Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/r4wLXNydzeY/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
He really isn't. His entire approach to geopolitics is "capitulate, surrender, give in." Yes, that avoids war in the short term, but is a foolish way to deal with warmongers.
These conversations are moot. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is very specific in their use. There are only two scenarios in which Russia will use nuclear weapons, and this has been confirmed time and time again by Putin and the defense ministry: a) they are attacked with nukes first and will hence use them in retaliation; and b) there is a direct and imminent threat to the existence of the Russian governmental system as a whole. Russia isn't stupid. Using nukes offensively and indiscriminately will trigger a retaliation from NATO (if not with nukes then definitely full military retaliation); it will ostracize Russia within the global community, and it will kill all their global alliances, especially with China. There is absolutely no reason or benefit for Russia to use nuclear weapons outside of the two points in their doctrine. Even if they wipe out their military opposition, they will become isolated and probably invaded and probably nuked in return. I also really don't think Russia wants to pop off a nuclear war and endanger the whole planet. Russia and Putin aren't anymore evil than the west. They have their own selfish interests just like every other global power. Russia is as likely to use nukes as the USA. Israel (more specifically Netanyahu's Likud thugs) is more likely to use nukes than Russia.
Saying Putin isn't anymore evil than the west is a clean way to your wipe the credibility. Yes, we are all serving our own self interests but his interests are purely internal and thus destructive to those outside. Our self interest involves the self interest of others hence why you can even point to 'the west' as a unified group in the first place.
@@xusmico187I’m sure they left it intentionally vague. What I would assume would trigger WMD use would be for instance if NATO launches a full scale unprovoked invasion of Russia or something along those lines. Op makes a good point that even a small nuclear escalation by Russia would signal the end of Russia as a whole. China would be forced to pull their support even if they didn’t want to or be sanctioned to death by the rest of the world. Putin might be crazy but he’s not stupid. There’s no scenario where Russia uses nukes and comes out on top.
Except now that they've updated the doctrine. I personally don't think that they were going to use nukes and I don't think this recent update actually changes much of anything, my point is just that you should never take seriously anything russians declare.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
Yes, but it's logic, based on the premises of a multipolar world, and nation states being sovereign. The plannedemic has clearly demonstrated, those premises are completely false, as no nation state has challenged the one world order.
He previously described Putin as "too smart" to invade Ukraine. Cold Warrior game theory thinkers seem to get no shortage of passes when they decide to apply their study of history into theories that predict the future and screw up.
Even if Kissinger wouldn't have initiated a nuclear escalation in the event of a Warsaw Pact victory in Europe (itself extremely unlikely), France would have. They have their own independent nuclear arsenal, and would use it if the alternative was to be invaded by Warsaw Pact. So the world would not have escaped a nuclear escalation scenario. And that's something that Kissinger should have known and prepared for.
I love when people like you many years removed have a better stretaegy and more insight than the people who are reacting in real time to what’s going on in the world lol its foolish
@@kyle_mutti Kissinger never ever had to react in real-time to whatever. He's not a soldier on front line. He's not reacting to a street fight. Heck, he's not even a politician, he doesn't even have to make a statement, nor take any decision ! No, its role is to "theorize", to prepare in advance what would be the better decision *if* .... So, all the time in the world to think a problem correctly. Which is fine, the world needs people in such position. They have the means (time and information) to foresee far in advance, extrapolate from little nuance, and because their mind is somewhat tuned to this exercise, are generally unable to act decently in the face of immediate pressure. But I guess that's way too much nuance for a troll. Your urge to throw a random disparaging thought to feel superior in the moment had an imperious priority. Thinking, after all, is limited to Kissinger & Co.
I think The Rock is the best. It’s on a small mountain, but still low enough to easily provision. It’s warm enough to live in all the time. It’s got a huge maze of tunnels that only the defenders know to potentially sneak in more food. It might even be possible to survive a dragon attack by hiding deep in the mines.
"Will Russia use nuclear weapons?" That is a very stupid question. Yes, they will under the right circumstances. Just as the good old USA did on Japan. Isn't it funny how America is so concerned about any Nation using Nukes when they are the only Nation in the history of the world that has used Nukes?
The other difference is that Jason was going on a land grab through the pacific going as far south as bombing Darwin in Australia. A-holes like that Japanese emperor, Hitler and now Putin need to be stopped.
US didn't need to use nukes on Japan. They admitted it. Plus Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes but rather because the Red Army was going to invade Japan and they were terrrified.
Obviously Lex is asking the question in the context of Ukraine and potential circumstances that may occur. What he’s doing is asking an expert to weigh those potential circumstances to determine what may tip the scales. Pretending like this is a stupid question can only hold up as a semantic strategy where others’ words are used against them in a literal and rigid manner ignores common speech and communication patterns. Or, to be brief, take the stick out yo ass.
@@NextGenLugnut Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. No one is going to fire at them or invade them. That’s why this isn’t about NATO, this is about him wanting puppet regimes instead of successful democracies in his area. Effectively a new USSR.
@@Man-u-flexNot really. Egypt had a bunch of Russian ballistic missiles with unknown warheads aimed at Israel. Kissinger was wrote about the whole situation.
Mr Lex , there is so much valuable content in this interview, you could make a 3 day seminar of it. I had to watch several clips, videos multiple times to be able to absorb all the historie, topics and views of it. Also the energy and view difference between your obliged positive naivety and your guest surprised, doubtful (but pleased there is still hope) reaction is fantastic to see on the screen. I’m also pleased you brought a guest giving insights from a rather other side compared to your previous guests. Not easy for you to go ahead with your promise of giving platform to all sides (left, right, middle). You walk the talk, keep up with the great work. Ever tough bringing 2 opposing guest for 3 hours in an interview, you moderating? I think the outcome results in trough bromance between the opposites, or at least them getting closer.
Why people worry so much about a country with the GDP of South Korea? Been there several times, a lot of hard working people who just want to get along with everyone.
You could be wrong. He was just sitting content for having an interesting conversation and listening to a good point. There is no evidence of aliens in the known universe as of yet. Scientifically speaking.
@@weltallsinsuche "scientifically speaking" are the words you choose to blindfold yourself. Do not confuse "science" with what the media wants to define as "science". Science means empirical evidence and transparency. When you have whistleblowers in Congress, air force pilots on JRE and army vets in prison for releasing videos you should automatically know there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a withholding of information issue. Saying "scientifically speaking" there is no evidence at this point is akin to saying "I don't even want to look at the evidence available as I'm not prepared to contemplate a world that is different from my acquired perception of it". "Scientifically speaking" we should have full access to all facilities mentioned by Bob Lazar, we should have all videos mentioned by Lt. Frazer, we should release all documents mentioned in Congress. "Scientifically speaking" we should not automatically dismiss any "alien mummy" popping out of South America, the shamanic oral traditions of every corner of the world and even religious accounts from India, the Middle East, Tibet, South Africa and other places. "Scientifically speaking" we should look into each claim and whenever we find someone witholding information we should ask "Why?", "Who is paying you?" and "show me your bank transactions". Only then, "scientifically speaking", you'd have a chance to understand something about the real science, not the sterile watered down version they want you to believe in as if it was a religion of minimalism, conformism and economy of thought. What you call "science" is nothing more than the modern equivalent of puritanism.
I mean there is only one country so far that has actually used a atomic weapon on people that were mostly civilians btw not once but twice, but they seem to deflect from that and dont want you to talk about it lol
@alexandremaximov3885 the point is the US seems so worried about other countries using them when they are the only country that has in a war killing thousands of civilians in the process seems pretty hypocritical, no? But I know anything the US does is justified and ok, though, right? The point seemed pretty obvious to me
@@liquidragonfu5546 Oh I know the US is plenty hypocritical. Me being Russian automatically means I'm obligated to hate them :P But let's try using your argument, so you can see where I'm coming from. The so-called targets of those nukes have themselves slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese civilians. By your logic, that means the Japanese are not allowed to protest what gets done to their civilians since they've done plenty right? Do you see the flaw with this? The problem with your point is that you're insinuating that they should just be fine with everyone having and using nukes however they wish. These aren't toys, they're world-ending weapons. I believe it is good to restrict the number of countries that have access to nukes and protest their usage in war. The US does have a problem of doing BS things, and then whining about others who start doing the same. I agree with you there. They should be called out by the international community when it happens. But I think when it comes to nukes, they're right to be worried about who and how they might be used.
@OigySmoigy you seem to be grasping at Straw to try and say I'm wrong about idk something.....just seems to be proving my point lol idk you are not making alot of sense
I know where you are coming from, but keep in mind that people used to say something similar about Iran. Namely, that the US downed a civilian Iranian plane killing all on board, how irresponsible and evil of the US to do that. Then in 2020 Iran did the same... they shot down a civilian plane killing everyone on board. My point is... your argument will have no validity the day when Russia or other nuclear armed state uses its nukes against civilians. And that's not something very unlikely to happen.
I agree Lex,the use of a nuke would set a terrifying precedent,initially I thought the mere fact of sending the stingers and javellins that sent Russian soldiers home in body bags might prompt use of nukes. Surprisingly not and the lethality of weapons to Ukraine has increased gradually. There is this opinion that the US and Europe should send even more but we all know that an outright defeat of Russia would trigger the policy of "the survival of the Russian state "doctrine advocating the use of nukes. All the talk of wanting Ukraine to win is a smokescreen,stalemate is the preferred course of the West because we can't take the risk of a Russian loss scenario. Feel bad for the brave Ukranian people and the effort and lost lives,but the consequences of a Russian collapse are too horrifying to contemplate. The hidden Western strategy is to bleed Putin of conventional military power and have a negotiated settlement.
It's unbelievable how people sit in a chair and talk so lightly about "manipulating" risk which can blow us into oblivion.. It's so annoying that some people have this kind of power
thank goodness Russia does not need to use nuclear weapons because it has enough alternatives. But Russia has a trip wire automated response set up where it will not be caught with nuclear weapons on its soil. One goes they all go. This is according to Scott Ritter.
While escalation and mistake is very common during conflict it' s very unlikely that a Russian missile will hit location y than X, as these are guided missiles, I am talking about ballistic ones of course
The discussion on the possible use of nuclear weapons seems to me very relevant. The problem is that western media and many people in western countries do not understand the logic behind and they believe that Russia would not use nuclear weapons.
It's an overblown conversation by the same people who keep telling us that while being the incompetent Russia is still about to take over Europe after Ukraine. Ukraine has less dead children in 2 years of war than Gaza had in the first month and unlike Baghdad that had it's water supply bombed in the first few days of the invasion Kyiv still has running water, it doesn't seem to me that the Russians would do these things then decide to drop nukes on their border in a country that contains many of their own people. In the 50 years they've had nukes they've never saw fit to use them, in fact the only country that has used them (on defenseless civilian populations) is that bastion of liberty and freedom the USA
Not true, nukes ended the Japanese conflict and they will likely end this conflict. Western people live in a fairytale and think that the US and the EU are Gods that control what people can and can’t do in a war. Putin does not think like they do. He knows that if he nukes Ukraine then no other nation will do anything significant due to the fact that they aren't directly participating in this war, and if they did than it would be suicide. No one in the West ever thought a group of Islamic terrorist would blow up the WTC in 2001 but look what happened@@TrueDaturaMindNz
Russia is not afraid of NATO as it is already surrounded by NATO practically on 3 sides! What it wants is to re- conquer Ukraine! Ukraine made a mistake in giving up its nuclear arsenal for peace. A nuclear war is scary, but never forget that because of Moscow’s mishandling of nuclear energy, we already had a nuclear explosion in Ukraine - Chernobyl. The possible use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or just plain Jane use of fire and sword in trying to destroy Ukraine is all the same for us. As horrible as it sounds.
It's interesting to hear Professor Mearsheimer's perspective. He's certainly a prominent voice in international relations. However, I think it's worth noting his frequent participation in the Valdai Discussion Club, which is known to have close ties to the Russian government. Some reports even suggest that speakers at Valdai events may receive compensation. While I appreciate diverse viewpoints, I do wonder how much these associations, and any potential financial arrangements, might influence the framing of his analysis, especially regarding issues involving Russia. It would be valuable to consider the potential for bias, whether stemming from ideological alignment or financial incentives, when evaluating his arguments on these complex geopolitical matters. Ultimately, it's crucial to engage with a variety of sources and perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of international affairs.
May I point out to you that since Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, significantly increasing Russia's frontage to NATO, Russia's response has been rather mute. This suggests that there are other factors behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine than a pure NATO treat.
Understanding power dynamic is so important to have civil and mature negotiations, no matter who wins or loses. So many things could go wrong and escalate uncontrollably.
Russia NEVER used nuclear weapons against civilian... USA used it twice.... moreover, Russia doesn't want to get rid of Ukraine but to keep them into the fold. this is an absolutely ridiculous idea
@OigySmoigy did you read my comment?... moreover it makes sense to use a nuclear weapon against a country far away and not your neighbour's since it will hurt your country as well ... if the previous argument didn't make sense to you.
@@АбдулаАльхазред-ц9пno, Putin won't use nukes because there is no justification for it. In the same way he has been reluctant until very recently, to call his military operation a 'war'. And in any case, he has not formally declared war on you. Why? Because he can't justify going to war against Ukraine over the reasons he gave to his people. As simple as that.
yeah ofc, Russia is using conventional weapons against civilians, no need for the nuclear option. And no, the 1945 bombings are not the same thing as the lunacy we are experiencing today my little Kremlin bot.
What do you mean? Elaborate it, because a question like this and it seems you´re a internet bot. Iran is not a nuclear power (yet) and North Korea only has, till now, relativelly limited nuclear capabilities to strike an enemy like the US.
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui come on it is clear already. why does mutual assured destruction not apply to all? if they get the bomb why are they going to use it because they will get wiped out in response!
Means of delivery. They lack reliable means of getting warheads to North America. The furthest a North Korean ballistic missle test has been made wouldn't take one to Pearl Harbor. Iran only has regional ballistic missles. Backpack nukes may or may not be possible, I've heard arguments both ways from nuclear physists, but assuming they exist the reliability of delivery would still be a crap shoot. Summation: MAD requires two technologies. The warheads and critically ICBMs. The idea of MAD was conceived over a decade post Hiroshima when missile technologies in Russia and North America meant shooting down the bombers no longer saved civilization.
Winning to Russia is controlling the Donbas and securing access to Crimea from the north, which they've already done. The only objective that they haven't achieved is taking Odessa. They never wanted Kiev.
That’s a great point that the Professor mentioned Russia could get away with using a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine since Ukraine doesn’t have any to retaliate with and of course we wouldn’t ever use any because that would escalate the situation into a full blown nuclear war but at the same time Russia would be hesitant about using one in Ukraine not knowing what our response would be because nobody wants a nuclear Armageddon.
One question: if man never intended to use nuclear weapons at any time during his current existence on Earth, then why would he create them in the first place? It's simple. It is because it is inescapably inevitable that global nuclear war, wherever its origin, will occur at some time in the near future within the 21st century. And, pretty much sooner than we may think, considering the ever increasing tensions generated in geopolitics, border conflicts and a host of other unresolved factors contested between man and his enemies. The often talked-about anticipated regret will of course be great but of no use in assuaging long-term pain guaranteed in the fallout after these actions have been carried out. But sometimes, like most things in this life, the inevitable is just that: inevitable.
Interesting the comments from Mcnamara and Kissinger. It shows that the absolute terror of Nuclear War had sufficient deterrent value to prevent there use in even circumstances of extreme provocation. I would suggest be it Ukraine or Taiwan, that the leaders involved would rather de-escalate in such a crisis than push anyone to use Nuclear weapons.
It would look so bad considering the Budapest Memo explicitly provides protection to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90's.
What about nuclear attack by proxy? For instance, North Korea threatens South Korea while in a security pact with Russia to surrender without a fight? It’s illogical to think that any nuclear power is going to support South Korea if Russia guarantees nuclear retaliation.
@@TheDavidlloydjones A security pact with Russia that guarantees North Korean integrity. Similar to NATO, but it’s members are nut jobs armed with nukes.
Your question is nonsense. Why would Russia meddle itself in a fight between North Korea (a nuclear state) and South Korea (a non-nuclear state, until now)?
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui It’s not about meddling, it’s about the power of a nuclear arsenal being put to use by a proxy to expand Russia’s influence. We’ve always assumed that MAD prevents the use of nuclear weapons between the nuclear powers, but that comfort disappears with the threat by a proxy protected by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Thanks gentlemen. One country actually used nukes against humanity, in all of history. Which country was it? Hint: it wasn't Russia. (theme from Jeopardy plays in the background). Time's up. Show us your answer, please.
he talked about nuclear crysis which could not happen back than cuz Japan did not have nukes. and dont right now thanks to our main character and correct answer - US
@@RMJerich0 what is more perplexing is not even that the US got away with it... it is that the Japanese are now friends with the US and allow the US to exert a great control over their country to this day. (Actually this is not even something from present time; the emperor Hirohito visited the US in the turn of the century, the same emperor who saw his population get obliterated by US nukes and had to sign an unconditional surrender.)
Can't judge history out of context. The two devices detonated over Japan ended an ungodly world war, saved a recalcitrant, fanatical Japan from being invaded with estimated million of casualties on both sides. Those two small fission bombs saved lives in the awful calculus of war.
From the observation that aliens do not exist, I would not infer that they destroyed themselves in war, but rather that they never existed in the first place.
If Russia went nuclear - there has to be a response. Even if they do it in a rural area - you cannot normalize the use of nuclear weapons in a modern conflict for any purpose. Its a slippery slope to catastrophe. It is important for the US to make that clear to Russia to prevent them from even trying that desperate move - to undermine the logic John explicitly refers to, believing you can treat Ukraine as a situation where the doctrine of mutually assured destruction does not apply. So to be quite frank - John is just wrong, and is defeated by his own logic. The US not responding in kind prevents a nuclear exchange - but putting a full military response on the table tells the Russians, there is no way to use nuclear weapons in a limited sense. And to some degree its worked because they have done so - saying it will be Russia triggering the great power war. I am not saying there is any happy ending - the world is basically over. But does John actually think condoning a Russian nuclear attack in that scenario is the preferred approach?
Nato to remind ( on letter head, unsigned) the age old orthodoxy of a porportionate tactical nuclear response to a tactical nuclear strike by russia. Note in writing that that position is not particularly led by led by US Uk . Don't discuss this further except at UN in an attempt to gain agreement to a 90% proportionate response.
Mearsheimer is so full of himself. It is important to remember that he has never held any position of real resonsibility in the military or in the diplomatic corps. Ergo, he's never even ever spoken with any actual decision makers.
It's not being full of yourself to want to use your insight to prevent your country from causing chaos and death. A few months ago I watched one of the professor's talks and thought it was recent because it described the situation the current situation going on in Ukraine to a tee but to my shock when I check the time of publishing it was a video posted 9 years ago. If the chimpanzees in Biden's current diplomatic corp had HALF his insight and intelligence a lot of dead Ukrainians, human destruction, misery, sex trafficked Ukrainian women and children and hundreds of billions in pilfered tax dollars could have been avoided.
No, they won't. There is no point in nuking land you are trying to conquer. Stupid question. If they tried to nuke anybody else, their whole country would be glass in a couple of hours.
Yes, they would. It is hard for you to accept this, but they are mostly isolated from the civilized world. They have nothing to lose and keep returning to their old grievances with the West. For Putin, losing it is existential. The fact that Russia has terminated the last agreements about testing nuclear weapons is a sobering reality. Anything can happen, and we need to be prepared for any scenario.
Adult in the room says, stop the fighting, draw some lines - response: no, response: *launches nukes* - would be powerful, destructive, inhumane, but the kids would also shut up.
They are the angels and demons. We saw the fighting thousands of years ago and we began to do the same thing. We we’re manipulated by the demons and still are. 👹👽🛸👁
I see this was posted 10 months ago. And I guess you have since come across Annie Jacobsen's book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" and numerous You Tube video interviews with her. It is indeed terrifying how the world and civilisation is literally on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Hmm, there are always millions of experts that will look back on things that happened and provide elaborate and twisting reasons as to why these things happened. Though none of them will ever be able to predict the future course of events. Thus, as pleasent as it is to listen to them, their models of reality are useless. This is not how the world works.
Ukrainians have paid and will continue to pay a huge price for all these imperial games. But the saddest thing about all this is that it will happen again. After the First World War, people were convinced that the realization of the horror and senselessness of the massacre made it impossible to repeat it. Everything happened again. Enemies will be found, it will be explained that they are not fully human, that they only understand force. The preaching of fear and hatred will never subside. A representative of peace lovers cannot kick a case with money under the table towards a politician, but representatives of arms manufacturers do this all the time.
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/r4wLXNydzeY/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause!*
'
Tick tock Lex...
Nailed it!
This was probably the best interview of all in this podcast. Pls bring him back in the future. This man is as sharp as Japanese katana.
He contradicts himself in the same interview but stupid fans are too stupid.
Actually katana were not sharper than any knife, probably even less sharp due to the lack of good steel in al Japan.
@@NikolaiPetrenkoMDPhDAnime’s influence on how westerners perceive Japanese culture has been astounding
He really isn't. His entire approach to geopolitics is "capitulate, surrender, give in." Yes, that avoids war in the short term, but is a foolish way to deal with warmongers.
@@MrRossGodwin Man you're too stupid to fathom the multidimensional reality of politics. Just stick to refraining from sharing your opinion
These conversations are moot. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is very specific in their use. There are only two scenarios in which Russia will use nuclear weapons, and this has been confirmed time and time again by Putin and the defense ministry: a) they are attacked with nukes first and will hence use them in retaliation; and b) there is a direct and imminent threat to the existence of the Russian governmental system as a whole. Russia isn't stupid. Using nukes offensively and indiscriminately will trigger a retaliation from NATO (if not with nukes then definitely full military retaliation); it will ostracize Russia within the global community, and it will kill all their global alliances, especially with China.
There is absolutely no reason or benefit for Russia to use nuclear weapons outside of the two points in their doctrine. Even if they wipe out their military opposition, they will become isolated and probably invaded and probably nuked in return. I also really don't think Russia wants to pop off a nuclear war and endanger the whole planet. Russia and Putin aren't anymore evil than the west. They have their own selfish interests just like every other global power. Russia is as likely to use nukes as the USA. Israel (more specifically Netanyahu's Likud thugs) is more likely to use nukes than Russia.
Saying Putin isn't anymore evil than the west is a clean way to your wipe the credibility. Yes, we are all serving our own self interests but his interests are purely internal and thus destructive to those outside. Our self interest involves the self interest of others hence why you can even point to 'the west' as a unified group in the first place.
what is a "direct and imminent threat?"
@@xusmico187I’m sure they left it intentionally vague. What I would assume would trigger WMD use would be for instance if NATO launches a full scale unprovoked invasion of Russia or something along those lines. Op makes a good point that even a small nuclear escalation by Russia would signal the end of Russia as a whole. China would be forced to pull their support even if they didn’t want to or be sanctioned to death by the rest of the world. Putin might be crazy but he’s not stupid. There’s no scenario where Russia uses nukes and comes out on top.
Except now that they've updated the doctrine. I personally don't think that they were going to use nukes and I don't think this recent update actually changes much of anything, my point is just that you should never take seriously anything russians declare.
It's now changed, which confirms everything John has been saying.
A limited nuclear attack is very much realistic now.
Professor Mearshiemer is someone you can hear all day and never get bore
True, the gentleman is brilliant!
So true the man speaks facts and he speaks it so u can understand, and I'm all here for it.
Agree first time watching him interview and I’m hooked. Very intellectual and knowledgeable.
The guy that predicted the ukrane war 10 years ago, censored in his own country, accused of being a apologist
Les and his terror complex is getting old.. if his palm sweat so bad, let Rogan do the interview MTFU.
PLEASE stop overlapping clips.
The professor is good at human behavior & pure simple logic.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
I totally disagree when it comes to nukes, no nuclear power will accept their national parks being hit with nukes...
Yes, but it's logic, based on the premises of a multipolar world, and nation states being sovereign. The plannedemic has clearly demonstrated, those premises are completely false, as no nation state has challenged the one world order.
He previously described Putin as "too smart" to invade Ukraine. Cold Warrior game theory thinkers seem to get no shortage of passes when they decide to apply their study of history into theories that predict the future and screw up.
@@spankministerMersheimer is a Putin apologist
Lex makes a great point about what would happen when that news traveled. People worldwide would panic extremely hard.
Sure, but isn't that the most obvious, basic point to make about a nuclear attack 😂
Even if Kissinger wouldn't have initiated a nuclear escalation in the event of a Warsaw Pact victory in Europe (itself extremely unlikely), France would have. They have their own independent nuclear arsenal, and would use it if the alternative was to be invaded by Warsaw Pact. So the world would not have escaped a nuclear escalation scenario. And that's something that Kissinger should have known and prepared for.
Thats a very good point. Any country who possesses such weapons could use them if the conditions are right, naive too think otherwise.
I love when people like you many years removed have a better stretaegy and more insight than the people who are reacting in real time to what’s going on in the world lol its foolish
@@kyle_mutti Kissinger never ever had to react in real-time to whatever. He's not a soldier on front line. He's not reacting to a street fight. Heck, he's not even a politician, he doesn't even have to make a statement, nor take any decision !
No, its role is to "theorize", to prepare in advance what would be the better decision *if* ....
So, all the time in the world to think a problem correctly.
Which is fine, the world needs people in such position. They have the means (time and information) to foresee far in advance, extrapolate from little nuance, and because their mind is somewhat tuned to this exercise, are generally unable to act decently in the face of immediate pressure.
But I guess that's way too much nuance for a troll. Your urge to throw a random disparaging thought to feel superior in the moment had an imperious priority. Thinking, after all, is limited to Kissinger & Co.
This entire interview might be my fav YT interview of all time. Outstanding.
I think The Rock is the best. It’s on a small mountain, but still low enough to easily provision. It’s warm enough to live in all the time. It’s got a huge maze of tunnels that only the defenders know to potentially sneak in more food. It might even be possible to survive a dragon attack by hiding deep in the mines.
"Will Russia use nuclear weapons?"
That is a very stupid question. Yes, they will under the right circumstances.
Just as the good old USA did on Japan. Isn't it funny how America is so concerned about any Nation using Nukes when they are the only Nation in the history of the world that has used Nukes?
The other difference is that Jason was going on a land grab through the pacific going as far south as bombing Darwin in Australia. A-holes like that Japanese emperor, Hitler and now Putin need to be stopped.
US didn't need to use nukes on Japan. They admitted it.
Plus Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes but rather because the Red Army was going to invade Japan and they were terrrified.
@@timmy-wj2hc so 6 days after the second nuke they surrendered. Quite a coincidence.
Obviously Lex is asking the question in the context of Ukraine and potential circumstances that may occur. What he’s doing is asking an expert to weigh those potential circumstances to determine what may tip the scales. Pretending like this is a stupid question can only hold up as a semantic strategy where others’ words are used against them in a literal and rigid manner ignores common speech and communication patterns. Or, to be brief, take the stick out yo ass.
@@NextGenLugnut Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. No one is going to fire at them or invade them. That’s why this isn’t about NATO, this is about him wanting puppet regimes instead of successful democracies in his area. Effectively a new USSR.
So it's better to normalize low yeald nukes in warfare than just an all out nuke war?
I don't see that as a better option.
Nobody said its "better" to nornalize lol
Didn’t Israel put nuclear bombs on planes at the start of the 1973 war when they thought they might get overrun by Egyptian and Syrian forces?
Prob that’s how they descalated the Egyptians
Israel behaves with the Palestinians the same way the Germans did with the Jews in 1939
All my comments about Oppenheimer was deleted. This is American Democracy and Free of Speech.
@@Man-u-flexNot really. Egypt had a bunch of Russian ballistic missiles with unknown warheads aimed at Israel. Kissinger was wrote about the whole situation.
America has submarines equipped with nuclear weapons there right now
Mr Lex , there is so much valuable content in this interview, you could make a 3 day seminar of it. I had to watch several clips, videos multiple times to be able to absorb all the historie, topics and views of it. Also the energy and view difference between your obliged positive naivety and your guest surprised, doubtful (but pleased there is still hope) reaction is fantastic to see on the screen. I’m also pleased you brought a guest giving insights from a rather other side compared to your previous guests. Not easy for you to go ahead with your promise of giving platform to all sides (left, right, middle). You walk the talk, keep up with the great work. Ever tough bringing 2 opposing guest for 3 hours in an interview, you moderating? I think the outcome results in trough bromance between the opposites, or at least them getting closer.
Why people worry so much about a country with the GDP of South Korea? Been there several times, a lot of hard working people who just want to get along with everyone.
Lex saying "The fact we don't see aliens...". Hybrid John smiles in silence...
You could be wrong.
He was just sitting content for having an interesting conversation and listening to a good point.
There is no evidence of aliens in the known universe as of yet. Scientifically speaking.
@@weltallsinsuche "scientifically speaking" are the words you choose to blindfold yourself. Do not confuse "science" with what the media wants to define as "science". Science means empirical evidence and transparency. When you have whistleblowers in Congress, air force pilots on JRE and army vets in prison for releasing videos you should automatically know there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a withholding of information issue. Saying "scientifically speaking" there is no evidence at this point is akin to saying "I don't even want to look at the evidence available as I'm not prepared to contemplate a world that is different from my acquired perception of it". "Scientifically speaking" we should have full access to all facilities mentioned by Bob Lazar, we should have all videos mentioned by Lt. Frazer, we should release all documents mentioned in Congress. "Scientifically speaking" we should not automatically dismiss any "alien mummy" popping out of South America, the shamanic oral traditions of every corner of the world and even religious accounts from India, the Middle East, Tibet, South Africa and other places. "Scientifically speaking" we should look into each claim and whenever we find someone witholding information we should ask "Why?", "Who is paying you?" and "show me your bank transactions".
Only then, "scientifically speaking", you'd have a chance to understand something about the real science, not the sterile watered down version they want you to believe in as if it was a religion of minimalism, conformism and economy of thought. What you call "science" is nothing more than the modern equivalent of puritanism.
We do see aliens 👽
STOP THE WAR
I mean there is only one country so far that has actually used a atomic weapon on people that were mostly civilians btw not once but twice, but they seem to deflect from that and dont want you to talk about it lol
What point are you trying to make?
@alexandremaximov3885 the point is the US seems so worried about other countries using them when they are the only country that has in a war killing thousands of civilians in the process seems pretty hypocritical, no? But I know anything the US does is justified and ok, though, right? The point seemed pretty obvious to me
@@liquidragonfu5546 Oh I know the US is plenty hypocritical. Me being Russian automatically means I'm obligated to hate them :P
But let's try using your argument, so you can see where I'm coming from.
The so-called targets of those nukes have themselves slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese civilians. By your logic, that means the Japanese are not allowed to protest what gets done to their civilians since they've done plenty right?
Do you see the flaw with this?
The problem with your point is that you're insinuating that they should just be fine with everyone having and using nukes however they wish.
These aren't toys, they're world-ending weapons. I believe it is good to restrict the number of countries that have access to nukes and protest their usage in war.
The US does have a problem of doing BS things, and then whining about others who start doing the same. I agree with you there. They should be called out by the international community when it happens. But I think when it comes to nukes, they're right to be worried about who and how they might be used.
@OigySmoigy you seem to be grasping at Straw to try and say I'm wrong about idk something.....just seems to be proving my point lol idk you are not making alot of sense
I know where you are coming from, but keep in mind that people used to say something similar about Iran. Namely, that the US downed a civilian Iranian plane killing all on board, how irresponsible and evil of the US to do that. Then in 2020 Iran did the same... they shot down a civilian plane killing everyone on board.
My point is... your argument will have no validity the day when Russia or other nuclear armed state uses its nukes against civilians. And that's not something very unlikely to happen.
John is so damn sharp and just makes sense.
I agree Lex,the use of a nuke would set a terrifying precedent,initially I thought the mere fact of sending the stingers and javellins that sent Russian soldiers home in body bags might prompt use of nukes. Surprisingly not and the lethality of weapons to Ukraine has increased gradually. There is this opinion that the US and Europe should send even more but we all know that an outright defeat of Russia would trigger the policy of "the survival of the Russian state "doctrine advocating the use of nukes. All the talk of wanting Ukraine to win is a smokescreen,stalemate is the preferred course of the West because we can't take the risk of a Russian loss scenario. Feel bad for the brave Ukranian people and the effort and lost lives,but the consequences of a Russian collapse are too horrifying to contemplate. The hidden Western strategy is to bleed Putin of conventional military power and have a negotiated settlement.
It's unbelievable how people sit in a chair and talk so lightly about "manipulating" risk which can blow us into oblivion.. It's so annoying that some people have this kind of power
thank goodness Russia does not need to use nuclear weapons because it has enough alternatives. But Russia has a trip wire automated response set up where it will not be caught with nuclear weapons on its soil. One goes they all go. This is according to Scott Ritter.
Death hand
While escalation and mistake is very common during conflict it' s very unlikely that a Russian missile will hit location y than X, as these are guided missiles, I am talking about ballistic ones of course
If NATO didn't go to Russia's border the Russians would have gone to NATO's border. These countries wanted to be apart of NATO and for good reason.
The discussion on the possible use of nuclear weapons seems to me very relevant. The problem is that western media and many people in western countries do not understand the logic behind and they believe that Russia would not use nuclear weapons.
Putin is smart enough not to use them
It's an overblown conversation by the same people who keep telling us that while being the incompetent Russia is still about to take over Europe after Ukraine.
Ukraine has less dead children in 2 years of war than Gaza had in the first month and unlike Baghdad that had it's water supply bombed in the first few days of the invasion Kyiv still has running water, it doesn't seem to me that the Russians would do these things then decide to drop nukes on their border in a country that contains many of their own people.
In the 50 years they've had nukes they've never saw fit to use them, in fact the only country that has used them (on defenseless civilian populations) is that bastion of liberty and freedom the USA
@@TrueDaturaMindNzNo
I dont they they would unless someone joins in
Not true, nukes ended the Japanese conflict and they will likely end this conflict. Western people live in a fairytale and think that the US and the EU are Gods that control what people can and can’t do in a war. Putin does not think like they do. He knows that if he nukes Ukraine then no other nation will do anything significant due to the fact that they aren't directly participating in this war, and if they did than it would be suicide. No one in the West ever thought a group of Islamic terrorist would blow up the WTC in 2001 but look what happened@@TrueDaturaMindNz
Every time lex has a thought the nuclear weapon emoji face goes off
It’s not if, but when.
Russia is not afraid of NATO as it is already surrounded by NATO practically on 3 sides! What it wants is to re- conquer Ukraine! Ukraine made a mistake in giving up its nuclear arsenal for peace. A nuclear war is scary, but never forget that because of Moscow’s mishandling of nuclear energy, we already had a nuclear explosion in Ukraine - Chernobyl. The possible
use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or just plain Jane use of fire and sword in trying to destroy Ukraine is all the same for us. As horrible as it sounds.
It's interesting to hear Professor Mearsheimer's perspective. He's certainly a prominent voice in international relations. However, I think it's worth noting his frequent participation in the Valdai Discussion Club, which is known to have close ties to the Russian government. Some reports even suggest that speakers at Valdai events may receive compensation. While I appreciate diverse viewpoints, I do wonder how much these associations, and any potential financial arrangements, might influence the framing of his analysis, especially regarding issues involving Russia. It would be valuable to consider the potential for bias, whether stemming from ideological alignment or financial incentives, when evaluating his arguments on these complex geopolitical matters. Ultimately, it's crucial to engage with a variety of sources and perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of international affairs.
Thank you both for this great discussion
May I point out to you that since Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, significantly increasing Russia's frontage to NATO, Russia's response has been rather mute. This suggests that there are other factors behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine than a pure NATO treat.
Pointing out the elephant in the room.
Understanding power dynamic is so important to have civil and mature negotiations, no matter who wins or loses. So many things could go wrong and escalate uncontrollably.
Russia NEVER used nuclear weapons against civilian... USA used it twice.... moreover, Russia doesn't want to get rid of Ukraine but to keep them into the fold. this is an absolutely ridiculous idea
@OigySmoigy did you read my comment?... moreover it makes sense to use a nuclear weapon against a country far away and not your neighbour's since it will hurt your country as well ... if the previous argument didn't make sense to you.
@@АбдулаАльхазред-ц9пno, Putin won't use nukes because there is no justification for it. In the same way he has been reluctant until very recently, to call his military operation a 'war'. And in any case, he has not formally declared war on you. Why? Because he can't justify going to war against Ukraine over the reasons he gave to his people. As simple as that.
yeah ofc, Russia is using conventional weapons against civilians, no need for the nuclear option. And no, the 1945 bombings are not the same thing as the lunacy we are experiencing today my little Kremlin bot.
What's more terrifying...the disclosure of an alien presence or what these two are talking about?
Why doesn't MAD apply to Iran and North Korea????
What do you mean? Elaborate it, because a question like this and it seems you´re a internet bot. Iran is not a nuclear power (yet) and North Korea only has, till now, relativelly limited nuclear capabilities to strike an enemy like the US.
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui come on it is clear already. why does mutual assured destruction not apply to all? if they get the bomb why are they going to use it because they will get wiped out in response!
How does it not? Hamas by proxy is an asset of Iran. Israel isn't attacking Iran, but they are prosecuting a proxy war vs them.
Means of delivery. They lack reliable means of getting warheads to North America. The furthest a North Korean ballistic missle test has been made wouldn't take one to Pearl Harbor. Iran only has regional ballistic missles. Backpack nukes may or may not be possible, I've heard arguments both ways from nuclear physists, but assuming they exist the reliability of delivery would still be a crap shoot.
Summation: MAD requires two technologies. The warheads and critically ICBMs. The idea of MAD was conceived over a decade post Hiroshima when missile technologies in Russia and North America meant shooting down the bombers no longer saved civilization.
Very nice dialogue 👍
It never appeared as if Russia was losing.
russia Is losing. they wanted to conquer Kiev in 2 days
@@cellardoor9882 Winning less quickly than initially intended is still winning.
@@labordayweekend right. but what doea winning mean to russia? conquering the ukraine as thes envisiones? never going to happen
Winning to Russia is controlling the Donbas and securing access to Crimea from the north, which they've already done. The only objective that they haven't achieved is taking Odessa. They never wanted Kiev.
Watching two Russian assets talking to each other is like watching two AIs carry on a conversation.
What were nukes made for
Wow that was a great episode
Every side has a General Jack Ripper, Mr. Mearsheimer
Nukes make great powers less likely to go to war? What about Gas, Germs, Rays, Rats, Cats or Bats?
*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause.*
Every time I listen to Lex, I am embarrassed by how little he adds to the conversation. He just rambles like someone trying to be deep, but failing.
Stop listening to him then, I Like Lex, I Like John ❤❤
@@lucyyl.5454 he has interesting guests, but he needs to get some sleep and try less hard to be cool.
Lex adds nothing to discussion other than his irritation. Better he shut up n let the expert speak.
@@lucyyl.5454shut up
Fr hes rly ignorant
That’s a great point that the Professor mentioned Russia could get away with using a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine since Ukraine doesn’t have any to retaliate with and of course we wouldn’t ever use any because that would escalate the situation into a full blown nuclear war but at the same time Russia would be hesitant about using one in Ukraine not knowing what our response would be because nobody wants a nuclear Armageddon.
He’s not tea talking about Russia using a Nuke, he’s talking about Israel using Nukes against all the Muslim countries that don’t have any Nukes.
This was a great interview
One question: if man never intended to use nuclear weapons at any time during his current existence on Earth, then why would he create them in the first place? It's simple. It is because it is inescapably inevitable that global nuclear war, wherever its origin, will occur at some time in the near future within the 21st century. And, pretty much sooner than we may think, considering the ever increasing tensions generated in geopolitics, border conflicts and a host of other unresolved factors contested between man and his enemies. The often talked-about anticipated regret will of course be great but of no use in assuaging long-term pain guaranteed in the fallout after these actions have been carried out. But sometimes, like most things in this life, the inevitable is just that: inevitable.
Interesting the comments from Mcnamara and Kissinger. It shows that the absolute terror of Nuclear War had sufficient deterrent value to prevent there use in even circumstances of extreme provocation.
I would suggest be it Ukraine or Taiwan, that the leaders involved would rather de-escalate in such a crisis than push anyone to use Nuclear weapons.
Why would Russia use nuclear weapons on its own border lol
It would look so bad considering the Budapest Memo explicitly provides protection to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90's.
@@far-middle And who actually should provide protection to Ukraine?
Putin said first place getting nuked is the UK.
Correction......Will America and NATO force Russia to use nuclear weapons.
What about nuclear attack by proxy? For instance, North Korea threatens South Korea while in a security pact with Russia to surrender without a fight? It’s illogical to think that any nuclear power is going to support South Korea if Russia guarantees nuclear retaliation.
Hunh?
What is a "security pact" with anybody "to surrender without a fight"?
@@TheDavidlloydjones A security pact with Russia that guarantees North Korean integrity. Similar to NATO, but it’s members are nut jobs armed with nukes.
Your question is nonsense. Why would Russia meddle itself in a fight between North Korea (a nuclear state) and South Korea (a non-nuclear state, until now)?
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui It’s not about meddling, it’s about the power of a nuclear arsenal being put to use by a proxy to expand Russia’s influence. We’ve always assumed that MAD prevents the use of nuclear weapons between the nuclear powers, but that comfort disappears with the threat by a proxy protected by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
What are you babbling about? Your message makes zero sense
Thanks gentlemen.
One country actually used nukes against humanity, in all of history. Which country was it? Hint: it wasn't Russia. (theme from Jeopardy plays in the background). Time's up. Show us your answer, please.
thank yiu very muchfor this comment. i'm fed up with the riduculous comments from the only nation that used it TWICE again civilian people
@@WillyLeclaire Im not even remotely japanese, but dude, I cant believe to this day US get away with it. Like its insane.
he talked about nuclear crysis which could not happen back than cuz Japan did not have nukes. and dont right now thanks to our main character and correct answer - US
@@RMJerich0 what is more perplexing is not even that the US got away with it... it is that the Japanese are now friends with the US and allow the US to exert a great control over their country to this day. (Actually this is not even something from present time; the emperor Hirohito visited the US in the turn of the century, the same emperor who saw his population get obliterated by US nukes and had to sign an unconditional surrender.)
Can't judge history out of context. The two devices detonated over Japan ended an ungodly world war, saved a recalcitrant, fanatical Japan from being invaded with estimated million of casualties on both sides. Those two small fission bombs saved lives in the awful calculus of war.
Just one little nuke in the middle of nowhere... "just a little demonstration of power"... hopefully the world wouldn't overracte that that. lol
There was no way that Soviets wouldn’t instantly respond with a nuke if nukes would fly towards USSR
"manipulation of risk"
I love how corporate buzzwords make their way into ending the world. All these politicians and warmongers are clowns.
Short answer….nope.
Lex Fridman, I want to meet you. How can we arrange a meeting?
“Better red than dead” - Brilliant 😂
From the observation that aliens do not exist, I would not infer that they destroyed themselves in war, but rather that they never existed in the first place.
SHORT ANSWER: NO
Why always Russia and not usa!!!!!????
It’s both neither side trusts each other
If Russia went nuclear - there has to be a response. Even if they do it in a rural area - you cannot normalize the use of nuclear weapons in a modern conflict for any purpose. Its a slippery slope to catastrophe. It is important for the US to make that clear to Russia to prevent them from even trying that desperate move - to undermine the logic John explicitly refers to, believing you can treat Ukraine as a situation where the doctrine of mutually assured destruction does not apply. So to be quite frank - John is just wrong, and is defeated by his own logic. The US not responding in kind prevents a nuclear exchange - but putting a full military response on the table tells the Russians, there is no way to use nuclear weapons in a limited sense. And to some degree its worked because they have done so - saying it will be Russia triggering the great power war. I am not saying there is any happy ending - the world is basically over. But does John actually think condoning a Russian nuclear attack in that scenario is the preferred approach?
What for? Dont forget what country actually used it already...
📍9:01
The perfect way to end this discussion - humans versus aliens! Very convincing! No theoretical basis at all . . . but why not?
Nato to remind ( on letter head, unsigned) the age old orthodoxy of a porportionate tactical nuclear response to a tactical nuclear strike by russia. Note in writing that that position is not particularly led by led by US Uk .
Don't discuss this further except at UN in an attempt to gain agreement to a 90% proportionate response.
They are now saying if they use hypersonic weapoms. There is no radiation. .They are more environmentally Friendly's.
Mearsheimer is so full of himself. It is important to remember that he has never held any position of real resonsibility in the military or in the diplomatic corps. Ergo, he's never even ever spoken with any actual decision makers.
It's not being full of yourself to want to use your insight to prevent your country from causing chaos and death. A few months ago I watched one of the professor's talks and thought it was recent because it described the situation the current situation going on in Ukraine to a tee but to my shock when I check the time of publishing it was a video posted 9 years ago. If the chimpanzees in Biden's current diplomatic corp had HALF his insight and intelligence a lot of dead Ukrainians, human destruction, misery, sex trafficked Ukrainian women and children and hundreds of billions in pilfered tax dollars could have been avoided.
Yeah, he’s far too smart to be your leader 😂
Well the bright side of nuclear weapons IS that there wont be no wars after their use
Put us out of our misery already.
Al Haig 2 minute warning in the Baltic sea
Thanks for being quiet when he talks.
😂😅 Russia will not use nuke unless nato attack mainland Russia, thats for sure. Putin isnt that stupid enough
They don’t need to. Russia is beating NATO and a coalition of 40 countries in ukraine without it
The global economic crisis that would take place from even the use of one nuclear device because of the risk of escalation.
No, they won't. There is no point in nuking land you are trying to conquer. Stupid question. If they tried to nuke anybody else, their whole country would be glass in a couple of hours.
Yes, they would. It is hard for you to accept this, but they are mostly isolated from the civilized world. They have nothing to lose and keep returning to their old grievances with the West. For Putin, losing it is existential. The fact that Russia has terminated the last agreements about testing nuclear weapons is a sobering reality. Anything can happen, and we need to be prepared for any scenario.
'Never had a nuclear war' - so Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened?
Maybe leaders need to watch The day after and Threads again.
Adult in the room says, stop the fighting, draw some lines - response: no, response: *launches nukes* - would be powerful, destructive, inhumane, but the kids would also shut up.
And russia would cease to exist.
Though this is a frightening subject to discuss, Mearsheimer is a pleasure to listen too.
Putin would have went left when the pipeline, "spontaneously combusted."
what if they do the same thing about sending nuclear bombs.
last world map shows USA is not in North Atlantic
We don't see Aliens BECAUSE they look at us and probably saying that where absolutely creasy species.
Well we can't stop being creasy because the aliens won't tell us what it means
They are the angels and demons. We saw the fighting thousands of years ago and we began to do the same thing. We we’re manipulated by the demons and still are. 👹👽🛸👁
I'll move to Australia in case of mad world
Mad Max
I see this was posted 10 months ago. And I guess you have since come across Annie Jacobsen's book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" and numerous You Tube video interviews with her. It is indeed terrifying how the world and civilisation is literally on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Hmm, there are always millions of experts that will look back on things that happened and provide elaborate and twisting reasons as to why these things happened. Though none of them will ever be able to predict the future course of events. Thus, as pleasent as it is to listen to them, their models of reality are useless. This is not how the world works.
I was alone again in the unquiet darkness
And that´s all because of the interesst of few powerful people. Imagine war and nobody goes to. Imagine war and the rich had to send their sons too.
Lex looks like a polite James bond
007.1 Goldfinger release candidate
Bond, Khabib Bond
Nope, just a _man in black_ .
... asks _the man in black_ .
The US would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate? yeah right!, remember what happened in Japan, the US never needed to use them but did anyway.
I hope so. All this greed in the world it’s inevitable
The Russians wouldn’t use a Nuke. The Iranians on the other hand…they might do something stupid.
Or the Americans, they have form after all
Bear in mind that USA has used it without any hesitation in the past!! Now, you're scared!!! Are you kidding me...
Russia? Err. What about Israel?
Nuclear will be used the question is where and on whom
Maybe someday but not right now I don’t believe anyone is crazy enough
Ukrainians have paid and will continue to pay a huge price for all these imperial games. But the saddest thing about all this is that it will happen again. After the First World War, people were convinced that the realization of the horror and senselessness of the massacre made it impossible to repeat it. Everything happened again.
Enemies will be found, it will be explained that they are not fully human, that they only understand force. The preaching of fear and hatred will never subside. A representative of peace lovers cannot kick a case with money under the table towards a politician, but representatives of arms manufacturers do this all the time.
few more generations have to pass unfortunately
Why is J M smiling all the time. We're talking about Armageddon.
If I was President, Mearsheimer would be my Chief Advisor.
If you had listened to his advice, you would have found yourself in the same position that Putin found himself in.
This guy smiles too much while discussing the subject at hand . Something's wrong with that .