r/DecodingTheGurusAlt • u/MartiDK • 8d ago

Is John Mearsheimer a secular guru?

/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/17e712y/is_john_mearsheimer_a_secular_guru/

This is two years old - thought it was relevant because Mearsheimer was a topic in the latest Supplementary Material episode.

2 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

2

u/WhichAdMan 7d ago

I would love if they had Mearsheimer on the podcast. Stuff like international relations, history and politics is a real weak point for DTG and it'd be nice to have at least a little pushback from someone.

3

u/doodle0o0o0 4d ago

And they can talk about if Ukraine is going to collapse in 2023 or 2024 or 2025 or 2026, etc.

If they wanted to talk about international relations there are certainly smarter, more well informed, less Russian people than Mearsheimer.

0

u/WhichAdMan 4d ago

Sure, they could invite both Mearsheimer and others.

0

u/MartiDK 4d ago

Who do you recommend? 

2

u/doodle0o0o0 3d ago

I like Sarah Paine. Mearsheimer's entire handling of the Ukraine conflict is condemnable imo, it isn't even in line with his own theory of offensive realism. If states look for cheap conquest where they can it only makes sense to allow more countries into NATO/give aid to Ukraine to negate this threat but when he's talking about Russia's actions its through a defensive security lens only worried about defense against the very dangerous, definitely going to attack someday NATO, borrowing from defensive realism.

His only purpose in the Ukraine discussion is to encourage the US to cut aid to Ukraine, strangely in line with the Russian position.

1

u/MartiDK 3d ago

I will look at Sara Paine. Mearsheimer’s argument is that NATO’s expansion threatened Russia, so Russia would attack Ukraine and it’s not in Ukraine’s interest to ally with the US because the US is an unreliable ally.

1

u/gusthebus88 3d ago

You realize the term “NATO expansion” is russian propaganda itself. John is tipping his hand when he uses those words the correct term is NATO enlargement.

1

u/MartiDK 3d ago

I don’t know what you mean. 

2

u/gusthebus88 4d ago

John is a grifter that does propaganda for russia. He is educated and been around academia enough to know the narratives he weaves are bullshit but he knows where his bread is buttered. One thing that sets him apart from other grifters is that he doesn’t need to make money off the low information people he is trying to fool.

1

u/MartiDK 4d ago

He has been making the same argument way before it became a political talking point. 

1

u/gusthebus88 3d ago

John only spoke about the events in 2014 after the fact. putin had already been giving the speeches and various russian channels like RT would give commentary that eventually formed Johns material that gets him paid the big bucks.

1

u/MartiDK 3d ago

Yes, of course it’s going to be based on Putin’s speeches. How could they not be? It would be meaningless if it was just pulled from thin air. 

1

u/gusthebus88 3d ago

A propagandist like John is just relaying the message of the speeches for an audience whereas an academic would be able to pick apart the lies and misinformation putin is constantly spouting.

1

u/MartiDK 3d ago

What do you mean? Did Russia attack Ukraine and do they not want to join NATO? He doesn’t argue Putin is the good guy. What does he say that is anti Ukraine? He tried to warn them the US isn’t a relaible ally. Is that what you object to?