2023.05.28 ミアシャイマー教授インタビュー 完全版 ・ウクライナ戦争の見通し ・中国の台頭 ・リアリズム外交 など ※伊藤貫氏や中野剛志氏もたびたび引用する国際政治学の権威
Summary
TLDRジョン・マイアーシュハイマー氏は、国際関係の現実主義理論者であり、国家の力が国際政治で最も重要な要素であると主張しています。彼は、国家が民主主義か独裁政治かを問わず、力の競争を避けられないという現実主義の考え方を支持しています。また、NATOの拡大やウクライナ情勢についても、ロシアの懸念を無視して進めることの愚かしさを指摘し、ロシアが最終的に勝つと予想しています。さらに、中国の経済成長を支援したアメリカの政策についても批判的であり、中国の台頭を遅らせることができたと考えています。マイアーシュハイマー氏はまた、ヨーロッパ、特にドイツがアメリカの指示に従う傾向があり、独自の外交政策を持つべきだと述べています。
Takeaways
- 🌍 国际政治中最重要的元素是国家的权力,国家间在无更高权威保护的国际体系中竞争权力。
- 🏛️ 实用主义者认为,无论是民主国家还是独裁国家,所有国家在国际体系中的行为模式相似,因为它们受到体系结构的制约。
- 📚 米尔斯海默作为现实主义者,批评西方特别是美国和西欧对现实主义的强烈反感,因为现实主义否认了民主与独裁国家行为方式的根本差异。
- 🔄 在单极世界结束后,多极世界的兴起使得大国间的竞争重新成为国际政治的主要特征。
- ❌ 米尔斯海默认为北约东扩至俄罗斯边境是一个错误,因为它被视为对俄罗斯的威胁,这是现实主义的考量。
- 🇺🇸 美国在单极时期应该采取不同的对华和对俄政策,以减缓中国的崛起和北约的扩张。
- 💥 米尔斯海默在2014年乌克兰危机爆发后,公开指责西方对乌克兰危机负有主要责任,这与主流观点相反。
- 🇷🇺 米尔斯海默预测,俄罗斯将在乌克兰战争中最终占据优势,但不会变成全面占领乌克兰。
- 🤝 米尔斯海默认为,德国应该采取更加独立的外交政策,而不是总是追随美国。
- 🇨🇳 关于中国的崛起,米尔斯海默认为美国的政策帮助了中国成为一个竞争对手,而这本可以避免。
- ⚖️ 米尔斯海默强调,即使在核武器使用的情况下,西方国家会极力避免全面核战争的发生,因为这对所有国家都是灾难性的。
Q & A
ジョン・マイアサーがどのような国際関係理論を提唱していますか?
-ジョン・マイアサーは現実主義を提唱しており、国家の力が国際政治で最も重要な要素であると述べています。また、国家が民主主義であるか、独裁政治であるかを問わず、国家は力を競い合ってシステム内で最も強力な状態になるよう努力すべきだと主張しています。
マイアサーは、ウクライナ危機の原因についてどのように述べていますか?
-マイアサーは、NATOのロシア国境に接近する動きが、ロシアにとって脅威と見なされたため、ウクライナ危機が勃発したと述べています。また、西側の人々がNATOの拡大をロシアに脅威と感じさせないで済むと誤解していたと指摘しています。
マイアサーは、中国の経済成長をどのように評価していますか?
-マイアサーは、中国の経済成長を支援した政策が非常に愚かしいと述べており、中国がアメリカの純粋な競合者になるように貢献したと批判しています。彼は、中国の経済成長を遅らせることができれば、アメリカは経済力と軍事力の差を維持できたと考えています。
マイアサーが述べる「友人・敵の区別」とは何ですか?
-「友人・敵の区別」とは、カール・シュミットが唱えた概念で、政治が友人と敵との間にかかわる問題であると定義しています。マイアサーは、この概念が学生に興味を引き、政治の考え方に対する新しい視点を提供していると述べています。
マイアサーは、ウクライナの戦争についてどのような結論を持っていますか?
-マイアサーは、ロシアが最終的に勝利し、ウクライナの大きな地域を征服すると予想していますが、ウクライナ全体を征服することはありません。また、戦争が長期化し、冷戦状態のような終戦が見込まれると述べています。
経済制裁がロシアに与える影響についてマイアサーはどのように述べていますか?
-マイアサーは、経済制裁がロシアの経済に大きな打撃を与えるとは思っておらず、西側の人々が経済制裁がロシアを崩壊させると誤解していたと述べています。また、核兵器の使用が始まれば、全般的な核戦争になる可能性があると警告しています。
マイアサーは、ヨーロッパが直面している状況についてどのように述べていますか?
-マイアサーは、ヨーロッパがロシアとの関係が壊れてしまい、経済的・政治的な関係が悪化していると述べています。また、ロシアはヨーロッパの内部の分裂を利用しようとし、アメリカとヨーロッパの間に緊張を作り出す可能性があると指摘しています。
マイアサーは、中国が国際的な自由主義秩序に貢献すると考えていましたか?
-いいえ、マイアサーは中国が経済的に成長し、国際機関に参加することで、国際的な自由主義秩序に貢献するという考えを批判しており、中国は力を持つことでアジアを支配しようとすると考えていると述べています。
マイアサーは、アメリカが中国の経済成長を支援する政策をとっていくべきでないと考えていますか?
-はい、マイアサーはアメリカが中国の経済成長を支援する政策をとるべきではないと考えており、そのような政策は中国をアメリカの同等の競合者に育て上げることにつながると警告しています。
マイアサーは、NATOの拡大についてどのように述べていますか?
-マイアサーは、NATOの拡大を批判しており、2004年の拡大後、ウクライナやジョージアの加盟を追求するべきではないと述べています。また、NATOの拡大はロシアにとって脅威と感じられると述べ、ウクライナ危機の原因の1つとしています。
マイアサーは、ドイツがアメリカに従うべきでないと述べていますか?
-はい、マイアサーはドイツがアメリカに従うべきでないと述べており、ドイツは独自の外交政策を持つべきであり、アメリカとは異なる利益を持つ場合があるため、時にはアメリカとは異なる道を歩むべきだとしています。
Outlines
😀 国際関係における現実主義の説明
第1段落では、戦争の長期化と結末のシナリオについて語り合い、特にロシアの優位性と最終的な勝利が予想される長戦線について触れています。また、ジョン・マイアーシャイマーと呼ばれる政治科学理論家の登場を迎え、国際関係における現実主義の理論に焦点を当てています。現実主義者たちは、国家の力が国際政治で最も重要な要素であると信じており、国家同士が力を競い合っており、民主主義国家と独裁国家とで行動が異なるとは言えないとする立場をとっています。
🌐 1990年代後半の唯一極世界から多極世界への移行
第2段落では、1990年代の唯一極世界とその後の多極世界に移行するプロセスが説明されています。唯一極世界の間、アメリカが唯一の超大国として存在し、対立する超大国がなく、自由に自由主義的な外交政策を追及しました。しかし、2017年頃から多極世界へと移行し、中国、ロシア、アメリカの3超大国による力の競争が再び始まりました。また、アメリカが中国の経済成長を促進し、ロシアに対してNATOの拡大を進めることが、今日のウクライナ危機につながったと指摘しています。
🇺🇸 NATO拡大とアメリカの中国政策の誤り
第3段落では、NATOの拡大とアメリカの中国政策が議論されています。2004年のNATO拡大の後、2008年にウクライナとジョージアがNATOに加盟することを決定したことが、現在のウクライナ戦争の原因となりました。また、中国の経済成長を促進するアメリカの政策が、中国をアメリカの同等の競争相手に引き上げ、その結果として中国が平和的で責任ある国家になるという期待は裏切られました。
📈 中国の平和的発展とアメリカの反応
第4段落では、中国が平和的に発展し、アメリカの秩序に挑戦しているとされていますが、根本的に秩序を破壊するわけではありません。一方で、中国は経済力を軍事力に変え、南中国海や台湾、東中国海の主張を通じて現状を変えようとしています。アメリカは中国の経済成長に警戒し、2017年以降、安全保障上の競争を強化し始めました。
🤝 ウクライナ戦争の見通しとユーラシアの未来
第5段落では、ウクライナ戦争が長期化し、ロシアが最終的に勝利すると予想されていますが、ウクライナを征服するわけではありません。ロシアはウクライナの一部を支配し、ウクライナを機能不全な国家に変えようとしています。一方、西洋はロシアの領土征服を防ぎ、ロシアを敗北させると誓っていますが、ロシアの人口と砲兵力の優位性から、西洋が戦争をエスカレートしない限り、ロシアが優位に立つでしょう。
🚫 西洋の限界とロシアの戦略
第6段落では、西洋がウクライナ戦争に関与する能力に限界があり、ロシアの経済を打撃するという期待した結果を出すことができなかったと指摘しています。また、核兵器を使用すれば、一般的な核戦争になるため、西洋は核兵器が使用された場合、すぐに戦争を止めようとするでしょう。
🔄 ヨーロッパとロシアの関係と将来
第7段落では、ヨーロッパとロシアの関係が壊滅的であり、経済的および政治的な関係が完全に崩壊していると述べています。ロシアは西洋の内部の分裂を利用しようとし、特に経済的な関係において、アメリカとヨーロッパの間に緊張を作り出します。また、ウクライナ戦争が続くことで、西洋が引きずり込まれる可能性が常に存在します。
👥 政治の友人と敵の区別
第8段落では、カール・シュミットの「政治的概念」がカリスマ性と論争性を持つため、学生に人気があるとされています。友人と敵の区別は、政治の中心的概念であり、学生には多くの議論の余地を提供します。また、ドイツがアメリカに従う傾向があり、独自の外交政策を持つべきだと述べています。
🙌 謝意と前向きなメッセージ
第9段落では、対話の終わりに感謝の意を表し、賢明な意見を引き続き聞くことができるよう願っていると述べています。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡現実主義
💡国家の力
💡核兵器
💡
💡ユーラシア大陸
💡NATO拡大
💡経済制裁
💡中国の台頭
💡戦略的競争
💡民主主義と平和
💡ユーラシア大陸
💡冷戦
Highlights
The war is expected to be long, with the Russians likely to prevail but not conquering all of Ukraine.
The West is committed to defeating Russia in Ukraine, aiming to weaken the Russian economy and remove them from the ranks of great powers.
Russia is anticipated to annex a significant portion of Ukraine, focusing on regions with a high percentage of ethnic Russians or Russian speakers.
The West's involvement in the war is limited to supplying the Ukrainians, without direct ground troop engagement.
The balance of power, including population size and artillery, heavily favors Russia in a war of attrition.
Economic sanctions against Russia have not had the anticipated impact, leading to a miscalculation by the West.
The use of nuclear weapons by Russia would escalate the conflict to a level where there would be no winners, potentially leading to a general thermonuclear war.
The conflict between Russia and the West is framed as democracies versus an authoritarian state, a perspective challenged by realist theory.
Realism suggests that the structure of the international system, rather than the leaders of individual states, is the primary driver of state behavior.
The unipolar moment post-Cold War led to a shift in U.S. foreign policy, which a realist might argue was at odds with realpolitik.
The rise of China was facilitated by policies that a realist would argue were misguided, leading to a new peer competitor for the U.S.
The decision by NATO in 2008 to include Ukraine and Georgia was a significant mistake contributing to the current conflict.
The West's policy towards China should have been different to prevent it from becoming a major economic and military competitor.
The concept of the political by Carl Schmitt is popular among students for its provocative arguments and the friend-enemy distinction.
Germany should have a more independent foreign policy, particularly in relation to its stance on NATO expansion.
Angela Merkel's opposition to bringing Ukraine into NATO was based on a realist understanding of potential Russian reactions.
The long-term impact of the war on Europe is expected to be disastrous, with a breakdown in economic and political relations with Russia.
Transcripts
the war seems to drag on forever what's
your scenario for an outcome or a
solution for that war how is it going to
continue
well I think it's going to be a long war
and I think that the Russians will
ultimately prevail
[Music]
hello I have with me today John
miersheimer one of the preeminent
political science theorists theorists of
international relations and I'll be
discussing a number of issues with John
Mishima it's a pleasure and an honor
welcome to Germany glad to be here thank
you for inviting me to be here
it's a great great honor and uh
eurostructural realists and when I was
in school and in grad school when I
started from my PhD realism was one of
the theoretical directions and and
theories we discussed about
international relations I identify with
that theory too but could you explain
briefly what it is well realists believe
that the most important element in
international politics is power
how powerful a state is really matters
because in the International System
where there's no higher authority that
can protect you you want to be as
powerful as possible because if you're
weak other states take advantage of you
so the balance of power matters greatly
and realists believe that whether a
state is a democracy or an autocracy or
a fascist state or a communist state it
doesn't matter all states because they
operate in this system where there's no
higher authority have no choice but to
compete for power and to strive to be
the most powerful state in the system
and I think in essence this is what
realism is all about and of course I
would note here that in the west uh
especially in the United States uh and
in Western Europe uh there is an intense
dislike of realism because realism says
that democracies behave no differently
than authoritarian States and in the
West in the liberal West people want to
believe that democracies behave in a
noble fashion and autocracies do not
they're good guys and bad guys in the
eyes of the vast majority of people in
the west and the democracies of course
are the good guys realists say there are
no good guys and bad guys all states are
pretty much the same and they have no
choice but to act in similar ways
because of the structure of the
International System and again when I
talk about structure what I'm talking
about mainly is the fact that there's no
higher authority that sits above States
so Putin Biden Trump doesn't really
matter I mean it's the structure of the
system so it's or how much do they come
into the equation absolutely and if you
listen to much of the rhetoric in the
west especially from President Biden
the conflict between Russia and the West
is framed in terms of democracies versus
an authoritarian State and of course
this authoritarian State Russia is the
bad guy and we in the west are the good
guys but a realist would say that
they're no good guys and bad guys here
and really what happened
to cause the Ukrainian war was in large
part a function of realist
considerations for example a realist
would argue that it was foolish for NATO
to March up to Russia's borders because
the Russians would view that as a threat
which of course they did because the
Russians were thinking in very realist
terms but many people in the west
believed
foolishly I would add that we're the
good guys and the Russians would
understand that NATO was not a threat
and that it was a noble mission on
Airport to bring Ukraine and other East
European States into NATO of course the
Russians didn't see it that way they saw
it more in terms of real politic to
German to many German says I mean I I
was surprised to say that in the U.S
this is they it's viewed the same I
thought there were more realists in the
U.S than in Germany because to Germany
is this is quite let's say an uncommon
thought because what you say about the
liberal West that is basically what sank
in but he also criticized or you you had
an argument that the unipolar moment
where liberalism basically went rampant
or what went wrong after 1990 was was
liberalism
my argument is that realism is a theory
that applies to Great Powers it's all
about great power politics so during the
Cold War when you had a bipolar world
and the United States and the Soviet
Union were competing with each other
this fit very neatly in the realist
story
what happened was the Soviet Union went
away and we moved into a unipolar moment
right this was unipolarity and it ran
from roughly 1990 to 2017. and during
the unipolar moment by definition there
was only one great power which was the
United States so you didn't have great
power competition there was no rival
great power that the United States had
to compete against so for the first time
in its history the United States was
free to take a holiday for realism and
to pursue a liberal foreign policy which
I would call liberal hegemony
and the end result is that the United
States
behaved in a way that was at odds with
basic real politique during this
unipolar moment now what's happened is
that starting in about 2017 we moved out
of the unipolar world and into a
multi-polar world so now what we have
are three great powers in the system
China Russia and the United States and
in effect great power competition is
back on the table realism is alive and
well and I would add that probably over
the course of the next few decades you
will see the appearance of more realists
in Germany than has been the case during
the unipolar moment I like to say that
during the unipolar moment Germany was a
realist free zone there were hardly any
realists in Germany I would like to see
that so I I hope that your prediction
time let's go back to the unipolar
moment for a second what could the U.S
have done differently
or what the United States should have
done is it should have not helped China
to grow economically this was a
remarkably foolish policy China is now a
pure competitor of the United States and
the United States played a key role in
turning China into a peer competitor by
fueling its economy and this strategy of
course was based on liberal theories of
international politics which I think are
wrong-headed so with regard to China we
should have had a fundamentally
different approach and with regard to
Russia and NATO expansion we should not
have pursued NATO expansion at all but
if we did pursue NATO expansion we
should have stopped after the 2004
expansion when we decided in 2008 when
NATO decided in 2008 that Ukraine and
Georgia would become part of NATO that
was a huge mistake and the present war
in Ukraine is largely a result of that
decision so I would argue with regard to
Ukraine and Russia on one hand and with
regard to China on the other hand we
should have pursued a very different
policy and we'd be much better off today
as a result and you've said that even in
2015 I mean you have a famous public
lecture at the University of Chicago
online in the internet I just looked it
up it has 29 million million views now
it's it's entitled why Ukraine is the
West's fault and I mean that's a quite
provocative title but apparently people
like to see it and I've seen lots of
positive and agreeable comments below it
so that's basically you've been making
this argument for a while yeah well it
was in April 2008 when NATO decided that
Georgia and Ukraine would be brought
into the alliance and the Ukraine crisis
first broke out on February 22nd 2014.
that's when the crisis broke out
and I wrote a piece in foreign affairs
that attracted a great deal of attention
at the time which said that the crisis
in Ukraine or war in Ukraine if you
wanted to call it that at the time was
largely the West's fault and of course
people in the west didn't want to hear
that because people in the west want to
make the argument that this is all
Putin's fault and it's not the West's
full but my argument is that it was the
West fault because they pursued NATO
expansion for the larger purpose of
making Ukraine a western bulwark on
Russia's border Russia said this was
unacceptable but anyway I wrote that
article in 2014 and then I was asked to
give a talk to the University of Chicago
alumni in 2015 a year later and I chose
that as a topic and I gave this talk to
be honest Max I don't know I don't even
remember giving the talk I have no
recollection of giving the talk that's
amazing for something that yes had with
such an impact it's had such an impact
29 million views because it just came
natural to you and you just were
expressing your natural thoughts this is
so clear to you that you didn't have to
think about it a lot because it's just
so clear before your eyes that you
forgot all about it and then it's
weren't stratospheric yeah well I think
once the the war broke out in 2022 the
present war broke out I think people
then were deeply interested in finding
out what caused it and I offered an
alternative view to the mainstream and I
was one of the few people who offered
that alternative view so I think in that
context it's unsurprising that lots of
people viewed this 2015 video
and produced 29 years clear what we
could have done differently in in the
case of NATO expansion I'm not so sure
or clear about what we could have done
differently about China because in some
ways I mean China's rise probably would
have been delayed but not stopped or do
you have a different view on that I
don't think it would have been stopped I
think there was no question they were
going to rise I think it would have been
slowed down greatly and I don't think
they'd be anywhere near as powerful
today as they are and I think the United
States would have been able to maintain
a substantial Gap in economic might and
Military might between itself and
between China
and you mentioned that the American
Elites or some part of the Elites
profited from the rise of China so there
was some collaboration there and they so
they were all for
um or many of many influential Figures
were for the rise of China oh yeah it's
really quite remarkable uh how many
people fought
that fueling the rise of China
would lead to a more peaceful world I
mean the idea was that as China grew
economically
uh and became more prosperous and as
China was integrated into more and more
International institutions like the
World Trade Organization which it joined
in 2001 it would become a responsible
stakeholder in the International System
because after all it was benefiting
greatly from uh being a part of this
american-led International liberal order
and then very importantly as it grew
prosperous and as it became a
responsible stakeholder China would
become a liberal democracy and of course
once it became a liberal democracy it
would be a peaceful State vis-a-vis all
of these Western countries and
especially the United States because
Democratic peace Theory says if you have
two liberal democracies they won't fight
each other so ultimately we would make
this prosperous China a liberal
democracy and we would all live happily
ever after now a realist like me says
this is crazy right if China becomes
powerful it's going to want to dominate
Asia it's going to want to challenge the
United States that's just the way
International politics works at least
from a realist perspective and I think
if you look at the historical record
there's lots of reasons to believe that
realism is a powerful Theory but people
like me couldn't make that argument and
get hardly anyone to accept it and what
you saw was that the elites who really
were close to the American Elites who
were close to the Chinese Elites worked
hand in hand to help China grow and make
the argument that China would be a
responsible stakeholder and a partner
with the United States in producing a
liberal peaceful word the question use
of the word responsible which is the way
probably an American policy maker would
use it it's the American definition of
responsible so clearly China has risen
clearly China is a challenge to the
American order
um clear the clearly they step out of
line here and there but by and large I
mean by expanding peacefully through the
Belton Road initiative and so on I would
say they they've acted I mean yes
they've challenged the order because of
resonant power but they're not that
irresponsible that would be
depending how you define it I think
that's correct I mean I think the
Chinese understand that they have a
vested interest in changing the order
somewhat
but not fundamentally undermining the
order at least for the time being
but the problem is that as China grows
economically the United States begins to
get more and more fearful right because
all that economic power can be
translated into military power
and given that China is not a status quo
power it's very important to understand
that China believes that the South China
Sea belongs to them
China believes that Taiwan
should be made part of mainland China
China believes it should dominate the
East China Sea and that these rocks that
are a point of dispute with Japan belong
to China not to Japan so China is
interested in not only growing
economically but growing militarily and
using its military might to change the
status quo and once the United States
starts to see China grow in a really
serious way economically it begins to
get very nervous and by about 2017 it's
the Americans more than the Chinese who
were intensifying the security
competition it's not so much the Chinese
who are changing their behavior
concert with what you were just saying
it's more the Americans and this is good
old-fashioned realist logic at Play
you had a nice you came to me in that
Clarity just when you observed it to me
in our conversations that of course
Joe Biden made a huge 180 degree turn on
China I mean the the confrontation
really was first explicitly mentioned by
Trump in the Trump presidency but before
that Biden was all pro-china and now
yes when Joe Biden was the head of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
when he was Barack Obama's vice
president right this is up to 2017. in
those decades before 2017. he was an
arch proponent of engaging China he
helped in very much he profited right
from promoting China's rise
when Trump comes in in 2017 Trump
fundamentally changes American policy
towards China he abandons engagement
explicitly abandons engagement and he
develops a hard-nosed containment policy
toward China over his four years in the
white house then Biden comes into the
White House in January 2021. some people
expected that Biden would go back to the
old policy of Engagement but in fact
what Biden does is he not only continues
to pursue Trump's policy of containment
he actually makes it even tougher on the
Chinese than Trump did and what this
reflects is the fact that China is now a
pure competitor of the United States
it's quite clear that people in the
Biden Administration are scared stiff of
this powerful China but I would note
that these people in the White House
were part of the establishment the
foreign policy establishment that helped
turn China into a peer competitor and
when people like me argued in the early
2000s that the United States better slow
down China's rise or do everything it
can to slow down China's rise we were
dismissed as being remarkably foolish
people said probably old-fashioned
old-fashioned yes yes and now you're in
the Forefront
back to back to Europe I mean we now
have this terrible war going on in
Ukraine and we're not being told the
truth and it's very difficult to to
figure out the truth
uh
RFK um
Junior just came out as probably 300 000
Ukrainian casualties I mean much higher
than we've been told and the war seems
to drag on forever what's your scenario
for an outcome or a solution for that
war how is it going to continue
well I think it's going to be a long war
and I think that the Russians will
ultimately prevail
and I think they're not going to conquer
Ukraine it's not like they're going to
uh
run their army up to the Polish and
Romanian border topple the regime and
incorporate Ukraine into a greater
Russia the way many people in the west
describe their Ambitions but what
they're going to do is they're going to
conquer a huge chunk of Ukrainian
territory and they're going to turn
Ukraine into a dysfunctional rub state
but the whole West does not want that
and we said we we're going to prevent
that absolutely the West is going to
prevent that conquering of territory I
would say more than that the West is not
the West is not simply dedicated to
prevent that preventing that from
happening the West is committed to
defeating Russia in Ukraine beating the
Russians on the battlefield in Ukraine
weakening the Russian economy badly and
in effect knocking the Russians out of
the ranks of the great Powers but you
think Russia will prevail and the West
will probably have to give in yeah I
mean first of all this is a war of
attrition
where ukrainians are fighting Russians
the West is not involved
with ground troops in the war
the West is supplying the ukrainians but
it's not doing the fighting so in a war
of attrition the key question is how
many people
are in Russia how many people are in
Ukraine what's the relative population
size of those two countries and then
also what does the balance of artillery
look like because artillery really
matters in a war of attrition it's as we
used to say in the U.S Army artillery is
the king of battle
now if you look at the numbers here
Russia has at this point in time
somewhere between a four and a one and a
five to one advantage in population this
is a massive advantage
in terms of artillery
the Russians have it's hard to get a
firm number somewhere between a five to
one and a ten to one advantage in
artillery and the West does not have the
ability
to give Ukraine enough artillery or
artillery ammunition shells as we say to
equal the Russian capability so the
Russians greatly outnumber the
ukrainians in terms of population size
and they greatly outnumber the
ukrainians in terms of how much
artillery
each side has and in a war of attrition
where the two armies are standing Toe to
Toe and beating The Living Daylights out
of each other the side that has a larger
population and has more artillery is
likely to win and in this case that's
the Russians and as I say I think what
will happen is they will end up
conquering a lot of territory in Ukraine
and they will Annex that territory to
Russia they've already annexed the
Crimea and they have already annexed for
oblas that formerly belong to Ukraine
and I think they'll end up taking even
more territory those regions are about
80 percent ethnic Russian or or Russian
speakers Russian speakers I think I
think the Russians will not try to
conquer uh territory that is in the
western half of Ukraine because that
territory is filled with ethnic Ukraine
Iranians and they would resist mightily
against Russian control so I think the
Russians will focus on taking territory
that is filled with Russian speakers and
ethnic Russians and and
I I think that at some point there will
be an end to the war but that end will
not mean a meaningful peace agreement
the best you can hope for I think is a
cold piece
similar to what you have in Korea along
the 38th parallel
so I think this problem is not going
away the fighting may stop in a few
years or maybe even a few months who
knows for sure but the conflict will
remain and I wouldn't be surprised if
fighting broke out again in five or ten
years
so the West will not escalate to push
the Russians back or your I mean that in
some ways is a good message to my ears
because the the fighting the West can
escalate it can't escalate for two
reasons first of all unless they put
boots on the ground they can't do
anything to change the population
balance between the two sides right the
ukrainians need many more soldiers and
they just don't have a large enough
population to find those soldiers and
furthermore in terms of giving Weaponry
to the ukrainians
the West doesn't have the weapons or the
industrial capacity to produce those
weapons at this point in time they may
have that in two or three or five years
but that's too late uh so there's not
much the West can do at this point in
time to shift the balance in Ukraine's
favor
okay how would you stand one quick Point
Max I think it's very important to
understand that when the West
first got into this war in early 2022
and it looked like the ukrainians were
doing very well on the battlefield and
we had initiated the sanctions right I
believe that people in the west felt
that those sanctions would do enormous
damage to the Russian economy and that's
what would allow the West plus the
ukrainians to win the war in other words
the ukrainians would do fine on the
battlefield but those economic sanctions
would deliver a hammer blow to Russia
and that would allow us in the west to
Prevail but the key here is that the
sanctions didn't work as anticipated you
know people often talk about Putin
miscalculating and I'm sure that Putin
has miscalculated in certain ways
miscalculation is part of the warp and
woof of daily life and international
politics
but I think the West also miscalculated
in certain ways and most importantly I
think the West miscalculated in thinking
that sanctions would work to devastate
Russia's I mean I think the fact is that
the Russians are not going to lose
and if the Russians were to start losing
if the west and the ukrainians together
were successful as we anticipated I
believe the Russians would turn to
nuclear weapons and once the Russians
turned to nuclear weapons they're no
winners the idea that they wouldn't that
escalate into a general nuclear war no I
think the exact opposite would happen I
believe that once nuclear weapons were
used the West would go to Great Lakes to
immediately stop the war
because of the threat of General
thermonuclear war you and I don't want
to be incinerated well well we don't
make the decisions you and I but I I
think the policy makers in this case
would uh would go to Great Lengths to
shut the war down I I think I've been
very critical of Biden who I think was
much too aggressive towards Russia after
moving into the White House and I
believe that Biden played a key role in
causing the war on February 22nd of uh
February 24th of 2022 so I'm highly
critical of Biden but he has been very
cautious in terms of arming the
ukrainians and keeping the ukrainians
under control because he does not want
first of all the United States or the
West more generally to get involved in
the war in Ukraine in the fighting on
the ground in Ukraine but more
importantly he does not want a nuclear
war there would be no winners in a
general thermonuclear war and
I believe we would go to Great Lakes at
the first sign that nuclear weapons were
being used to shut the war down well
some reassuring words so they come from
you they if they're to be taken
seriously and uh well I some reassuring
words I I must say um but let's say your
scenario turns out so what does that
mean for Europe if your scenario
materializes we have well this is a
disaster for Europe
there's no question about that I mean
good relations between Europe on one
hand and Russia on the other hand
benefited Europe enormously and they
benefited Germany enormously and now you
have a situation where relations between
Germany on one hand and Russia on the
other hand have completely broken down
both at the economic level and at the
political level and what you really have
between Germany and Russia and between
the West more generally in Russia are
poisonous relations the russophobia in
the west is off the charts and what's
going to happen here is that for the
long term the Russians and the West
Europeans or the Europeans are going to
be mortal enemies and there's going to
be very little economic intercourse and
they're going to be these poisonous
political relations
and the Russians are going to go to
Great Lengths to try to sow dissension
in the west they're going to exploit
differences between Hungary and pole and
they're going to exploit differences
between Germany and Poland between
Germany and France they're going to
exploit differences between the United
States and Europe and one prominent
place where that will take place has to
do with economic relations between
Europe on one hand and China on the
other hand now that Europe has been
badly hurt economically because of the
break-off of trade with Russia the
Europeans have an increased incentive to
trade with China but the United States
is not going to want Europe to do much
trading especially with regard to
sophisticated Technologies with China so
the United States will put great
pressure on Europe not to trade with
China the Europeans have powerful
economic incentives and political and
incentives to trade with China so you'll
have this real tension between the
United States and Europe and the
Russians will go to Great Lengths to
exploit that tension so there'll be all
sorts of possible places where the
Russians consult dissension in the west
and this will just fuel the russophobia
in the west and the end result will be
you'll have this conflictual
relationship in Europe at the same time
the war in Ukraine may still be going on
and that means there's an ever-present
possibility the West will get dragged in
so I have one final question we
discussed your seminars and you'll
obviously enjoy teaching you enjoy
arguing for the truth I mean one sees
that you are really deeply into your
discipline
and you teach graduates you teach
undergraduates and actually as a German
and somebody from plettenberg in Germany
which is the birthplace of Carl Schmidt
a political thinker of the Weimar
Republic still read internationally
quite a bit you mentioned that the
concept of political by Carl Schmidt is
actually one of the most popular if not
the most popular book in some of your
seminars how is that
yeah I teach a basic course on realism
to graduate students and undergraduates
and you know we read Hans Morgan thou
Thomas Hobbes Machiavelli and then some
of the Contemporary uh realists like Ken
Waltz myself
and so forth and so on and on the
syllabus I have uh Carl Schmidt's the
concept of the political which is an
important realist tract
uh and it turns out much to my surprise
that of all the books on the syllabus
including my own book The Tragedy of
great Pro politics uh the book that
attracts the most interest from the
students is uh the concept of the
political by Schmidt and why is that why
is that
well I think that Schmidt has a
remarkably provocative set of arguments
in the book
that are not terribly well developed
and students like to focus on
controversial arguments they just find
them interesting you don't have to agree
with Schmidt but he's making a
provocative argument so the students
find his arguments very interesting the
the whole friend enemy distinction it's
very interesting concept for the
students and you want to understand here
I'm not pushing Schmidt on them this is
the students themselves who decide what
they like and don't like it's the
students who focus on Schmidt's book in
ways they don't with regard to almost
all the other books so they like the
friend enemy distinction I like to think
about it but the other thing is that
because the friend enemy distinction is
not terribly well developed it gives the
students lots of Running Room to discuss
what it really means and what its
consequences are for politics and so
forth and so on not everyone of the
viewers will know what the friend enemy
distinction is so maybe if I can elicit
that from you for a second well
Schmidt's basic point is that politics
is all about the friend enemy
distinction right that if you look at
any society and if you look at the
International System states have friends
and they have enemies right and politics
revolves around the friend enemy
distinction and
if you were to ask you know your average
person in the United States your average
well-educated person in the United
States what politics is all about
they would probably say something along
the lines of politics is all about who
gets what when and where right right the
service distribution of resources or
something yes exactly they wouldn't say
that politics is all about the friend
enemy distinction in other words
dividing the world up into friends and
enemies and then thinking about how
those friends and enemies interact but
that Schmidt's definition and again
getting back to my my original
I'll point to you about Schmidt
what makes it attractive to students is
they don't think of politics in terms of
the friend enemy distinction they think
of it in terms of who gets what when so
when they hear a new idea a different
way of thinking about things and a
rather darker ways of thinking yes about
politics yes there's a real darkness of
course a real dark side to Schmidt
because he was a dark person right I
mean he joined the Nazi party in the
1930s so Schmidt is you know in many
ways a terrible human being but he is a
brilliant thinker and he has written
This brilliant book that makes a
provocative argument that again students
find attractive and that's not to say
that they become schmidians it's just
that they engage with that book in ways
that they don't engage with most other
books and this was utterly surprising to
me at first and and to some extent Still
Remains surprising final question uh
for Germany
there's a friend enemy distinction but
should Germany also watch its friends
more closely
well
in the German case
its best friend in the world is the
United States and or at least most
Germans think that its best friend in
the world is the United States and the
Germans in my opinion have for too long
had a tendency to follow
Uncle Sam and do what Uncle Sam wants
Germany to do I think it would be in
Germany's national interests and I've
argued this for a long time to have a
more independent foreign policy and when
it disagrees with the United States to
make that clear and I think the best
example to highlight this and it is a
truly important story I'm going to tell
that in April 2008 when NATO decided
that Ukraine was going to become a
member Georgia and Ukraine were both
been going to become members Angela
Merkel who was then the German
Chancellor and was at the meeting in
Bucharest that NATO meeting in April
2008 in Bucharest Angela Merkel was
adamantly opposed to Bringing Ukraine
into NATO
and as was Nicholas Sarkozy and Merkel
later said that the reason she was
opposed that she is that she understood
that Putin would interpret it
as a declaration of war
in a very important way Angela Merkel
was thinking like a hard-headed realist
in April 2008 and she went to Great
Lengths to prevent George W bush who was
then the president and who was in
Bucharest and was pushing for bringing
Ukraine and Georgia into NATO to prevent
that she and Sir cozy tried to prevent
it and they failed they caved to the
United States
I believe that if they had not caved
that evangela Merkel had stood her
ground and said under no circumstances
am I going to go along with bringing
Ukraine into NATO that the war would not
have happened and we would be in much
better shape today much better shape but
this is just another example of the
Europeans in the end doing what the
Americans want and this I think is more
true of Germany than almost any other
country in Europe
maybe Britain is as bad as Germany on
this count but I don't think that it
makes sense for the Germans to always
follow American dictates sometimes it
does there's no question that sometimes
the Americans are pursuing policies that
are in Germany's interests and German
leaders will sign on to those policies
and that's all for the good but states
don't always have the same interests and
sometimes leaders like Angela Merkel are
thinking more smartly than leaders like
George W bush and in those cases I think
it makes eminently good sense for a
German leader Angela Merkel in this case
to stand your ground wonderful well
thank you very much for those thoughts
thank you Professor for
your thoughts it's been a pleasure it's
been an honor and I wish you
all best for your to for your voice to
be heard to continue to be heard because
it's a one of the few voices of Sanity
in a quite turbulent situation thank you
very much you're welcome it was my
pleasure being here Max
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)