"The argument against it is that smaller countries also have security interests. The reason we clamored to join NATO was precisely because Russia was already being threatening. So this is the hole in Mearsheimer’s argument; it’s as if only great powers existed. But there are other countries in the world, too."
You can criticize Mearsheimer for various things, but that is not a hole in his argument. Weak countries don't factor in to his analysis because he outlines power dynamics. If you don't have any, you don't factor in.
"it would be in Germany's interest to put its rearmament in a European context—European decision-making about the use of European armed forces, including the German armed forces—so as to make this German and European rearmament safe for Europe and for Germany. It's difficult to conceive of all that, because it would require more compromises on sovereignty and, some people even tell me, changes to the German constitution."
Lol. Germany should rebuild an army and then turn it over to Poland along with their sovereignty. Sounds very convenient.
I think Mearsheimer's views are very important. First, most Americans have no idea of what's happened in Europe and Russia since the Cold War ended. I don't think you can judge this war without some uderstanding of the dynamics between and within Europe and Russia since the end of the Cold War. The issue is not 'blame' but coming up with an objective understanding of how a crisis develops. Unfortunately, the US did not learn the lessons of Vietnam and apply them to Iraq and Afghanistan forty years later. Russia' been invaded many times from the West and through Ukraine. Ignoring Russia's years of stating that having NATO in its backyard was a security threat to them trashed relations and suffocated diplomacy. Americans have to face that these national security issues are complicated and that other countries have legitimate issues the US (esp.as an uber-power) must respect or the next crisis will be in East Asia.
"The argument against it is that smaller countries also have security interests. The reason we clamored to join NATO was precisely because Russia was already being threatening. So this is the hole in Mearsheimer’s argument; it’s as if only great powers existed. But there are other countries in the world, too."
You can criticize Mearsheimer for various things, but that is not a hole in his argument. Weak countries don't factor in to his analysis because he outlines power dynamics. If you don't have any, you don't factor in.
"it would be in Germany's interest to put its rearmament in a European context—European decision-making about the use of European armed forces, including the German armed forces—so as to make this German and European rearmament safe for Europe and for Germany. It's difficult to conceive of all that, because it would require more compromises on sovereignty and, some people even tell me, changes to the German constitution."
Lol. Germany should rebuild an army and then turn it over to Poland along with their sovereignty. Sounds very convenient.
I think Mearsheimer's views are very important. First, most Americans have no idea of what's happened in Europe and Russia since the Cold War ended. I don't think you can judge this war without some uderstanding of the dynamics between and within Europe and Russia since the end of the Cold War. The issue is not 'blame' but coming up with an objective understanding of how a crisis develops. Unfortunately, the US did not learn the lessons of Vietnam and apply them to Iraq and Afghanistan forty years later. Russia' been invaded many times from the West and through Ukraine. Ignoring Russia's years of stating that having NATO in its backyard was a security threat to them trashed relations and suffocated diplomacy. Americans have to face that these national security issues are complicated and that other countries have legitimate issues the US (esp.as an uber-power) must respect or the next crisis will be in East Asia.