His main argument? Well, it's in the subtitle: a return to "instability in Europe".
If both the United States and Soviet Union retrench from Europe, dissolving both NATO and the Warsaw pact, then 👇
To start, I think we can acknowledge that Mearsheimer was somewhat right about the increase in violence on the continent following the end of the Cold War. Consider...
...the Wars of the Former Yugoslavia (Croatian Independence, Bosnia, Kosovo)...
...which also witnessed the Srebenica genocide.
Consider the annexation of Crimea...
...and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
And in terms of general "instability" and fracturing in Europe, let's not forget Brexit.
While it seems that Mearsheimer's overall prediction had merit to it, one needs to look again at the logic underpinning his pessimistic view.
He argued that, with the Cold War ending, Europe was heading back to a system of multipolarity...*IF* the US and Soviet Union withdrew.
Let's break down the argument.
Why is multipolarity more unstable? His view is basically that bipolarity (i.e. USA v USSR) -> equal local balance of power in Europe - > deterrence -> no fighting.
Here's the thing. Mearsheimer recognized that @NATO might stick around, perhaps even expand. This acknowledgement is found in footnote 1
But Mearsheimer, in the second part of the footnote, thought that Germany would oppose this move.
In my view, that's what Mearsheimer misjudged: the interest within Germany (and among the NATO allies in general, particularly the US) to keep and expand NATO.
Given the violence that DID erupt in Europe following the Cold War and the dissolving of the Warsaw pact, one could only imagine what might have happened if, as Mearsheimer predicted, NATO had also dissolved.
That's why I think he was more right than wrong.
This is also why I've always been a bit perplexed by the "End of the Cold War undermines Realism" claims. I mean, were they really that wrong? cambridge.org/core/journals/…
As will be discussed in subsequent threads, this piece was the start of an actual "Great Debate" among IR theorists, particularly between Mearsheimer and Bob Keohane.
For now, I'll just say that Mearsheimer's predictions, as found in this piece, hold up well.
[END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I pointed out the difficulties in answering that question, namely that we don't actually know when deterrence works (i.e. selection bias)... tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
R2P is "the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". This means nations can't hide behind the barrier of "sovereignty" to stop interventions.
The House passed a defense supplement for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
Ukraine aid was the most controversial portion of the supplement and might cost Speaker Johnson his leadership position.
Why did he do it?
[THREAD]
As is being reported, Johnson stated “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys. My son is going to begin in the Naval Academy this fall....This is not a game, this is not a joke.” cnn.com/2024/04/21/pol…
While it's partly personal for Johnson, his remarks emphasize a larger point, one that I raised in a recent @WPReview column: cutting off US aid won't end the war. Instead, it would embolden Russia. worldpoliticsreview.com/us-ukraine-aid…