TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).
Check out more of these AI-generated essays
The Realist View of Geopolitics
Assessing the Criticisms and Implications
Frank Visser / ChatGPT-3.5
Me to ChatGPT:
The realist school of thought in international relations posits that states are primarily driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power in a world marked by anarchy. Prominent realist scholar John Mearsheimer has recently offered a controversial interpretation of two ongoing conflicts: the Russo-Ukraine war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mearsheimer argues that the United States' strong alliances with Ukraine and Israel have played a role in provoking these conflicts and that they lack foreseeable solutions. Moreover, he contends that these engagements divert U.S. attention from its primary security concern: China. This essay will explore Mearsheimer's realist perspective on these issues, examine the criticisms it has received, and assess the implications for U.S. foreign policy.
Mearsheimer's Realist View
John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in the realist tradition, suggests that great powers often pursue policies that advance their national interests, even if these actions lead to regional instability. In the case of Ukraine, Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. and NATO's efforts to integrate Ukraine into Western institutions have exacerbated tensions with Russia. He asserts that the expansion of NATO eastward, including discussions of Ukraine's potential membership, triggered Russian fears and eventually led to the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
Similarly, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mearsheimer contends that the U.S.'s unwavering support for Israel has hindered the prospects of a peaceful resolution. He asserts that this support has emboldened Israel to maintain its occupation of Palestinian territories and has fueled Palestinian resistance, particularly in the form of Hamas' attacks. Mearsheimer suggests that the United States' alignment with Israel has discouraged Israel from making concessions for peace.
In both cases, Mearsheimer asserts that these conflicts have no foreseeable solutions. He argues that the U.S.'s involvement in these disputes has been detrimental to its interests and has diverted its focus from the rising challenge of China in the Asia-Pacific region.
Criticism of Mearsheimer's Views
Mearsheimer's realist interpretation of these conflicts has not been without its critics. Several key criticisms have been raised:
Oversimplification of Complex Conflicts:
Critics argue that Mearsheimer's realist framework oversimplifies complex conflicts by reducing them to the actions of great powers. In the case of the Russo-Ukraine war, they contend that it neglects the aspirations of Ukrainians for independence and self-determination, as well as Russia's role in fostering unrest in Eastern Ukraine. Similarly, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critics argue that it downplays the historical, religious, and cultural dimensions of the conflict, focusing solely on U.S. support for Israel.
Limited Agency of Smaller States:
Critics also assert that Mearsheimer's analysis often downplays the agency of smaller states in shaping their destinies. In the case of Ukraine, they argue that it disregards the Ukrainian government's desire for closer ties with the West and its efforts to join Western institutions. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critics contend that it overlooks the actions and decisions of both Israelis and Palestinians in perpetuating the conflict.
Neglect of Normative Factors:
Mearsheimer's realist perspective tends to neglect normative factors, such as human rights and international law, which are significant in contemporary international relations. Critics argue that overlooking these aspects can undermine efforts to promote peace, justice, and stability in conflict zones.
Skeptical of Diplomacy:
Mearsheimer's realist view tends to be skeptical of diplomacy and negotiations, emphasizing the pursuit of national interest through power politics. Critics argue that this approach may hinder diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts and promote cooperation.
Simplistic Pivot Argument:
Some critics question Mearsheimer's assertion that U.S. engagement in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict prevents it from pivoting to confront China. They argue that the U.S. can and does manage multiple foreign policy priorities simultaneously, and these engagements do not necessarily preclude a focus on China.
Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
Mearsheimer's realist view has significant implications for U.S. foreign policy:
Reevaluation of Alliances:
If the U.S. takes Mearsheimer's view seriously, it may reconsider its alliances and commitments in regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East. This could lead to a reassessment of NATO's expansion and U.S. military aid to Israel.
Focus on Great Power Competition:
Embracing a realist perspective may encourage the U.S. to prioritize its competition with China more assertively. This could involve redirecting resources, attention, and diplomatic efforts toward the Asia-Pacific region.
Diplomacy vs. Realism:
The debate between realist calculations of national interest and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions will persist. Policymakers will need to balance these competing perspectives to address conflicts effectively.
Consideration of Normative Values:
Mearsheimer's view raises questions about the role of normative values in U.S. foreign policy. Policymakers will need to weigh the importance of promoting democratic values and human rights against the realist pursuit of national interest.
John Mearsheimer's realist perspective on geopolitics, as applied to the Russo-Ukraine war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has sparked intense debate. While it offers a lens through which to analyze these conflicts in terms of great power dynamics and national interest, it faces criticism for oversimplification, neglect of smaller states' agency, and skepticism toward diplomacy. The implications for U.S. foreign policy are substantial, potentially leading to a reevaluation of alliances and a greater emphasis on great power competition. Ultimately, the debate between realism and other approaches in international relations will continue to shape U.S. foreign policy decisions and responses to global conflicts.
Isn't it precisely the power play of the US in Ukraine and the Middle East that got it into trouble? How does that match or contradict Maersheimers view of offensive realism?
John Mearsheimer's offensive realism, which is a subset of the realist school of thought, indeed argues that states, driven by their own security concerns and pursuit of power, engage in power politics and aim to maximize their relative power in the international system. In the context of the U.S. involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East, Mearsheimer's offensive realism can be applied to understand how power dynamics and security concerns have played a significant role in shaping these conflicts.
U.S. Involvement in Ukraine:
From an offensive realist perspective, the U.S. and NATO's efforts to expand influence and institutions into Eastern Europe, including discussions of Ukraine's potential NATO membership, can be seen as a manifestation of great power competition. The U.S. sought to extend its sphere of influence and increase its security by expanding NATO. However, from Russia's perspective, this was perceived as a direct threat to its security and influence in its neighboring region.
In this sense, Mearsheimer's view aligns with the argument that the U.S. engaged in a power play in Ukraine by attempting to draw the country into its sphere of influence. This move, according to Mearsheimer's offensive realism, provoked Russia's counteractions, such as the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine.
U.S. Involvement in the Middle East:
In the case of the Middle East, U.S. support for Israel is also consistent with offensive realism. The U.S. has viewed Israel as a strategic ally in a region with significant geopolitical importance due to its oil reserves and the broader dynamics of Middle Eastern politics. This support has been driven by a desire to maintain influence and ensure access to vital resources.
However, from a realist perspective, the U.S. backing of Israel has also contributed to regional instability. It has fueled resentment among Arab states and Palestinian groups, leading to conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S.'s military interventions in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, have further destabilized the region and contributed to anti-American sentiment.
In summary, Mearsheimer's offensive realism aligns with the idea that the U.S.'s power-oriented actions in Ukraine and the Middle East played a role in getting it into trouble. These actions, driven by national security considerations and the pursuit of influence, can be seen as provocative in the eyes of other great powers and regional actors. However, it's important to note that while offensive realism provides insights into the motivations behind these actions, it does not necessarily prescribe whether they were wise or effective strategies for achieving U.S. national interests. Critics may argue that pursuing power in this manner can lead to unintended consequences and conflicts, as we have seen in these regions.
I am still puzzled by Maersheimers point of view. If power play has gotten the US into trouble, and global realism describes this behavior as what global powers typically do, does he approve of it?
John Mearsheimer's realist perspective, particularly his variant of offensive realism, doesn't necessarily imply approval or disapproval of a state's pursuit of power and security through power politics. Instead, it seeks to explain and understand the behavior of states in the international system based on their perceived national interests and the structural constraints of the system itself.
Mearsheimer, like other realist scholars, approaches international relations as a realm where states are primarily concerned with their own survival and security. In this view, states will engage in actions aimed at increasing their relative power and ensuring their own safety, often within the bounds of what the international system allows. This perspective doesn't pass moral judgment on such behavior; it simply analyzes it as a fundamental characteristic of the international system.
So, when Mearsheimer describes how the pursuit of power and security has gotten the U.S. into trouble in certain situations, it is not necessarily an endorsement or criticism of those actions. Instead, it's an analytical framework for understanding why states behave the way they do in the global arena.
In academic scholarship and policy analysis, the realist perspective serves as a tool for dissecting international relations and assessing the motivations and consequences of state actions. Whether a specific action is considered wise or appropriate from a normative or ethical standpoint is a separate question, and realists themselves may differ in their personal opinions on such matters. They may acknowledge that certain actions, driven by the pursuit of power and security, can lead to conflicts or unintended consequences, but their primary focus is on explaining the behavior of states in the international system based on their interests and the constraints of that system.
How does Maersheimer describe the pivot to China, that has been proclaimed as central to US foreign policy since Obama? Does he approve of the encirclement of China by US military bases or would he predict this would spell trouble, as it did in the case of Ukraine and Israel?
John Mearsheimer's views on the pivot to China and U.S. military bases surrounding China can be understood through the lens of his offensive realist perspective. While Mearsheimer does not necessarily approve or disapprove of specific foreign policy actions, his framework helps analyze the motivations, implications, and potential consequences of such actions.
Pivot to China:
From an offensive realist standpoint, the pivot to China can be seen as a response to China's growing power and influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Mearsheimer's theory would suggest that great powers like the United States often react to the rise of potential competitors by taking steps to maintain or expand their own power and influence. In this case, the U.S. pivot to Asia is driven by the desire to counterbalance China's influence and ensure its continued dominance in the region.
Mearsheimer's view would align with the idea that the U.S. pivot to Asia is a natural response to the changing power dynamics in the international system. He might argue that failing to do so could potentially allow China to become a dominant regional power, which could be detrimental to U.S. interests.
U.S. Military Bases Surrounding China:
Mearsheimer's offensive realism would view the presence of U.S. military bases surrounding China as part of a broader strategy aimed at enhancing American security and deterring potential threats. This is consistent with the realist belief that states seek to maximize their own security by expanding their military capabilities and influence in strategic regions.
However, Mearsheimer's framework does not make normative judgments about the desirability or wisdom of such military deployments. Instead, it focuses on the structural logic of states seeking to maximize their relative power. From his perspective, these bases are a manifestation of great power competition, similar to the way NATO expansion in Eastern Europe was seen as provocative by Russia.
It's important to note that while Mearsheimer's offensive realism helps us understand why the U.S. may pursue these actions, it does not provide a definitive prediction of the consequences. Like any foreign policy strategy, the pivot to Asia and the deployment of military bases come with risks and uncertainties. Critics might argue that such actions could lead to tensions, arms races, or even conflicts with China, as they did in the cases of Ukraine and the Middle East.
In summary, Mearsheimer's offensive realist perspective would not necessarily predict the success or failure of the U.S. pivot to China or the consequences of military bases surrounding China. It primarily offers a framework for analyzing the motivations and structural dynamics behind such foreign policy decisions. The actual outcomes depend on a complex interplay of factors, including the actions and reactions of other states in the international system.
So is it fair to say that Mearsheimer doesn't have the conceptual tools to describe how the unipolar world changes into a multipolar world (as is the stated preference of Russia and China) or to explore how states can learn to cooperate instead of compete with eachother?
John Mearsheimer's offensive realism primarily focuses on explaining the behavior of states in a system characterized by anarchy and power competition among great powers. While his framework is useful for understanding certain aspects of international relations, it does have limitations when it comes to describing the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one and exploring mechanisms for cooperation among states.
Transition from Unipolarity to Multipolarity:
Mearsheimer's offensive realism is less well-suited for describing transitions in the international system because it tends to emphasize the enduring nature of great power competition. In the context of a unipolar world transitioning to a multipolar one, his framework may not provide a nuanced understanding of the evolving dynamics.
Such transitions involve changes in the distribution of power, the emergence of new great powers, and shifts in the balance of power. These complexities may not be fully captured by offensive realism, which primarily focuses on explaining how states seek to maximize their power and security in a given system.
Mearsheimer's offensive realism is primarily geared towards explaining why states often engage in competition and security-seeking behavior. It is less oriented towards exploring mechanisms for cooperation. While realist theories acknowledge that cooperation can occur when it aligns with states' interests, they tend to downplay the prospects for enduring and meaningful cooperation.
In contrast, other theories and perspectives in international relations, such as liberalism and constructivism, provide conceptual tools for understanding how states can learn to cooperate and develop institutions and norms that promote peaceful interaction. These perspectives emphasize the role of international institutions, shared norms, diplomacy, and interdependence in fostering cooperation among states.
In summary, it's fair to say that John Mearsheimer's offensive realism is not the most suitable framework for describing the transition from unipolarity to multipolarity or for exploring mechanisms of cooperation among states. While it offers insights into power politics and security-seeking behavior, it may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in these processes. To analyze these aspects, one may need to draw on a broader range of theoretical perspectives within the field of international relations.
Is Maersheimer's view of the nature realistic or is it merely cynical? Does it preclude changes in terms of cooperation and global responsibility among nations, given that we face global problems such as climate change?
John Mearsheimer's view of international relations, rooted in offensive realism, can be characterized as realistic in the sense that it focuses on the competitive and self-interested behavior of states within the anarchic international system. However, whether it is seen as merely cynical or not depends on one's perspective.
Realistic Perspective: Mearsheimer's offensive realism is realistic in the sense that it acknowledges the role of power and self-interest in shaping state behavior. It recognizes that states often prioritize their own security and survival, engage in competition for relative power, and seek to maximize their national interests within the constraints of the international system. This perspective resonates with historical and contemporary examples of state behavior.
Cynicism or Pessimism: Some critics of Mearsheimer's offensive realism view it as overly cynical or pessimistic because it tends to emphasize the prevalence of conflict and power politics in international relations. By focusing on the competitive aspects of state behavior, it may downplay the potential for cooperation, diplomacy, and the pursuit of common interests.
Critics argue that while power considerations are undoubtedly a part of international relations, they are not the only factors at play. Issues such as global problems (e.g., climate change, pandemics, terrorism) and shared interests can motivate states to work together and cooperate.
Cooperation and Global Responsibility: Mearsheimer's offensive realism does not preclude changes in terms of cooperation and global responsibility among nations. While it highlights the competitive aspects of state behavior, it does not deny the possibility of cooperation when it aligns with states' interests.
In fact, states do cooperate on various global issues, including climate change. The Paris Agreement, for example, represents a multilateral effort to address climate change through cooperation and shared responsibility. States recognize that certain problems are transnational and require collective action.
However, offensive realism may view such cooperation as driven by a convergence of interests or as a temporary arrangement rather than as an indication of a fundamental shift away from competition.
In the face of global challenges like climate change, it is increasingly recognized that cooperation and global responsibility are essential. While Mearsheimer's offensive realism offers insights into certain aspects of international relations, it does not provide a comprehensive framework for addressing complex global issues that require cooperative solutions. Many scholars and policymakers draw on a variety of theoretical perspectives, including liberalism and constructivism, to better understand and address global challenges and to foster cooperation among nations.
In Maersheimer's opinion the US has foolishly alienated Russia and driven it in the arms of China, by its alliance and involvement with Ukraine. Again, this seems counter-productive in terms of a global realist outlook, since Russia has now allied with China.
John Mearsheimer's perspective on U.S. actions in Ukraine and their impact on Russia's alignment with China aligns with his offensive realist viewpoint, which emphasizes the pursuit of power and security as primary drivers of state behavior. From his viewpoint, the U.S. alignment with Ukraine and its efforts to integrate Ukraine into Western institutions, such as NATO, could indeed be seen as provocative from Russia's perspective.
Here are some key points related to Mearsheimer's view and the consequences of U.S. actions:
Russia-China Alignment: Mearsheimer's analysis suggests that U.S. actions, particularly its support for Ukraine's Western orientation and its involvement in the region, may have contributed to Russia seeking closer ties with China. From an offensive realist perspective, Russia's alignment with China can be seen as a response to perceived threats and a way to counterbalance U.S. power.
Great Power Dynamics: Offensive realism highlights the competitive nature of great power politics. When one great power perceives another as encroaching on its sphere of influence or security interests, it may seek alliances or partnerships to enhance its own security and counter the perceived threat. In this case, Russia's alignment with China can be viewed as a strategic response to the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
Unintended Consequences: Mearsheimer's view underscores the potential unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions. While the U.S. may have had valid reasons for its actions in Ukraine, including support for Ukraine's sovereignty, these actions can lead to geopolitical shifts that have broader implications.
Complex Geopolitical Dynamics: Geopolitics is a complex field with many variables, and the dynamics of international relations involve multiple actors and interests. While offensive realism provides insights into state motivations, it may not capture the full complexity of global politics, including the role of non-state actors, economic factors, and diplomatic considerations.
It's important to note that the assessment of whether these developments are counterproductive or not can vary. Some may argue that the U.S. support for Ukraine was driven by a commitment to democratic values and international law, while others may emphasize the potential risks and costs of such actions.
Ultimately, the impact of U.S. foreign policy decisions on global geopolitics is a subject of ongoing debate among scholars and policymakers. Mearsheimer's perspective offers one lens through which to analyze these developments, but it is not the only perspective, and there are differing views on the motivations and consequences of state actions in the international arena.
One could even say that global cooperation is in our own advantage in the long run. Please comment.
Indeed, global cooperation often serves the long-term interests of nations and the international community as a whole. Several reasons highlight the advantages of such cooperation:
Addressing Global Challenges: Many of the world's most pressing challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism, and economic instability, are global in nature. These issues transcend national borders and cannot be effectively addressed by any single country acting alone. Global cooperation allows nations to pool their resources, expertise, and efforts to tackle these challenges comprehensively.
Mutual Benefit: Cooperation can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. When countries work together to solve common problems, they can create win-win situations where all parties involved benefit. For instance, international trade agreements can promote economic growth and prosperity for multiple countries simultaneously.
Stability and Peace: Cooperation can contribute to international stability and peace. Diplomacy, conflict resolution mechanisms, and institutions like the United Nations can help prevent conflicts from escalating and facilitate peaceful resolutions. The avoidance of conflict benefits all parties by preventing the costs and risks associated with war.
Enhancing Global Governance: Global cooperation strengthens the capacity for global governance, allowing nations to collectively set rules and standards. This can be crucial in regulating areas like trade, environmental protection, and human rights, where common rules facilitate order and fairness.
Soft Power and Influence: Nations that actively engage in global cooperation often enhance their soft power and global influence. Soft power, which relies on attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, can be a valuable asset in international relations. Countries seen as cooperative and willing to contribute to global public goods tend to garner more international support and influence.
Building Trust and Partnerships: Engaging in cooperative efforts fosters trust and builds positive relationships among nations. Trust is essential for effective diplomacy and collaboration on various fronts. Building strong partnerships can enhance a country's ability to achieve its foreign policy objectives.
Mitigating Negative Externalities: Many global challenges, such as environmental degradation and health crises, generate negative externalities that can harm multiple nations. Cooperation helps manage and mitigate these negative externalities, preventing harm to all involved.
In sum, global cooperation is often not only a moral imperative but also a practical and strategic choice for nations. While it may require compromise and the pooling of resources, it offers numerous benefits in terms of solving shared problems, promoting stability, and advancing the long-term interests of countries in an interconnected world. Recognizing the advantages of cooperation encourages nations to collaborate in addressing global challenges for the benefit of all.
What schools of geopolitics emphasize these dimensions of cooperation and a global outlook?
Geopolitical schools of thought that emphasize dimensions of cooperation and a global outlook often fall under the broader category of "globalism" or "cosmopolitanism" within the field of geopolitics. These schools of thought prioritize international cooperation, global governance, and the importance of addressing global challenges through collective action. Here are some examples:
Liberal Geopolitics: Liberal geopolitics emphasizes the role of international institutions, diplomacy, and multilateralism in managing international affairs. It places a strong emphasis on cooperation, the rule of law, and the promotion of human rights. Liberals argue that global issues, such as climate change, require collaborative solutions through international agreements and organizations.
Constructivist Geopolitics: Constructivist geopolitics focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations. It recognizes the importance of shared norms and values in fostering cooperation among states. Constructivists argue that international norms and expectations can influence state behavior and promote cooperation on global issues.
Global Governance Perspective: This perspective transcends traditional state-centric geopolitics and emphasizes the need for global governance structures to address global challenges. It advocates for the strengthening of international organizations like the United Nations and the development of new mechanisms for global cooperation.
Cosmopolitan Geopolitics: Cosmopolitan geopolitics takes a global perspective that prioritizes the well-being of humanity as a whole. It emphasizes the moral and ethical responsibilities of states and individuals to address global problems such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. Cosmopolitan thinkers argue that a shared sense of global citizenship should drive international cooperation.
Human Security Approach: The human security approach focuses on the security and well-being of individuals rather than traditional state security. It underscores the importance of addressing global challenges, such as pandemics and climate change, that directly impact human security. This perspective advocates for international cooperation to protect individuals from global threats.
Critical Geopolitics: Critical geopolitics examines the power dynamics and inequalities inherent in international relations. While critical geopolitics often highlights the exploitative aspects of global politics, it also recognizes the potential for collective action and cooperation among marginalized states and non-state actors to challenge existing power structures.
These schools of geopolitics share a common emphasis on the importance of cooperation, global outlook, and the need for international collaboration to address global challenges. While they may differ in their approaches and emphases, they all challenge the traditional realist or power-centric perspectives by highlighting the benefits of working together to achieve common goals on a global scale.
These schools are usually downplayed as "idealistic" by geopolitical realists. At the same time, realists are often criticized by not being realist enough, because they ignore that states can be motivated by other aims than power politics alone.
You've highlighted an important aspect of the ongoing debate within the field of geopolitics and international relations. Indeed, realists often downplay perspectives that emphasize cooperation, global governance, and ethical considerations as "idealistic." At the same time, critics of realism argue that it may oversimplify the motivations of states by focusing primarily on power politics.
Here are some key points to consider in this ongoing debate:
Balance Between Realism and Idealism: The tension between realist and idealist perspectives is a longstanding feature of international relations theory. Striking the right balance between recognizing the role of power politics and acknowledging the importance of cooperative and ethical considerations is a central challenge in the field.
Complexity of State Motivations: Critics of realism argue that states are not solely motivated by power politics and national interest. States may also be influenced by norms, values, public opinion, humanitarian concerns, and the desire for stability and peace. Realism, in its pursuit of simplicity and parsimony, may overlook these complex motivations.
Varied Realist Approaches: It's important to note that within the realist school of thought, there are variations in how scholars approach and define realism. Offensive realism, defensive realism, and neorealism, for example, emphasize different aspects of state behavior and international relations. Some realists are more focused on power and security, while others may incorporate elements of cooperation and diplomacy.
Role of Non-State Actors: Realism traditionally places states at the center of international relations, but the role of non-state actors, such as international organizations, transnational corporations, and civil society groups, has become increasingly important. These actors often promote cooperation and global governance, challenging the traditional state-centric view.
Pragmatism vs. Idealism: Critics of realism may argue that a pragmatic approach acknowledges the importance of power politics while also recognizing the practical benefits of cooperation. Pragmatists argue that states can pursue their interests more effectively through diplomacy, alliances, and cooperative efforts.
Empirical Evidence: The debate between realists and their critics often hinges on empirical evidence. Scholars and policymakers examine real-world cases to determine the extent to which states prioritize power politics or cooperation in their actions.
In practice, many scholars and policymakers seek to strike a balance between these perspectives, recognizing that both realism and idealism offer valuable insights. They may argue that understanding the complex interplay between power politics and cooperative efforts is essential for crafting effective foreign policies and addressing global challenges. Ultimately, the ongoing debate between realists and their critics contributes to the richness and diversity of thought in the field of international relations.
See: "Israel-Hamas, Ukraine-Russia and China: John Mearsheimer on why the US is in serious trouble!", Centre for Independent Studies, 30 okt 2023:
Comment Form is loading comments...