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

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

00:00

😀 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。

05:01

🌐 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。

10:03

🇺🇸 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。

15:04

📈 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。

20:07

🤝 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。

25:09

🚫 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。

30:11

🔄 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。

35:12

👥 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。

40:13

🙌 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。

Keywords

💡現実主義

現実主義とは、国際政治において最も重要な要素が国家の力であるとする政治理論です。この理論では、国家は弱いと他の国から利益を削られるため、できるだけ力を持続することが求められます。ビデオでは、ジョン・マイアーシュタイマーが現実主義を支持し、国家の性質（民主主義か独裁主義かを問わず）がその行動に影響を与えないとする現実主義の考え方を説明しています。

💡国家の力

国家の力とは、軍事力、経済力、政治的な影響力などを含めた国家の総合的な力です。ビデオでは、国家の力が国際システムで競争する根幹であり、それが国家の行動を決定づけるとされており、特にロシアとウクライナの戦争の背景にも関与しています。

💡核兵器

核兵器は、極端な破壊力を持ち、核分裂反応を起こして大量破壊を行う兵器です。ビデオでは、核兵器の使用が示されると、広範囲の核戦争を引き起こし、全員が損失を被るという危惧があるとされており、そのためにも戦争を止めることが求められます。

💡

💡ユーラシア大陸

ユーラシア大陸とは、ヨーロッパ大陸とアジア大陸を合わせた大陸のことを指します。ビデオでは、ロシアがユーラシア大陸において力を持つことで、その地域の政治的・経済的影响力を増やしていると説明されています。

💡NATO拡大

NATO拡大とは、北大西洋条約機構（NATO）が新たに加盟国を加えることを意味します。ビデオでは、NATOがロシアの国境近くに進出することで、ロシアにとって脅威と見なされ、ウクライナ危機の原因となりました。

💡経済制裁

経済制裁とは、国同士の紛争において、経済的な手段を用いて相手国に圧力をかける行為です。ビデオでは、西側諸国がロシアに対して経済制裁を科したものの、期待していたほどの効果を持ち合わせていないと述べられています。

💡中国の台頭

中国の台頭とは、中国が経済的、政治的な力を持ち、世界で重要な役割を果たしている状態です。ビデオでは、アメリカが中国の経済成長を促進した政策が誤りであり、中国がアメリカの競合国になる原因となり、それが現在の問題となっています。

💡戦略的競争

戦略的競争とは、国家間の力関係をめぐって行われる競争を指します。ビデオでは、2017年以降、米国、中国、ロシアの3極が形成され、戦略的競争が再び本格的に始まっているとされています。

💡民主主義と平和

民主主義と平和とは、民主的な政治体系を持つ国同士が戦争を起こさないとする理論です。ビデオでは、現実主義の立場から、民主主義に基づく平和論が誤りであり、国々の力関係が平和を決める要因であると主張しています。

💡ユーラシア大陸

ユーラシア大陸は、ヨーロッパとアジアを合わせた地域を指し、ビデオではロシアがその地域で影响力を増やしている状況が説明されています。また、ロシアはユーラシア大陸において力を持つことで、地域の政治的・経済的影响力を増やしているとされています。

💡冷戦

冷戦とは、実際に兵力を用いた戦争を避けながらも、政治的・軍事的な対立を続けた状態です。ビデオでは、ウクライナ戦争の終結が見通せない状況であり、冷戦のような緊張関係が続く可能性があると述べられています。

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