John J. Mearsheimer: The Russians & the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans all on one side.

This is not the Red Army over Europe. Between 1942 and 1945. So we should be focusing laser like on Asia, not on Europe? And if anything. Russia should be our ally against China. We should not. From a realist point of view, or from my realist perspective, we should not. Be. Involved in an intense security competition with Russia that could escalate into a war between the United States and Russia. This is not their interest. It is not their interest to drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, which we have done is not narrow interest to be increasing troop levels in Eastern Europe. Which we're doing in countries especially like Romania and Poland. If anything, we should be reducing our troop levels in Europe so that we can pivot to Asia to deal with what is the main threat. But that's not what we're doing instead. We have created this situation where the Russians and the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans, were all on one side and we're on the other side. With the West. And you have this bifurcated world emerging at this point in time. United States facing two great power rivals. So my bottom line is I I think there's no question liberal hegemony is in the rear view mirror, right? It's left behind for all intents and purposes and we're now in a realist world, but I think our foreign policy. Is not a smart realist for policy because it is made Russia an adversary. I would note by the way, just one final point on this. If the United States had fostered good relations with Russia and given up on NATO expansion into Ukraine. And the Russians and the Americans were basically allies in a balancing coalition against China. This would be wonderful news for Europeans, including Hungarians, because first of all, there would be no economic crisis, but second of all. The Russians would not be looking westward in Europe. They would be looking eastward. And China. They would be focused on China. And from a security point of view, that's the ideal situation for Europe, especially for countries like Poland, Hungary. And remaining in the frontline States and the Baltic states as well. But instead we have created this situation. Back to your earlier question, where the Russians are now mortal enemy, we worry about an unending war, we worry about nuclear escalation and. You worry about the economic and political damage that's gonna come out of this forward, and at the same time this is hindering, hindering America's ability to contain. Serious threat that it faces in China. China is the serious threat. If you were to rank order the three great powers of the world today, the United States is clearly still the most powerful state on the planet. China is not far behind it. Number two, Russia's a distant third. It's just not that formidable power. I know that Europeans have been told over and over again, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. I don't think so. And I think if you look at what's happened in Ukraine, that's happened. But anyway, that's my basic view on sort of where we are today. Yes. So uh, the realistic political approach doesn't promise space, but more peaceful world order based on balances of power. How can a realistic approach prevail in practice on the international political scene in general? Is it possible? Yeah, I mean. According to basic realist logic, you're not gonna have a peaceful world. The the Fukuyama argument, which is really. Liberal. Democratic peace theory or sometimes referred to just as democratic peace theory.