From: allin
The discussion features Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University, two renowned thinkers on foreign policy and economic development [00:00:04], who delve into the intricacies of global power dynamics and the influence of the “Deep State” [00:00:25].
The “Deep State” Defined
The “Deep State” is understood as the administrative state, comprising high-level, middle-level, and low-level bureaucrats established in key positions within institutions like the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community [00:04:16]. These individuals develop a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy, often aligning with the consensus pushed by both major political parties [00:05:06].
Political Consensus and Foreign Policy
There is a perceived underlying logic to the apparent political crossovers, such as Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris for president [00:01:11]. According to Professor Sachs, there is “one deep state party,” encompassing figures like Cheney, Harris, Biden, and Victoria Nuland [00:01:30]. Nuland is cited as an example, having served in every administration for the last 30 years, from Clinton to Bush Jr., Obama, and Biden, consistently involved in policies such as those towards Russia, NATO enlargement, and the 2014 Ukraine coup [00:01:46]. Professor Mearsheimer refers to the Republicans and Democrats as “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum,” highlighting their minimal differences in foreign policy [00:02:55].
Even former President Trump, who aimed to challenge the deep state and pursue a different foreign policy, largely failed in his first term [00:03:09]. This suggests that a deeply entrenched foreign policy has been consistently in place for the last 30 years, regardless of which party or individual holds the presidency [00:06:09].
Incentives and Philosophy
The primary objective driving this foreign policy is the maximization of global power, aiming for the United States to be a “Global hegemon” [00:07:41]. Proponents of this policy genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, motivated by the conviction that the U.S., as a liberal country, has the right and responsibility to remake the world in its own image [00:09:01].
However, critics argue that imposing liberal democracy on other countries, often through force, is nearly impossible and tends to backfire, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan [00:11:06]. Furthermore, this ambition can erode liberalism domestically by fostering the growth of the deep state and potentially cracking down on freedoms like speech [00:11:14]. Professor Sachs contends that the U.S. government, despite its rhetoric, primarily cares about its own power, military bases, and securing support, not genuine state-building or fostering democracy in other nations [00:11:52].
Great Power Politics in Action
Ukraine and Russia
The conflict in Ukraine is seen by some as not merely about Russia invading Ukraine, but as a result of American power projection into the former Soviet Union [00:16:21]. The U.S. is accused of using cynical justifications to intervene, such as defending people in Benghazi to bomb Libya [00:16:51], or conspiring to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014 [00:17:46].
Professor Mearsheimer asserts that Russia is not a serious threat to the United States [00:20:26]. He argues that pushing Russia into an alliance with China is a remarkably foolish policy, as Russia, being the weakest of the three great powers (US, China, Russia), should ideally be on the U.S. side to contain China [00:20:40]. Getting bogged down in Ukraine and the Middle East also makes it difficult for the U.S. to pivot its focus to China [00:21:13].
Professor Sachs strongly believes that the ongoing conflict, stemming from NATO’s eastward expansion, poses a serious risk of nuclear war [00:28:33]. He suggests that prudence is necessary, advocating against putting U.S. military presence on Russia’s border, just as the U.S. would not want China or Russia to build military bases in Mexico [00:30:06].
China
The perception of China as a threat is a point of contention.
- John Mearsheimer’s view: China is a “peer competitor” and the most serious threat to the United States [00:20:44]. He advocates for containing China but not regime change [00:20:04]. From a realist perspective, states prioritize survival and seek power. The U.S. is a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, and China, as it grows economically and militarily, seeks to dominate Asia and push the U.S. out [00:25:06]. The U.S. will not tolerate another regional hegemon [00:25:52]. This leads to an intense security competition across all domains, including high-tech and military [00:26:28].
- Jeffrey Sachs’s view: China is “not a threat” to the United States, given the vast oceans and nuclear deterrent [00:28:13]. He sees China as a market with a rich culture, and its economic rise has largely benefited the U.S. [00:21:54]. The current trade policies and economic “wounds” are not self-inflicted by China but rather a deliberate U.S. policy to contain China [00:40:50]. Sachs argues against provoking World War III over issues like Taiwan [00:31:24] and suggests that economic relations are not a zero-sum game, and security does not have to be either [00:32:11].
Flashpoints in East Asia include Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea [00:34:34]. The South China Sea is considered a very dangerous area where conflict could break out [00:34:55]. The development of China’s navy is seen as a reaction to U.S. strategies aimed at creating “choke points” and containing Chinese expansion [00:37:58].
India’s Role
India is viewed as an ally by the U.S., being part of the Quad (Australia, Japan, U.S., India) [00:36:34]. India, from its perspective, sees China as the real threat, particularly on the India-China border in the Himalayas and in the Indian Ocean as China expands its blue-water navy [00:36:59]. This shared concern brings the U.S. and India together [00:37:49]. However, Professor Sachs suggests India is a superpower with its own distinctive interests and is unlikely to fully align with the U.S. against China [00:39:03].
Tragedy and Inevitability
Professor Mearsheimer describes the world as an “iron cage” where international politics inherently leads to power competition because states can never be entirely sure that a powerful rival won’t threaten their survival [00:45:41]. While security competition is inevitable, he believes war can be avoided, as seen during the Cold War [00:46:17].
Professor Sachs, however, cautions that this power-seeking mindset in the nuclear age is profoundly misguided and could lead to global catastrophe [00:43:01]. He emphasizes the urgent need for prudence and avoiding escalation to prevent nuclear war [00:28:53].
Middle East Dynamics
The West Bank is identified as a potential “Tinder Box” due to Israeli settlements and increasing tensions [00:46:54]. A collapse in the West Bank could lead to broader conflict [00:47:16].
Professor Sachs advocates for implementing international law, specifically a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, establishing a state of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem [00:48:10]. He notes that the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal [00:48:41]. He believes the U.S. is the sole country preventing this solution due to the influence of the Israel Lobby [00:50:09].
Professor Mearsheimer downplays the risk of regional escalation in the event of Israeli actions in the West Bank, as regional powers like Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia lack the military capability to intervene effectively [00:51:11]. However, he highlights Iran as the truly dangerous flashpoint [00:51:45]. With Russia closely allied with Iran and China moving in that direction, a war between Israel and Iran would likely draw in the U.S. [00:51:50]. He concludes that while neither the U.S. nor Iran wants a war, Israel, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, has sought to involve the U.S. in military action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities [00:52:43]. The crucial question is whether the U.S. and Iran can prevent Israel from instigating this wider conflict [00:53:22].