inertia
Super Member
1.) Great Power Politics:
Mearsheimer’s dedication to the philosophy of realism is deterministically unworkable. Why?
- Although a given nation's architecture of power provides a format that contributes to its decision-making, the sole aim is not the maximization of power because this deterministic view gives no place for the decision-makers to make their own contributions. Nations are not robots that make preprogrammed power maneuvers regardless of who is in power.
2.) The term "great nations" is never defined by Mearsheimer especially when it comes to Russia.
- Russia is a declining power even though it's current capacity as a major oil exporter exists along with its status as nuclear power. The great nations that are gaining in status and power have decided to contribute to the NATO alliance and they have no obligation to safeguard Russia's security interests. This remains a reality even as alternative energy resources continue to gain momentum in the energy space. It's up to Russia to change its dependence on oil exports, and the EU now has additional motivation to change its energy strategy. Concerning Russia's security anxiety, history records "the U.S. and most other NATO nations (have) no desire to invite Ukraine to join the alliance"; yet, Mearsheimer continues to contend that Russia's dominating fear is that Ukraine will join NATO.
3.) Mearsheimer’s premise that power expansion by the "great nations" will deterministically lead to war doesn't reflect what has occured between the United States and Russia in history.
- Although the nation's interests collided through proxy wars and occasional near-miss full-scale confrontations, the United States and Russia never declared war or went to war with each other. The nations fully understood the risks of a nuclear confrontation.
Reference with a lot more details ----> here
___
Mearsheimer’s dedication to the philosophy of realism is deterministically unworkable. Why?
- Although a given nation's architecture of power provides a format that contributes to its decision-making, the sole aim is not the maximization of power because this deterministic view gives no place for the decision-makers to make their own contributions. Nations are not robots that make preprogrammed power maneuvers regardless of who is in power.
2.) The term "great nations" is never defined by Mearsheimer especially when it comes to Russia.
- Russia is a declining power even though it's current capacity as a major oil exporter exists along with its status as nuclear power. The great nations that are gaining in status and power have decided to contribute to the NATO alliance and they have no obligation to safeguard Russia's security interests. This remains a reality even as alternative energy resources continue to gain momentum in the energy space. It's up to Russia to change its dependence on oil exports, and the EU now has additional motivation to change its energy strategy. Concerning Russia's security anxiety, history records "the U.S. and most other NATO nations (have) no desire to invite Ukraine to join the alliance"; yet, Mearsheimer continues to contend that Russia's dominating fear is that Ukraine will join NATO.
3.) Mearsheimer’s premise that power expansion by the "great nations" will deterministically lead to war doesn't reflect what has occured between the United States and Russia in history.
- Although the nation's interests collided through proxy wars and occasional near-miss full-scale confrontations, the United States and Russia never declared war or went to war with each other. The nations fully understood the risks of a nuclear confrontation.
Reference with a lot more details ----> here
___