It’s 2026, and America is operating concentration camps while militarized police and federal forces expand across the country. This isn’t dystopian fiction. It’s what the dictatorship of capital looks like when its contradictions come home. #PoliceState
In other words John Mearsheimer endorses and justifies the most uncivilized, degenerate and psychopathic behavior of, in particular his own, nations who can't accept that other nations have vital interests of their own and the right to absolute sovereignty and noninterference from other states!
Even 200 years ago people finally recognized that THERE ACTUALLY IS a UNIVERSAL, CIVILIZED CODE of CONDUCT which must be respected by all and every nation and was codified in the 'Peace of Westphalia'.
Emer de Vattel further codified this idea that States MUST refrain from interfering in each other's domestic affairs to maintain international peace!
But the US NEVER adhered to any acceptable norms and codified in international treaties, civilized conduct, starting with the 1846 war against Mexico, and then the 1898 war against Spain, and on and on, presently counting 469 military aggressions against other nations!
This Zionist occupied global SCHURKENSTAAT #1, along with its satanic genocidal twin Israel, are the ultimate SCOURGE upon Humanity!
'Grand Strategies' and 'Vital Interests' have no place in international politics:
'REALPOLITIK' is simply a cover and excuse for this utterly immature, puerile and degenerate behavior, which dominates today's conduct by most Nations, particularly in the West!
Agree with you, just to add that 'realpolitik' is an extension to our tribal nature to violently subjugate and loot other tribes. It's our history from time immemorial, and it's being played before our eyes right now. Noting new under the sun
Yep, while Trump has taken this to the absolute extreme and has no hesitation bragging about how he's “taking the oil” and how all these other nations should subjugate themselves to HIM.
He planned to do to Iran what he already did to Venezuela, where all the oil revenue now ends up in one of his accounts in NY, $12 billion so far, yet apparently only 400 million has been paid out to Venezuela!
Mearsheimer forgets Europe never had peace, the historical background and legacy of internal wars between France and England, Germany and England, France and Germany and all their allies Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Balkan… and guess Russia or what preceded it never got involved in these wars but all these European nations had a common enemy Russia. Europe never sacrificed 27 million into a war with Russia, Russia did and still for the moment.
Peace with Europe for Russia is no more working except for a definite war, Russia’s proposals to work out a security architecture pleasing both sides has come to an end.
Withe regards to the Japanese (and Germans) developing nuclear weapons, isn’t this one exception where a preemptive military strike is legal according to the UN charter ?
How is the US still a "great" power? Given its nuclear arsenal? Russia in the 90's had still an huge nuclear arsenal and wasn't a great power. Trump and Biden destroyed US power in stupid wars against Russia and Iran. The US is not prepared to fight 21st century wars. Trump brags destroying Iran's Navy and Air Force, while Iran destroyed all US bases in the Gulf States.
Always felt the driving force of the European/US myopia was the grift entwined with NATO expansion (decommissioning soviet military systems/buying new American based systems) — which also entailed it appears, a massive corruption architecture at the political level both in the new central and eastern European NATO states but also importantly in the establishment European states and especially inside the EU.
Vietnam Battle was the last battle of the 2nd War War - from that perspective Vietnam Battle was strategically sensible choice. However, from a realistic point of view the 2nd War War was won and the Vietnam Battle ended up as the loss of 2nd War War for America and its allies. Strategic thinking needs to be forward looking, which is not what has been the current situtation
Nothing Grand about those strategies, agreed. But humans brag about their grandiosity in every other direction too. It's just us, glorified chimps, ready to spill blood at a moment's notice while endlessly talking about peace and love and all those abstract things.
Mearsheimer, whom’s opinion I normally appreciate, unfortunately doesn’t understand the changes in the world - there cannot be a unilateralist hegemon anymore, the many smaller countries of the world want to have the same rights as some bigger ones, the multipolar world has started! What the US wants or not - who cares in the future? USA should concentrate on the own country on the development of infrastructure and the poor regions.
Second: Mearsheimer doesn’t understand that socialist China isn’t a ‚normal‘ great power like the imperialist, capitalist countries in the last centuries. China has an anti-imperialist foreign policy, is supporting the developing countries, China has no interest in a collusion with USA against other countries, to use its power to aggressively dominate East Asia..
Mearsheimer is a theoretician of the US-imperialism.
How do we understand advocacy for multipolarity as a new paradigm for international relations?
Prof. Mearsheimer discusses policy in terms of "great powers", as if only 'great power interests' matter. However, as I understand it, in a 'multipolar age' there are no 'great powers'. 'Great Power' is a zero sum concept and belongs to a unipolar, specifically US, mentality. In a multipolar age there are no elite powers but every state exercises a degree of autonomy which is sufficient to secure its existential priorities within its global region. The model is more like a democracy of nations where every state has a vote and power is levelled than an imperial system where there are institutionally embedded winners (imperial centre) and losers (colonial margins).
In the multipolar paradigm, international relations are settled by discussion, trade, non-military options amongst peers - just like government via parliament within democratic states. Peers have no option to attain superiority thus cannot and will not try to settle issues through military means or by repeating the historical errors of imperialism - no more conquest of territory or control of trade routes, no more colonialism, no more global economic dominance, no more petrodollar or similar economic scams. No state gains an empire because the community of states unites to block this option - just as in functioning democracies no tyranny is allowed to usurp power. The best, most rational, options are always co-operation, mutual benefit through trade or cultural exchange. All rational options are pro-peace not pro-war. The logic is win-win not win-lose.
Is this age of peace attainable? I think it cannot be attained while capitalism dominates economics, politics, and sets the agenda for critical thinking. How has this discourse gained traction? I think its main advocate is China and we need to examine China to understand the full meaning of multipolarity.
What sort of state is China? It is usually described as a Communist state. I do not see China in those terms. What I see is a capitalist state with one-party government. The government calls itself 'Communism with Chinese characteristics' but I see this as a misrepresentation to evade criticism. China's one-party system is capitalism, where theoretically autonomous 'market forces' are skewed and filtered by racism and a theory of Han ethnic superiority. This capitalist-racist ideology maintains an apartheid system within China - Han identity is the 'normative' default. Any minority must accept inferiority or face economic ruin and/or genocidal suppression. Contrast experiences of PRC minorities e.g. Tibetan or Uyghur with Yao or Lahu. I see the closest analogues to PRC as contemporary Israel or South Africa under Boer rule - all are ethno-supremacist, uniparty, capitalist-extractive states. I therefore see a cynical interest for China in promoting a system of international peace based on national autonomy - international peace is attained by non-interference in each state's internal affairs. This works to prevent imperialism or 'great powers' but at the cost of abandoning criticism of each state's internal affairs. You get global peace but at the cost of institutionalised violence, repression, inequality, racism, chauvinism within state boundaries.
I think the world is in turmoil as one age ends, the age of unipolarity and imperialism. I see a new age emerging. We refer to this as 'multipolarity' but I see this as no real improvement if it is multipolarity on a Chinese model. Chinese multipolarity keeps capitalism, racism, inequality. It does not end war or violence, it just shifts it within states rather than between states. What I want, as a European Leftist, is a post-unipolar, post-capitalist, post-inequality, post-racist global and local order. I see no way forward to a genuinely better world than a genuine revolution. If Europe settles either for nostalgic unipolar politics or tries to uncritically accept multipolarity on a Chinese model then we will almost immediately regret it. Either path is full of violence, suffering, ruin for anyone not 'elite'. Europeans have to take the hope implied by multipolarity and transform it into something genuinely transformative. We need a post-capitalist multipolarity. I see no widespread understanding of this, no sense of urgency in rejecting the next stage of capitalist domination of our planet. It is a critical failure on our part as Europeans. We have no one else to blame for our lack of imagination or ambition, our lack of original political ideas. I do not exclude the European Left from this criticism. It is time to step up or we doom ourselves to suffer ever increasing tyranny whether it is flavoured unipolar or multipolar.
I think we are already in WW3 (as explained in other comments on this channel) and I think US and NATO or other allied states are not winning. I think Prof. Mearsheimer is too optimistic about US future e.g. when petrodollar system fails. US is bankrupt and cannot recover once this reality can no longer be evaded by exploiting unipolarity. US has as much existential threat to face as Europe. The fantasy of US safety on their continent is just that, a fantasy. Change cannot be evaded by the Americas.
Prof. My interpretation of your talk is: Ideally America needs two kind of armies. One real American to handle internal and possilble external threats and that is the American force. And beside that you need something like Blackwater or Wagner or other private armies paid for by the Globalists=Neogons=Trotskyites financial sector, including the genocides in Israel and other places. It means America stays clean and all the crimes now associated with America would be 'privatized' . Real Americans can then choose to risk their lives only for America, and the others know that they are simply merceranies for Israel or the financial sector. Did the East India Company had a kind of Blackwater force? Only when the problems became too big for the mercenaries the State had to step in and rescue the private enterprise, Neither the Kaiser nor Bismarck wanted colonies, but the business sector wanted them.
Would there not be a huge potential among the Bible Belt People to join private contractors to fight for their kind of believe and support Israel? Would Trump not get his Peace Nobel Price? Would he not be a national hero?
The Jewish donors do not have to bribe Congress and Senate and can directly finance the mercenaries. Did Jewish money not finance the Japanese in the war against Russia in 1904? A 'Liberty' Crime against American soldiers could not happen again, as mercenaries would know that they are on their own
Why would East Asia still be a primal priority in US Grand Startegy under the current circumstances?
I would think that West Asia is now more important, as the containment strategy in East Asia has pushed China to develop inwards towards Russia and Iran. This implies that the real containment of China is to the West.
On top of that, the battle for the Persian Gulf will
Also determine the future of the dollar financial order and the potential rise of the Renminbi as an alternative financial order.
This not only puts China at risk of becoming no a regional hegemon, but also to put it in a position to quickly become a global one.
the lost war in Iran makes Trump’s talk about “owning” the Strait of Hormuz sound like cracked‑brain fantasy. a president babbling about territory he can’t hold, spinning delusion into policy while ships burn and troops scramble. it feels like a loud, sweaty meltdown — a man pretending he’s a conqueror while reality keeps kicking him in the teeth.
John's clear exposition of these issues is truly valuable. I think his focus on the Zionist lobby ended by being a distraction since his studies did not go to the ground level of party control that happens on the county level in the US. Since 9/l1 really before the composition of the US military has been directed toward Islamic terrorism.
William Murphy 15h
It’s 2026, and America is operating concentration camps while militarized police and federal forces expand across the country. This isn’t dystopian fiction. It’s what the dictatorship of capital looks like when its contradictions come home. #PoliceState
Mr. Diesen, I learn so much listening to your talks. Thank you.
In other words John Mearsheimer endorses and justifies the most uncivilized, degenerate and psychopathic behavior of, in particular his own, nations who can't accept that other nations have vital interests of their own and the right to absolute sovereignty and noninterference from other states!
Even 200 years ago people finally recognized that THERE ACTUALLY IS a UNIVERSAL, CIVILIZED CODE of CONDUCT which must be respected by all and every nation and was codified in the 'Peace of Westphalia'.
Emer de Vattel further codified this idea that States MUST refrain from interfering in each other's domestic affairs to maintain international peace!
But the US NEVER adhered to any acceptable norms and codified in international treaties, civilized conduct, starting with the 1846 war against Mexico, and then the 1898 war against Spain, and on and on, presently counting 469 military aggressions against other nations!
This Zionist occupied global SCHURKENSTAAT #1, along with its satanic genocidal twin Israel, are the ultimate SCOURGE upon Humanity!
'Grand Strategies' and 'Vital Interests' have no place in international politics:
'REALPOLITIK' is simply a cover and excuse for this utterly immature, puerile and degenerate behavior, which dominates today's conduct by most Nations, particularly in the West!
Agree with you, just to add that 'realpolitik' is an extension to our tribal nature to violently subjugate and loot other tribes. It's our history from time immemorial, and it's being played before our eyes right now. Noting new under the sun
Yep, while Trump has taken this to the absolute extreme and has no hesitation bragging about how he's “taking the oil” and how all these other nations should subjugate themselves to HIM.
He planned to do to Iran what he already did to Venezuela, where all the oil revenue now ends up in one of his accounts in NY, $12 billion so far, yet apparently only 400 million has been paid out to Venezuela!
Whatever happened to the other $11.6 billion?
Mearsheimer forgets Europe never had peace, the historical background and legacy of internal wars between France and England, Germany and England, France and Germany and all their allies Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Balkan… and guess Russia or what preceded it never got involved in these wars but all these European nations had a common enemy Russia. Europe never sacrificed 27 million into a war with Russia, Russia did and still for the moment.
Peace with Europe for Russia is no more working except for a definite war, Russia’s proposals to work out a security architecture pleasing both sides has come to an end.
Withe regards to the Japanese (and Germans) developing nuclear weapons, isn’t this one exception where a preemptive military strike is legal according to the UN charter ?
How is the US still a "great" power? Given its nuclear arsenal? Russia in the 90's had still an huge nuclear arsenal and wasn't a great power. Trump and Biden destroyed US power in stupid wars against Russia and Iran. The US is not prepared to fight 21st century wars. Trump brags destroying Iran's Navy and Air Force, while Iran destroyed all US bases in the Gulf States.
Always felt the driving force of the European/US myopia was the grift entwined with NATO expansion (decommissioning soviet military systems/buying new American based systems) — which also entailed it appears, a massive corruption architecture at the political level both in the new central and eastern European NATO states but also importantly in the establishment European states and especially inside the EU.
Vietnam Battle was the last battle of the 2nd War War - from that perspective Vietnam Battle was strategically sensible choice. However, from a realistic point of view the 2nd War War was won and the Vietnam Battle ended up as the loss of 2nd War War for America and its allies. Strategic thinking needs to be forward looking, which is not what has been the current situtation
Nothing Grand about those strategies . Grand implies failure to contemplate the human will to overcome adversity .
Nothing Grand about those strategies, agreed. But humans brag about their grandiosity in every other direction too. It's just us, glorified chimps, ready to spill blood at a moment's notice while endlessly talking about peace and love and all those abstract things.
Mearsheimer, whom’s opinion I normally appreciate, unfortunately doesn’t understand the changes in the world - there cannot be a unilateralist hegemon anymore, the many smaller countries of the world want to have the same rights as some bigger ones, the multipolar world has started! What the US wants or not - who cares in the future? USA should concentrate on the own country on the development of infrastructure and the poor regions.
Second: Mearsheimer doesn’t understand that socialist China isn’t a ‚normal‘ great power like the imperialist, capitalist countries in the last centuries. China has an anti-imperialist foreign policy, is supporting the developing countries, China has no interest in a collusion with USA against other countries, to use its power to aggressively dominate East Asia..
Mearsheimer is a theoretician of the US-imperialism.
Mearsheimer’s notion of grand strategy assumes the strategist must be an imperialist.
How do we understand advocacy for multipolarity as a new paradigm for international relations?
Prof. Mearsheimer discusses policy in terms of "great powers", as if only 'great power interests' matter. However, as I understand it, in a 'multipolar age' there are no 'great powers'. 'Great Power' is a zero sum concept and belongs to a unipolar, specifically US, mentality. In a multipolar age there are no elite powers but every state exercises a degree of autonomy which is sufficient to secure its existential priorities within its global region. The model is more like a democracy of nations where every state has a vote and power is levelled than an imperial system where there are institutionally embedded winners (imperial centre) and losers (colonial margins).
In the multipolar paradigm, international relations are settled by discussion, trade, non-military options amongst peers - just like government via parliament within democratic states. Peers have no option to attain superiority thus cannot and will not try to settle issues through military means or by repeating the historical errors of imperialism - no more conquest of territory or control of trade routes, no more colonialism, no more global economic dominance, no more petrodollar or similar economic scams. No state gains an empire because the community of states unites to block this option - just as in functioning democracies no tyranny is allowed to usurp power. The best, most rational, options are always co-operation, mutual benefit through trade or cultural exchange. All rational options are pro-peace not pro-war. The logic is win-win not win-lose.
Is this age of peace attainable? I think it cannot be attained while capitalism dominates economics, politics, and sets the agenda for critical thinking. How has this discourse gained traction? I think its main advocate is China and we need to examine China to understand the full meaning of multipolarity.
What sort of state is China? It is usually described as a Communist state. I do not see China in those terms. What I see is a capitalist state with one-party government. The government calls itself 'Communism with Chinese characteristics' but I see this as a misrepresentation to evade criticism. China's one-party system is capitalism, where theoretically autonomous 'market forces' are skewed and filtered by racism and a theory of Han ethnic superiority. This capitalist-racist ideology maintains an apartheid system within China - Han identity is the 'normative' default. Any minority must accept inferiority or face economic ruin and/or genocidal suppression. Contrast experiences of PRC minorities e.g. Tibetan or Uyghur with Yao or Lahu. I see the closest analogues to PRC as contemporary Israel or South Africa under Boer rule - all are ethno-supremacist, uniparty, capitalist-extractive states. I therefore see a cynical interest for China in promoting a system of international peace based on national autonomy - international peace is attained by non-interference in each state's internal affairs. This works to prevent imperialism or 'great powers' but at the cost of abandoning criticism of each state's internal affairs. You get global peace but at the cost of institutionalised violence, repression, inequality, racism, chauvinism within state boundaries.
I think the world is in turmoil as one age ends, the age of unipolarity and imperialism. I see a new age emerging. We refer to this as 'multipolarity' but I see this as no real improvement if it is multipolarity on a Chinese model. Chinese multipolarity keeps capitalism, racism, inequality. It does not end war or violence, it just shifts it within states rather than between states. What I want, as a European Leftist, is a post-unipolar, post-capitalist, post-inequality, post-racist global and local order. I see no way forward to a genuinely better world than a genuine revolution. If Europe settles either for nostalgic unipolar politics or tries to uncritically accept multipolarity on a Chinese model then we will almost immediately regret it. Either path is full of violence, suffering, ruin for anyone not 'elite'. Europeans have to take the hope implied by multipolarity and transform it into something genuinely transformative. We need a post-capitalist multipolarity. I see no widespread understanding of this, no sense of urgency in rejecting the next stage of capitalist domination of our planet. It is a critical failure on our part as Europeans. We have no one else to blame for our lack of imagination or ambition, our lack of original political ideas. I do not exclude the European Left from this criticism. It is time to step up or we doom ourselves to suffer ever increasing tyranny whether it is flavoured unipolar or multipolar.
I think we are already in WW3 (as explained in other comments on this channel) and I think US and NATO or other allied states are not winning. I think Prof. Mearsheimer is too optimistic about US future e.g. when petrodollar system fails. US is bankrupt and cannot recover once this reality can no longer be evaded by exploiting unipolarity. US has as much existential threat to face as Europe. The fantasy of US safety on their continent is just that, a fantasy. Change cannot be evaded by the Americas.
Prof. My interpretation of your talk is: Ideally America needs two kind of armies. One real American to handle internal and possilble external threats and that is the American force. And beside that you need something like Blackwater or Wagner or other private armies paid for by the Globalists=Neogons=Trotskyites financial sector, including the genocides in Israel and other places. It means America stays clean and all the crimes now associated with America would be 'privatized' . Real Americans can then choose to risk their lives only for America, and the others know that they are simply merceranies for Israel or the financial sector. Did the East India Company had a kind of Blackwater force? Only when the problems became too big for the mercenaries the State had to step in and rescue the private enterprise, Neither the Kaiser nor Bismarck wanted colonies, but the business sector wanted them.
Would there not be a huge potential among the Bible Belt People to join private contractors to fight for their kind of believe and support Israel? Would Trump not get his Peace Nobel Price? Would he not be a national hero?
The Jewish donors do not have to bribe Congress and Senate and can directly finance the mercenaries. Did Jewish money not finance the Japanese in the war against Russia in 1904? A 'Liberty' Crime against American soldiers could not happen again, as mercenaries would know that they are on their own
Why would East Asia still be a primal priority in US Grand Startegy under the current circumstances?
I would think that West Asia is now more important, as the containment strategy in East Asia has pushed China to develop inwards towards Russia and Iran. This implies that the real containment of China is to the West.
On top of that, the battle for the Persian Gulf will
Also determine the future of the dollar financial order and the potential rise of the Renminbi as an alternative financial order.
This not only puts China at risk of becoming no a regional hegemon, but also to put it in a position to quickly become a global one.
the lost war in Iran makes Trump’s talk about “owning” the Strait of Hormuz sound like cracked‑brain fantasy. a president babbling about territory he can’t hold, spinning delusion into policy while ships burn and troops scramble. it feels like a loud, sweaty meltdown — a man pretending he’s a conqueror while reality keeps kicking him in the teeth.
John's clear exposition of these issues is truly valuable. I think his focus on the Zionist lobby ended by being a distraction since his studies did not go to the ground level of party control that happens on the county level in the US. Since 9/l1 really before the composition of the US military has been directed toward Islamic terrorism.