It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their t…
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?