A Critique of Realism

I came after finding out Mearsheimer supported the Japanese invasion of China

So W's ultra-idealism did not play a part in Putin's decision? Hmm......

Realism sounds like Idealism.

So... Political realism just looks like some Hobbesian think. There is nothing "realistic" about it, this 3 assumptions are axioms that can't be proven unless you have some metaphisics behind it, like Hobbes did. An that Machiavelli interpretation realist make are realy outdated, he will never say something like "The ends justifies the means" (a phrase that is missquoted, Machiavelli never said that)The Prince is a book that criticize that notion, and said that every mean is as important as the end it will bring, because bad means can't get at your ends.

The ideia of natural powers is metaphisical, is something not borne of nature, but an abstract axiom.

For me, this "realist school" is more like a metaphisical justification of opression, disguised as a real reading of real reality.

I am Saulo Fernandes, brazilian political philosopher, and someone that is very skeptical of this modern metaphisical thoughts disguised as reality, just to opress cowntries like my Brazil itself.

Coming back here after kissengers death

The challenge for me is how liberal democracies will defend themselves against authoritarian countries. Quite a strong overview, the only critic I can give is technical(like Turkey being assigned to Western Europe, but it is ok and I foresee the reasons).

As an Ukrainian, I give the credit to the author and express my gratitude.

Great video. One thing though... The assertion that realism (and with Mearsheimer's work front and centre, I assume structural realism) does not account for internal / domestic / intra-state dynamics is not taking account of neoclassical realism. These scholars do in fact seek to show that internal pressures like popular support and factional dynamics can undermine the rational calculus of a nation's foreign policy. Just a thought.

I just recently found your channel, and I'm thoroughly impressed. Your analysis is razor sharp, and your impartiality and objective view of things is crisp and refreshing like Sprite on a hot day. Subscription earned.

Your assessment of Prussia seems very much oriented along the lines of WW1 (and later) allied propaganda.
Maybe look into the reassessment around the world.
Also look at actual statistics on armament, wars etc. comparing Prussia to other european great powers.

Who else came here after Kissinger's death?

Kissinger was a war criminal of cyprus

KISSINGER IS DEAD!

saying this as a communist: your videos are always recommendable! I watched you for years and I really don't understand how you haven't hit the million subs with such great content as this! ❤ Always a delight

Imagine being Kraut rn, releasing this the day after Kissinger died 😮

Update: Kissinger is dead

Did you ever make that Melian Dialogue readthrough?

Update KISSINGER HAS FINALLY BITTEN THE DUST!

Mearshimer does not belong to Hans Morgenthau's school of realism which is human nature realism. Mearshimer follows structural realism which doesn't not have human nature as its core foundation unlike the former. Structural Realists simply believe that interactions between states is driven by the rational desire to expand its regional hegemony and power in an anarchic international system.

It drives me nuts when realists ignore the internal politics of each country. That’s a large part of why US foreign policy under Kissinger resulted in this wake of unstable autocratic regimes around the world - ignoring internal politics literally leaves a power vacuum that gets filled by strongmen!

In the beginning of the video, you said that realism is a tool of analysis that is used to make sense of and predict geopolitical events. Throughout the video you constantly made the claim that realism tells a specific geopolitical actor how to act or how the world should be. I think you conflate the descriptive political theory of realism that only serves to explain things to us with something prescriptive that tells us how things should be. To my understanding realism and especially Mearsheimer never tell us how things should be but rather try to tell us why things are the way they are. In my understanding Mearsheimer does not want Europe to be a poker but simply sees it as a reality. You bring this sphere of prescriptiveness into your explanation which I think has absolutely no place there.

Interesting on the philosophy, but completely wrong on the history. Evidence that Russia wants the entirety of Ukraine ; attacked from 5 cardinal points (NW, N, NE, E and SE). They thought UA would fold as soon as Kiev was taken. To say that evidence to the contrary is that he attacked with only 180.000 soldiers, leaves out the 300.000 conscripted only 6 months later and the further conscriptions planned for 2024, and don't forget the criminals enlisted from prisons, the 30.000 rebels of Donetsk and Luhansk and plus, the PMC's. It's like saying Hitler had no intention of conquering Russia because he didn't send enough force. Ridiculous. Also, there was no agreement on NATO expansion, in fact, until 2003 Russia aspired to enter NATO. 2014 Maidan (the revolution of dignity) occurred after the elections were invalidated by UA's Supreme Court for tampering evidence and consequently Yanukovich handed over the country to Russia and appointed three russians to key ministries in the government. Foreign Affairs, Internal and Defense. It's obvious who he's paid by.

Debate him kraut

Oh look the propagandists made a video about being too honest.

I would say that most of the critique you leverage against realism is a consequence of you treating it as an all-encompassing theory that should be able to explain everything in international relations. My own view is that it would be more productive to treat it as an 'approach' or a 'model', which is more or less useful depending on the situation-specific context, i.e. it will be very good at predicting what Russia and China do, but very bad at predicting what muslim extremists do. I take Mearsheimer's main point to be that we had the tools available to predict Putin's moves, since his reasoning is completely in sync with realist principles, but we chose to ignore this tool set (realist theory) and as a consequence ended up helping to create a tragic situation which could have been avoided.

this is the first video ive seen of this channel and i find it amazing, entertaining and really informative

The entire video is like listening to heavily indoctrinated youth, that failed to see through the media bias they mention.

People like Kraut wants WW3 to happen 😂😂😂

Not sure if anyone watched that guys interview with Lex Fridman but its quite evident that he likes to ignore history if it means furthering his realism hypothesis

Wow... had quite a few eureka moments in this podcast... it explains why, when I listened to podcasts by Mearsheimer or by Chomsky, that I could perceive these enormous blind-spots in their rationale for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Even though I could see these glaring weaknesses, I had no idea of the reason why until I understood the background behind their geopolitical thinking. To me, its almost as if Realism perversely becomes a kind of religion, as it appears to limit thought to one set of preordained outcomes and discounts all other viewpoints as irrelevancies, even heresies. Time after time, people from this school of thought willfully ignore the perspective and position of the Ukrainians themselves, and also ignores the published writings of the Russian dictator himself in their dogged adherence to their strict set of beliefs. I wonder how can such intelligent people be so absolutely limited, so closed to alternative views and unable to evolve their own thinking when the contradicting evidence is staring them right in the face?

Fantastic video!!

I personally believe Realism has a bit more legitimacy than the author of this video does, but what a wonderful video! New subscriber here.

I can highly recommend the debate between John Mearsheimer and Carl Bildt. It lays bear the European resistance to the realist view on Ukraine.

f*ck khohols

Kraut, this is at least my second listen-through of the video but I have to tell you how much I love the “Get over it, grandpa” bit. It’s so widely applicable and so true. I say the same thing about cultural critics who endlessly profess the decline of music and culture.

Only losers and leftists in germany see bismarck as a catastrophe. Without him there would be no germany

"Locking each other in an avoidable and inefficient conflict"

Wow this is literally US-Russia war going on since 2011

it was so interesting to watch, the introduction of the realism, the comparison of it with idealism and other political philosophies along with the following critique were truly captivating and thought-provoking. thank you.

bro is a yap machine

All I’m going to say is that, as an American that hates all the cynicism in my country about Ukraine, am glad to see that other people share my views on the dangers of giving up on them. Glad to have found your videos Kraut

There is some problem in your maps you draw USSR like Russian socialist federal Soviet republic, but this is a mistake because Ukraine, Belarus, and other 13 countries were parts of the USSR. By the way two after Stalin leaders Khrushchev and Brezhnev were ukrain ethnically and drove USSR with some interesting point of view pro-ukrainian nationalistic nepotism. So, you could say that now Russia show itself like USSR Prime son, but this has kind of state government propaganda disillusion, please don't make this way straight.

Just wanted to say thank you for this video. And to apreaciate how deeple you understand the current problem in Ukraine. I'm an ukrainian and since the beggining of this war I was strugling to find someone from the western countries who would share the same point of view as we have in Ukraine. Thank you very much for showing this point of view to western audience!

Calling marxism "idealist" shows that you have never read nor understood Marx

I would argue that Russia is not really even a nation state. The Chechen certainly don't think of themselves as Russians. What about Bashkiria,
Buryatia and all the other regions with non-Russian ethnicities? Putin does not treat them as proper Russians. Do they consider themselves Russian? Putin furthermore has a very loose definition of who is Russian and who is not, with him considering Ukrainians and Belorussians Russians.

EU sux!

You mentioned a couple of times how realists say that ideals do not think ideals apply to geopolitics but I'd argue that the correct way to say it is that ideals shouldn't apply to geopolitics. The soviets stopped being realists as such they stopped protecting their sphere of influence causing the collapse.

This video didn't make any good arguments against realism.

General goals of a nation: eg, Russian desire for warm water ports, can definitely stay the same but they should not override every other geopolitical concern.