess each other's intentions.
• Given these norms, democracies can trust each other and know each other's intentions.
• Realists argue that uncertainty about intentions helps drive the train, but for two democracies, it reduces uncertainty a little bit but not enough to stop the train.

Section 3: Economic Interdependence Theory

• Economic interdependence leads to peace.
• If two countries are economically interdependent and both are getting prosperous as a result of economic intercourse, the last thing they're going to do is start a war.

Section 4: Liberal Institutionalism

• Liberal institutionalism argues that if states get into institutions where they become rule-abiding actors, they will obey the rules that dictate that war is not acceptable.
• If states accept the UN rules on when they can and cannot initiate a war, they will have a more peaceful world.

The Importance of Power in International Politics

• Power is the currency of international relations.
• States are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• The best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

Economic Interdependence and Prosperity

• Economic interdependence is at the root of prosperity.
• Survival is the core variable in the realest story.
• Survival always trumps prosperity.
• Intense security competition between great powers can lead to war despite economic prosperity.
• Survival concerns or security is more important than prosperity.

Realist Views on Power and Competition

• Realists believe that power is the currency of international relations.
• Realists argue that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.
• Realists believe that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• Realists argue that the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Realists believe that survival is the core variable in the realest story.

Offensive and Defensive Realism

• Offensive realists believe that states look for opportunities to gain more power.
• Defensive realists believe that if you try to gain more power, the system will punish you.
• Offensive realists argue that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over power.
• Defensive realists believe that survival is the core variable in the realest story.
• Offensive realists believe that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

The Role of Power in International Politics

• John Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• He argues that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• The best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Mearsheimer argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

The Role of Structural Considerations in International Politics

• Mearsheimer believes that structural considerations play a significant role in international politics.
• He argues that nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.
• Mearsheimer believes that Germany was very powerful and deeply worried about the balance of power in Europe in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
• He believes that structure mattered, but there were other factors at play as well.
• Mearsheimer believes that there is a good chance that World War II would have occurred in the absence of Hitler.

The Role of Human Psychology in International Politics

• Mearsheimer believes that there is some degree of human psychology at play in international politics.
• He argues that resentment over what happened after World War I led to Hitler wielding so much power and starting World War II.
• Mearsheimer believes that the question of what led to Hitler is different from the question of what led to World War II once he was in power.
• He argues that structure was the principal factor driving the train in Hitler's case.
• Mearsheimer believes that there were other factors at play as well, including resentment and the will to power.

The Role of Hitler's Will to Power in International Politics

• Mearsheimer believes that Hitler had what you would call a Will to Power.
• He argues that Hitler was a congenital aggressor and that Napoleon was also a congenital aggressor.
• Mearsheimer believes that Hitler was probably the most murderous leader in recorded history.
• He argues that Hitler's will to power was a significant factor in his actions.
• Mearsheimer believes that Hitler's will to power was driven by structural considerations.

Introduction

• The speaker is John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, discussing his views on power in international politics as outlined in his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and in his writing since then.
• He believes that power is the currency of international relations and states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Mearsheimer argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.

Popularity of Leaders

• Mearsheimer states that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• He argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.
• Mearsheimer states that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• He argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.

Causes of Security Competition

• Offensive realism answers the question why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.
• From a military strategy perspective, you know there's pros and cons to that decision.
• Hitler did think that he could win a quick and decisive victory.
• The question is did he think that he could win a quick and decisive victory and uh he did I mean as did his generals.
• Hitler attacked the Soviet Union because from a military strategy perspective you know there's pros and cons to that decision.

Resistance to Hitler

• There was actually quite a bit of resistance to Hitler in 1938 at the time of Czechoslovakia Munich.
• There was also quite a bit of resistance in September 1939 internally.
• People had doubts they didn't think the ver mock was ready.
• The thought of starting another European War uh was not especially attractive to lots of German policy makers including military leaders.
• There was huge resistance uh in the uh German Army to attacking France uh but that was eventually eliminated because they came up with a clever plan uh the manstein plan.

Invasion of the Soviet Union

• The Soviet Union is where they fail.
• There's hardly any resistance at all.
• To say that they failed the Soviet Union I mean my grand grandfather F I mean from from the Soviet Union you know there's a lot of successes early on so there's poor military I would say uh strategic decisions along the way but it was uh it caught Stalin off guard maybe you can correct me but from my perspective terrifyingly so they could have been successful if certain different decisions were made from a military perspective.
• The Soviet Union is where they fail.
• There's hardly any resistance at all.

The Summer of 1941

• The summer of 1941 was a turning point in World War II.
• The Red Army was in a terrible shape, with Stalin having purged the officer corps and poor performance in Finland.
• Hitler wanted to go into Ukraine, but the main axis was to go to Moscow.
• The Germans won significant tactical victories early on, but if they had focused on going to Moscow as quickly as possible, they could have potentially won the war.

Stalin and the Soviet Union

• Stalin's leadership and the Soviet Union's performance in World War II were crucial to the outcome of the war.
• The Soviet Union fought bravely and with great determination, which was a component of war.
• The counterargument to the Soviet Union's success in World War II is that in World War I, the Russian army disintegrated and the Soviet Union surrendered large amounts of territory.
• The Soviet Union fought like wild dogs in World War II because they were up against a genocidal adversary.

Hitler and Germany

• Hitler wanted to go into Ukraine, but the main axis was to go to Moscow.
• The Germans won significant tactical victories early on, but if they had focused on going to Moscow as quickly as possible, they could have potentially won the war.
• Hitler's leadership and Germany's performance in World War II were crucial to the outcome of the war.

The Battle of Stalingrad

• The Battle of Stalingrad was a turning point in World War II.
• The Soviet Union fought bravely and with great determination, which was a component of war.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a significant event in World War I, where the Soviet Union surrendered large amounts of territory.

The Invasion of the Soviet Union

• The invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany in June 1941 was a devastating event that resulted in the murder of millions of Soviet citizens and soldiers.
• The Soviet Union was not the only target of the Germans, as they also had plans to murder many tens of millions of people, including Poles and Roma.
• The Jews were number one on the genocidal hit list, followed by the Roma and Poles.
• The Soviet Union quickly realized that they were fighting for their lives if they were taken prisoner, and fought like wild dogs.
• The Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of six million Jews, is often told extensively, but the invasion of the Soviet Union was a much grander scam.

The War in Ukraine

• Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022, with the goal of conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into a greater Russia.
• There is no evidence to support the argument that Putin is an imperialist or expansionist, and that Ukraine was the first stop on the train line.
• The conventional wisdom is that Putin is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, but there is no evidence to support this argument.
• The Germans went into Poland in 1939 with only 1.5 million troops, and if Putin were bent on conquering all of Ukraine, he would have needed at least two million troops.
• Putin was not interested in conquering Ukraine, and that's why he is negotiating with Zelensky to end the war.

The Role of NATO Expansion in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

• The video discusses the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with a focus on the role of NATO expansion in the conflict.
• The video argues that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a major cause of the conflict, as it is seen as a threat to Russia's security and influence in the region.
• The video notes that Russia is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine, despite its actions in the conflict.
• The video argues that the West is not principally responsible for the conflict, as it is seen as a response to Russia's aggression.
• The video suggests that there is no evidence to support the idea that Russia is an aggressor or that it is trying to conquer all of Ukraine.

The History of NATO Expansion in Eastern Europe

• The video discusses the history of NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, with a focus on the role of the United States in the process.
• The video notes that the Monroe Doctrine, which states that no great powers from Europe or Asia are allowed to come into the United States' neighborhood, has played a role in shaping NATO's expansion in the region.
• The video argues that Russia is not interested in NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, as it is seen as a threat to its security and influence in the region.
• The video notes that the United States and its allies have a responsibility to understand the consequences of NATO expansion in the region.
• The video suggests that there are people who have argued against NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, including George Kennan, William Perry, Paul Nitza, and others.

The Role of NATO in the Conflict

• The video discusses the role of NATO in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with a focus on the impact of NATO expansion on the conflict.
• The video argues that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a major cause of the conflict, as it is seen as a threat to Russia's security and influence in the region.
• The video notes that Russia is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine, despite its actions in the conflict.
• The video argues that the West is not principally responsible for the conflict, as it is seen as a response to Russia's aggression.
• The video suggests that there is no evidence to support the idea that Russia is an aggressor or that it is trying to conquer all of Ukraine.

The Impact of NATO Expansion on Russia's Security and Influence

• The video discusses the impact of NATO expansion on Russia's security and influence in the region.
• The video argues that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a major cause of the conflict, as it is seen as a threat to Russia's security and influence in the region.
• The video notes that Russia is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine, despite its actions in the conflict.
• The video argues that the West is not principally responsible for the conflict, as it is seen as a response to Russia's aggression.
• The video suggests that there is no evidence to support the idea that Russia is an aggressor or that it is trying to conquer all of Ukraine.

The Role of the United States in the Conflict

• The video discusses the role of the United States in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with a focus on the impact of NATO expansion on the conflict.
• The video argues that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a major cause of the conflict, as it is seen as a threat to Russia's security and influence in the region.
• The video notes that Russia is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine, despite its actions in the conflict.
• The video argues that the West is not principally responsible for the conflict, as it is seen as a response to Russia's aggression.
• The video suggests that there are people who have argued against NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, including George Kennan, William Perry, Paul Nitza, and others.

Section 1: Putin's Interpretation of NATO Expansion

• Putin saw NATO expansion into Ukraine as a declaration of war.
• Merkel opposed NATO expansion into Ukraine because she understood Putin's interpretation.
• The United States and its allies continued to push for NATO expansion despite understanding the potential consequences.
• The expansion of NATO into Ukraine was the most important element of the strategy.
• The strategy had two other dimensions: EU expansion and the color revolution in Ukraine.

Section 2: Putin's Mindset

• Putin does not have aspirations for imperialist conquest or dreams of recreating the Soviet Union.
• Putin accepts the breakup of the Soviet Union and the status quo in Europe, safe for the fact that he did not accept the idea that Ukraine would become part of NATO.
• Power can affect a leader's ability to see the world clearly, but it is difficult to determine the extent to which it has corrupted Putin.
• Putin is a first-class strategist, but he makes mistakes and admits to them.
• The West is dealing with a formidable adversary in Putin, and there is no evidence that he has lost speed or that power has corrupted his thinking about strategic affairs.

Section 3: NATO Expansion and the Color Revolution in Ukraine

• The goal of the strategy was to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia's border.
• NATO expansion was the most important element of the strategy, but it had two other dimensions.
• The first dimension was EU expansion, and the second was the color revolution in Ukraine.
• The basic goal of the color revolution was to turn Ukraine into a pro-Western, liberal democracy that was in the EU and NATO.
• The Russians made it clear that Ukraine in NATO was unacceptable.

Section 4: Putin's Actions and Reactions

• Putin made it clear that Ukraine was not going to become a Western bulwark on their border.
• Putin made it clear that Ukraine in NATO was unacceptable.
• The United States and its allies continued to push for NATO expansion despite understanding the potential consequences.
• The expansion of NATO into Ukraine was the most important element of the strategy.
• The strategy had two other dimensions: EU expansion and the color revolution in Ukraine.

Section 1: Security as a Primary Concern

• John Mearsheimer believes that security is the primary concern for both the United States and Russia.
• He believes that leaders prioritize security or survival over everything else.
• Mearsheimer has a record of saying and thinking that security is the top priority in the run-up to the war in February 2022.
• He believes that Russia is a vulnerable state and that leaders are deeply concerned about its security.
• Mearsheimer thinks that Russia took a considerable amount of time to bring the country back from the brink of collapse and that it played a weak hand in great power competition.

Section 2: The United States as the Unipole

• The United States was the unipole, the most powerful state in the world relative to its competitors.
• The United States remains the most powerful state in the world today due to its geographical location.
• The United States has a tremendous advantage in surviving in any great power competition.
• The situation involving the United States is different from the situation involving Russia.
• The United States is not as vulnerable as Russia and therefore tends to be less sensitive about security.

Section 3: Russia's Sensitivity to Security

• Putin tends to be more sensitive about security than any American president in recent times.
• Europe and China are also involved in the situation, making it complicated.
• The idea of bringing Ukraine up to its border spooked Russia.
• Americans tend to see themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys.
• To be a first-class strategist in international politics, one must be able to put themselves in the shoes of the other side and think about how they think.

Section 4: The Importance of Empathy in International Politics

• Empathy is crucial in international politics to avoid making foolish mistakes.
• The United States could be seen as the bad guys if China is the good guys.
• The Chinese leadership and many Chinese citizens see the world differently if the United States is the bad guys.
• Being able to empathize with others is essential for successful international relations.
• The Chinese leadership and many Chinese citizens see the world differently if the United States is the bad guys.

The Role of Power in International Politics

• John Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations and states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.
• Mearsheimer argues that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power, and nations in relation to each other are essentially in a state of anarchy.
• Mearsheimer believes that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.

NATO Expansion and Russia

• Mearsheimer believes that NATO expansion is a foolish policy that has led to the current conflict in Ukraine.
• He argues that Russia saw the United States as a malign hegemon and what American thinks or any American thinks doesn't matter what matters is what Putin thinks.
• Mearsheimer believes that the drums of War have been beating for some reason NATO expansion has been threatened for some reason so you've talked about NATO expansion being dead so like it doesn't make sense from a geopolitical perspective on the Europe side to expand NATO uh but nevertheless that threat has been echoed.
• He believes that the best you can hope for at this point is it's some point the shooting stops you have a ceasefire and then you have a frozen conflict uh and that Frozen conflict uh will not be highly stable uh and uh the Ukrainians in the west will do everything they can to weaken Russia's position uh and the Russians will go to Great Lengths to not only damage that dysfunctional rum state that Ukraine becomes but the Russians will go go to Great Lengths to sow dissension within the alliance and uh and that includes in terms of transatlantic relations.

The Role of Leadership in Conflict Resolution

• Mearsheimer believes that there is just a lot of death happening and it seems that from an economic perspective from a historic perspective from a human perspective both nations are losing.
• He argues that it is not possible for Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zalinski to sit down and have a man-to-man conversation about the conflict.
• Mearsheimer believes that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble, and the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• He argues that the best you can hope for at this point is it's some point the shooting stops you have a ceasefire and then you have a frozen conflict uh and that Frozen conflict uh will not be highly stable uh and uh the Ukrainians in the west will do everything they can to weaken Russia's position uh and the Russians will go to Great Lengths to not only damage that dysfunctional rum state that Ukraine becomes but the Russians will go go to Great Lengths to sow dissension within the alliance and uh and that includes in terms of transatlantic relations.

The Role of the United States in Resolving the Conflict

• The speaker believes that the United States involvement in the conflict is a problem.
• He argues that the United States should get out of the conflict to allow for a resolution.
• He believes that the United States involvement in the conflict is a real problem.
• He believes that the United States involvement in the conflict is a problem.
• He believes that the United States involvement in the conflict is a problem.

The Role of Negotiations in Resolving the Conflict

• The speaker believes that negotiations are necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that negotiations between the two sides are necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that negotiations between the two sides are necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that negotiations between the two sides are necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that negotiations between the two sides are necessary to resolve the conflict.

The Role of Power in Resolving the Conflict

• The speaker believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• He believes that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• He believes that in an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• He believes that the best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• He believes that population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

The Role of Diplomacy in Resolving the Conflict

• The speaker believes that diplomacy is necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that diplomacy between the two sides is necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that diplomacy between the two sides is necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that diplomacy between the two sides is necessary to resolve the conflict.
• He believes that diplomacy between the two sides is necessary to resolve the conflict.

The Role of the United Nations in Resolving the Conflict

• The speaker does not mention the role of the United Nations in resolving the conflict.

The Role of Power in International Politics

• John Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• He argues that states are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• The best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

Mearsheimer's Views on Ukraine-Russia Conflict

• Mearsheimer wants to conquer Ukraine, but he believes that the best one can hope for is to limit Putin and Russia to annexing the four oblas they've annexed plus Crimea.
• He believes that Ukraine needs to become a truly neutral state and concede that Russia keeps a big chunk of territory.
• Mearsheimer finds it hard to imagine any Ukrainian leader agreeing to this.
• He believes that normalizing economic relationships with Russia is possible, but the tricky question is what about EU expansion.
• Mearsheimer believes that EU expansion is probably a no-no for the Russians because most people don't recognize the military dimension built into it.

Mearsheimer's Views on Leadership and Trust

• Mearsheimer believes that leadership matters in counteracting the structural forces that he talks about.
• He believes that leaders can pick up the phone and make agreements that are good for humanity as a whole and their individual nations in the long term.
• Mearsheimer believes that there's no trust on the Russian side and that has to do with the Minsk agreements.
• He believes that Putin took the Minsk Accord seriously and wanted to shut down the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
• Mearsheimer believes that the level of trust now between Russia and the West is virtually zero as a result of this experience over Minsk.

Trust in Foreign Leaders

• Trusting the West is not an attractive idea for Putin at this point in time.
• Individual humans can trust a leader while still distrusting the West.
• Trust is only going to buy you so much and when you've already betrayed the trust of a leader, you really are not going to be able to rely on trust very much to help you moving forward.
• When people thought the Russians were having all that trouble with propaganda and the Vagner group, Putin was not likely to be overthrown.
• If Putin is replaced, his replacement will be more hawkish and more Hardline than Putin is.

Putin's War Against Ukraine

• Putin was too trusting of the West before the war started.
• Putin has not waged the war against Ukraine as vigorously as one might have expected.
• The Israelis have killed more civilians in Gaza in one month than the Russians have killed over 18 months in Ukraine.
• The idea that Vladimir Putin is waging a punishment campaign and killing on purpose large numbers of civilians is not true.

Ending the Ukraine War

• Many people believe that the best hope for ending the Ukraine war is to remove Vladimir Putin from power.
• Putin was not likely then to be overthrown.
• If he doesn't remain in power and is replaced, his replacement will be more hawkish and more Hardline than Putin is.

Putin's Health

• As long as his health holds up, Putin will remain in power.

Section 1: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

• John Mearsheimer believes that power is the currency of international relations.
• States are deeply interested in maximizing their control over it.
• In an anarchic world, there is no higher authority to turn to if one gets into trouble.
• The best way to protect oneself is to be powerful.
• Population size and wealth are the two key building blocks of power.

Section 2: Interview with Vladimir Putin

• Putin is a straight shooter and very knowledgeable about history.
• He has simple theories in his head about how the world works.
• Putin would level with you and all you would have to do is just figure out what all the right questions are.
• Putin is not trusting the West any more than he has by way of advice.
• Putin would not mobilize the Russian military before late September 2022, despite negotiations breaking down.

Section 3: Questions to Ask Putin

• Why was he so foolish in trusting Poroshenko and Merkel in the Minsk Accords?
• Why didn't he mobilize the Russian military before late September 2022?
• Where does he see this conflict headed?
• What is the best strategy for Russia if the Ukrainians will not agree to neutrality?
• Does he see taking half of Ukraine as a possibility?

Section 4: Relationship with China

• If the United States had not driven Putin into the arms of the Chinese, what would his relations with China be?
• How would he think about his relations with China if the United States and its European allies had created a security architecture in Europe?
• What would be the best way to deter an adversary if I'm worried about them coming after me?
• Having a nuclear deterrent would be very effective at convincing an adversary not to attack me.
• If you're Russia and I'm Ukraine, I'm far weaker than you.

The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Offensive Realism

• Nuclear weapons change the calculus of offensive realism by making it much less likely that a great power would aggress against another great power.
• The presence of nuclear weapons makes it much less likely that a great power would aggress against another great power.
• Nuclear weapons are used for manipulation, risk, and demonstration purposes in a mad world.
• During the Cold War, NATO and the Soviet Union had an assured destruction capability.
• NATO used a handful of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to signal their resolve and put both sides on the slippery slope to oblivion.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Mad World

• In a mad world, nuclear weapons are used for manipulation, risk, and demonstration purposes.
• The argument was that NATO would use a small number of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to signal their resolve and put both sides on the slippery slope to oblivion.
• The last clear chance to avoid Armageddon rested with the Soviet Union.
• If Russia were losing in Ukraine, they would have used nuclear weapons and pursued a manipulation of risk strategy.
• The question is how Russia would have used nuclear weapons in this scenario.

The Threat of Nuclear Escalation

• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would spook everyone and lead to an arms race.
• The threat of nuclear escalation is the most terrifying aspect of nuclear weapons.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a game-changer.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the rules of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the laws of war.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Conflict

• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the laws of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the rules of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a game-changer.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principles of proportionality.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Mad World

• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the laws of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the rules of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a game-changer.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principles of proportionality.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Conflict

• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the laws of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the rules of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a game-changer.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principles of proportionality.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

The Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Conflict

• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the laws of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the rules of war.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a game-changer.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principles of proportionality.
• The use of nuclear weapons in a conflict would be a violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

Russian Naval Assets in the Black Sea

• Russian naval assets in the Black Sea are capable of attacking Russian forces in Ukraine.
• NATO versus Russia is another way of saying the United States versus Russia.
• Nuclear weapons are a key factor in a great power war.
• The escalation dynamics of a war between NATO and Russia are uncertain.
• Communication between leaders is crucial to stopping an escalation in a nuclear crisis.

Cuban Missile Crisis

• The Cuban Missile Crisis was a nuclear crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union.
• Kennedy put out the word "no" to prevent Soviet aircraft from penetrating American airspace.
• There was a lack of experience in how escalation plays out in a nuclear crisis.
• The human species is a theoretical enterprise, and the survival of the human species is not guaranteed.
• Empires rise and fall, but the survival of the human species is uncertain.

Situation in Israel

• The main reason for the attack on Israel by Hamas was the suffocating occupation.
• There have been multiple Palestinian uprisings against Israel.
• The attack on Israel was likely due to the fact that the Israelis, Saudis, and Americans were working together to foster another Abraham Accord.
• The Abraham Accords with regard to Saudi Arabia are a relatively new phenomenon.
• The planning for the attack on Israel likely took place for several years.

Watch the video on YouTube:
John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401 - YouTube