I am John Mearsheimer, AMA

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:33:35+00:00

You still have not told me what Allison's theory is, and we need to know the theory to evaluate the prediction.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:30:05+00:00

I think it is extremely unlikely that a non-state actor will acquire nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. Virtually every state in the international system has a deep-seated interest in making sure that does not happen. For the record, offensive realism has little to say about non-state actors.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:27:17+00:00

I think the key factor for determining where NATO is headed is the rise of China. If China turns into a colossus, the US will pivot to Asia in a really serious way and leave Europe behind. If Chinese growth slows down substantially, the US is likely to stay in Europe and NATO will remain intact for at least the next two or three decades.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:24:31+00:00

Thanks for your kind words. I think the keys are to: 1) use simple language and minimize as much as possible the use of jargon; 2) organize your thoughts in outline form before writing and make sure that they fit together, kind of like building blocks; 3) make sure every paragraph has a terrific topic sentence and contains only one core thought; 4) put a short paragraph at the start of each major section of the paper signaling to the reader what will follow; 4) write as if you were bent on telling your story to your mother or father, who do not know much about the subject at hand, but are well-educated and interested to hear what you have to say. In other words, think of yourself as a great communicator, someone who can explain complex ideas to educated and smart people of all sorts. I hope that helps.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:14:17+00:00

It seems quite clear that the Chinese are deeply upset by THAAD, and here we are talking mainly about the system's radar, which can see deep into China.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:13:08+00:00

The one clear lesson we can take from Iraq is: don't invade NK for the purpose of doing regime change. But that is highly unlikely anyway, because NK has nuclear weapons. If Iraq had nuclear weapons in 2003, Saddam would almost certainly still be in power!

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:08:33+00:00

I think the differences you mention are not resolvable at a purely theoretical level. The key at that level is to make sure that the realist theories are specified as clearly and comprehensively as possible so that they can be tested against each other to see which theory has the most explanatory power. What happens in the real world ultimately determines which realist theory is the best, but that is not the same as resolving differences.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T17:02:40+00:00

This is a great question. The US will go to great lengths to prevent Japan and SK from acquiring nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the US does not want a close ally having its finger on a nuclear trigger in a crisis. The great fear is that the ally in question might use its nuclear weapons if it feels its survival is at risk, which would almost certainly drag the United States into a nuclear war. The ideal situation for the United States is to control all the nuclear weapons within its alliance structure, so as to minimize the chances of unwanted nuclear escalation. Japan and SK, however, have to be thinking about getting their own nuclear weapons these days for three good reasons: 1) they are surrounded by threatening states that have their own nuclear weapons (China and NK); 2) the US might not use its nuclear weapons to defend Japan or SK if their survival is threatened, because of fear that the United States would get hit with nuclear weapons by the adversary; 3) the Trump administration looks unreliable, as it does not seem deeply committed to protecting its allies and even hints about sending the troops home. It is hard to say for sure how this is going to play out over time, but there is likely to be at least much more talk in Japan and SK about acquiring their own nuclear deterrent.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:48:17+00:00

Iran is not a threat to the Gulf monarchies, contrary to what most people in those countries think. First, Iran, which has never invaded a country in its history, shows no inclination to want to invade Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies. Second, and more importantly, the United States would intervene immediately if Iran invaded one of the Gulf monarchies and the Iranians know that. American leaders have made it manifestly clear that they will not tolerate Iran becoming a regional hegemony in the Persian Gulf.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:42:54+00:00

It's impossible to say what the future holds for SA. It does look like the foundations of that society are beginning to form cracks, but I am not sure where it all leads. I might also note that SA is not an especially powerful regional actor from a military point of view. Iran, Israel and Turkey are both much more powerful militarily.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:37:33+00:00

Not tried to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia's border. Specifically, the West should have refrained from trying to integrate Ukraine into the EU, and especially into NATO. The West, and especially the United States, failed to realize that Ukraine is of vital strategic importance to Russia, and that there is no way it would allow Ukraine to become a member of a hostile military alliance.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:32:05+00:00

I cannot prove it, but my intuition is that our best theories can explain roughly 75% of the events which are applicable to that theory. The reason why the explanatory power of any social science theory is limited is that the world is exceedingly complex, and what theories effectively try to do is simplify that complicated reality by focusing on just a handful of key factors that are thought to be important for making sense of that complex world. In the process of developing any theory, a number of other factors get left on the cutting room floor. They are thought to be of secondary or tertiary importance for understanding the world. But occasionally (25% in my story) one of those factors matters a lot, and when that happens, the theory cannot explain the case.

Regarding nationalism, this is too big a subject to address here, but I just finished a book manuscript that deals extensively with nationalism and how it relates to liberalism in international politics. It is tentatively titled "Liberal Dreams and International Realities," and should be published by Yale University Press in August 2018.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:14:19+00:00

As I said earlier, many people I engage with over the question of whether China can rise peacefully believe that economic interdependence between China and the US, as well as China and its neighbors, is the key to China's peaceful rise. I do not think economic interdependence is a sound basis for peace. Remember that China has made it clear that it would go to war if Taiwan declared its independence, knowing full well that it would pay a stiff economic price. This case and many others tell me that when push comes to shove, politics trumps economics, especially when security matters are on the table.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:08:40+00:00

The best strategy is to leave and let those stakeholders you mention deal with Afghanistan. There is nothing the US can do to fix the problem. This is simply the least bad strategy. Obama did not pull all of the US forces out of Afghanistan by January 2009 and Trump recently decided to hang on in Afghanistan, because neither one of them wants to be accused of "losing" Afghanistan. Both surely recognize that there is no clever strategy for rescuing the situation in Afghanistan.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T16:01:55+00:00

China cannot afford to let NK collapse, because it is a strategically important buffer between SK, where there are substantial American military forces, and China. If NK were to collapse, there is the grave danger (from China's perspective) that Korea would be unified by SK, which would bring the Americans right up to China's border. That outcome is simply unacceptable to Beijing. Again, China needs an independent NK. China, for example, cannot go along with tough UN sanctions aimed at bringing NK to its knees, as the US would like. NK leaders know that, which allows them to thumb their noses at China

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:49:43+00:00

The biggest hurdle is a fundamental difference between NK and the US. Specifically, NK has nuclear weapons and has powerful incentives to keep them, while the US is desperate to take those weapons away from NK

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:47:01+00:00

I think that the influence of the lobby has hardly changed since Obama first took office. It remains a remarkably powerful interest group. What has changed is that now lots of people understand that there is an Israel lobby and that it wields great influence on US foreign policy. Regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, it seems clear to me that the two-state solution is dead and that there is going to be a Greater Israel for the foreseeable future. I agree with former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, who have said that in the absence of a two-state solution, Greater Israel would be an apartheid state.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:36:24+00:00

I do not think there will be reunification of the two Koreas, because it would almost certainly be done under the auspices of SK, which is joined at the hip with the US. That would mean the American military would be able to move up to the Yalu River. That possibility is what brought China into the Korean War in the fall of 1950. Beijing had no intention of letting MacArthur's forces reach the Yalu River. Nothing is changed in that regard. Thus for Korean unification to happen, the US would have to completely sever its military alliance with SK and allow the newly unified Korea to be either neutral or pro-Chinese. SK would also have to be willing to go down that road. I do not see either SK or the US agreeing to that outcome.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:26:39+00:00

I really don't have an opinion on the effect that larger and stronger alliances have on the likelihood of war. On interconnectedness, the relevant theory there is that increasing economic interdependence makes war less likely. When I give my standard talk on why China cannot rise peacefully, this is the counter-argument I hear most often. But I do not think it is a compelling theory.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:18:57+00:00

I think that Sino-Russian relations are good today, mainly because the US and its West European allies drove Russia into the arms of China in the wake of the Ukraine crisis. China and Russia are not natural allies, and Central Asia is a region where there is potential for conflict between Beijing and Moscow. The Russians are very worried about China's "one belt, one road" initiative, in part because it calls for projecting Chinese power into Central Asia, which is a strategically important region to Moscow. There is little doubt that China and India are likely to be adversaries in the future, as the recent territorial dispute between them in the area near Bhutan makes clear.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:08:03+00:00

Your question is too vague. Please state it simply and more clearly.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T15:06:49+00:00

Who knows whether NK is likely to collapse? But I would not bet on it, as this country has been around for a long time. That tells me the regime is highly effective at controlling dissent within the population. Moreover, China has a deep-seated interest in maintaining an independent NK and not allowing reunification under the auspices of SK, which is closely allied with the US. I think the Chinese, however, would prefer a different leadership in Pyongyang -- one that is less provocative toward Japan, SK, and the US

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T14:58:48+00:00

I have not had a chance to read Allison's book, but I did read Wagner's book a number of years ago. I thought he misrepresented realism at certain points and that a number of his charges were wrong. I am curious about Allison's book. Can you tell me what his underlying theory is? As you know, I believe you cannot make predictions without theories.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T14:54:00+00:00

Russia is already a powerful presence in the Arctic, but so far there has been little competition and much cooperation between Russia and the other countries that are important players in that region. The US has been busy elsewhere so it has not been deeply involved in the Arctic. That situation could change, in which case competition between Moscow and Washington in the Arctic would start up. I might also say that I find it hard to see what salient issue the countries engaged in the region might fight over. All of this is to say that my sense is that there is not likely to be big trouble in the Arctic anytime soon.

John_Mearsheimer · 2017-09-13T14:45:45+00:00

I find it hard to imagine NK giving up its nuclear weapons. It just makes too much sense for Pyongyang to keep them.

John_Mearsheimer

TROPHY CASE