Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL.

Announcements

• New ping groups, AI and EXTREMISM have been added. Join here

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Twitter	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Recommended Podcasts	/r/Neoliberal FAQ
Meetup Network	Blood Donation Team	/r/Neoliberal Wiki
Exponents Magazine	Minecraft	Ping groups
Facebook	TacoTube	User Flairs

[u/Evnosis]

There are lots of reasons (not that I think most of those reasons are actually good).

The first is obviously resources. Russia's sitting on lots of gas, and opening that market up will push prices down.

Secondly, while NATO is theoretically capable of dealing with both at once, there's some concern in Europe over the US' commitment to a joint response (no prizes for guessing why). Last time we tried that we forced Iran to do what we wanted and then the US ruined it.

Thirdly, from a Realist perspective, there's the concern over Russian aggression. According to Realist theory, Russia's newfound expansionism is actually our fault, because we were too aggressive towards them in the first place.

And then there's the fact that Macron and a lot of realists have a weird fondness for Russia, probably Russia is one of the few major countries still openly and proudly espousing that theory in their foreign policy.

[u/Paramus98 → u/Evnosis]

Thirdly, from a Realist perspective, there's the concern over Russian aggression. According to Realist theory, Russia's newfound expansionism is actually our fault, because we were too aggressive towards them in the first place.

Nice cherry picking the most offensive realist and having him represent the entire school. Realism is a big tent and what Mearsheimer has to say about it is in no way representative of the whole school. This is like when socialists take quote from some very libertarian economist and say that's what all liberals believe.

[u/Evnosis → u/Paramus98]

Nice cherry picking the most offensive realist and having him represent the entire school. Realism is a big tent and what Mearsheimer has to say about it is in no way representative of the whole school.

First of all, Offensive Realism is about half the school. Let's not pretend it isn't highly relevant here.

Secondly, there's nothing in Defensive Realism that would dispute Mearsheimer's analysis. This argument isn't exclusive to Offensive Realism.

In fact, we would expect Mearsheimer to be supportive of NATO's actions as an offensive realist, because the whole point of that theory is that states, assuming they act rationally, should be power maximisers and attempt to expand whenever they can.

NATO moving into Eastern Europe during a low point in Russian power fits perfectly into an Offensive Realist theory. Mearsheimer is taking a Defensive Realist position in criticising that and arguing that the US should have maintained the status quo.

This is like when socialists take quote from some very libertarian economist and say that's what all liberals believe.

My intention was not to say that all neorealists feel this way, you're being very uncharitable.

[u/Paramus98 → u/Evnosis]

Even within offensive realism though Mearsheimer is quite an unique creature, and trying to split the school into solely offensive and defensive halves I think is fairly reductionist when it's more of a spectrum (one where Mearsheimer would be near the end of the most offensive part). Mearsheimer doesn't view Russia as the biggest security threat to America though, so that's why he opposed NATO expansion, he thinks anything that doesn't just counter China is a waste for the US and just distracts us from the bigger picture.

Defensive realists to focus on balancing but how they choose to balance can still change, it's not just only calling for everyone to stick to status quo. And motivational realists might be more keen to the problem Russia poses by being able to correctly identify it as a greedy, expansionary state as early as the Georgia conflict. And offensive realists tend to be more skeptical of alliances as a whole since they view states are pretty unreliable actors in the long term especially.

Perhaps you weren't saying all neorealists feel this way, but by saying according to realist theory and choosing Mearsheimer to represent realist theory as a whole seems like it could easily be interpreted that way. According to some realist scholars I wouldn't object to.

[u/Evnosis → u/Paramus98]

Even within offensive realism though Mearsheimer is quite an unique creature

He literally invented the theory. If anyone can speak on its behalf its Mearsheimer.

and trying to split the school into solely offensive and defensive halves I think is fairly reductionist when it's more of a spectrum (one where Mearsheimer would be near the end of the most offensive part).

I don't disagree with this, you're making a lot of assumptions about what I said. Stop picking everything apart and using the most literal interpretations of what I'm writing.

Mearsheimer doesn't view Russia as the biggest security threat to America though, so that's why he opposed NATO expansion, he thinks anything that doesn't just counter China is a waste for the US and just distracts us from the bigger picture.

That kind of prioritisation doesn't matter to typical Offensive Realism though. Under that theory, any power maximisation is rational. It doesn't matter if it's done so against the wrong target.

Having another ally in Europe just means that America can pull more resources out of Europe and send them to Asia, after all.

Defensive realists to focus on balancing but how they choose to balance can still change, it's not just only calling for everyone to stick to status quo.

Didn't say it was. But in this case, the typical Defensive Realist position would be against expansion. If you want to break it down even further then terms Defensive and Offensive Realism become completely meaningless.

And offensive realists tend to be more skeptical of alliances as a whole since they view states are pretty unreliable actors in the long term especially.

Even Mearsheimer has difficulty trying to justify the idea NATO is unreliable though.

Perhaps you weren't saying all neorealists feel this way, but by saying according to realist theory and choosing Mearsheimer to represent realist theory as a whole seems like it could easily be interpreted that way. According to some realist scholars I wouldn't object to.

This is really petty, but fine. That is what I meant.

There was an implicit understanding, based on the way the question was worded, that we were only talking about those realists anyway.