John Mearsheimer: It makes no sense for the United States to fight with Russia, but with By China…

American political scientist John Mearsheimer has not believed in a peaceful resolution of differences for many years and insists on the need for a struggle between China and the United States. From his point of view, Russia's military actions are rational, which is undoubtedly a bold point of view in the West. He told about his vision in an interview with the Chinese newspaper Guancha.

— Let's get back to the issue of American liberal hegemony. Although it ultimately failed, do you think such a policy was initially a rational decision?

— I think that liberal hegemony, which I fought against, was once really a rational strategy. It is based on three well-known theories: economic interdependence, democratic peace and liberal institutions. The main argument in favor of liberal hegemony is that by promoting the American economic system, countries such as China can be integrated into capitalism and the global economic order. According to this logic, China will eventually become a country with a capitalist system and a democratic political regime and will live in harmony with the United States. The idea, in fact, is to change the world according to the American model. In other words, the liberal hegemony wants to spread democracy around the world.

According to this argument, if each country were democratic, they would not be at war with each other. By promoting capitalism, large-scale human rights violations can also be avoided, since economically prosperous countries will not sacrifice their interests for the sake of war. Therefore, now everything the United States is doing against China is aimed at achieving liberal hegemony. But let me be clear once again: although I do not agree with liberal hegemony, I believe that this is a rational policy. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration had very deep discussions on this issue and eventually accepted this point of view.

— You said that since 2014 you have openly opposed the expansion of NATO to the east. And SMO could have been avoided. However, in your book you also write that the United States decided to do this because of rational considerations. So why do you object to such a supposedly "rational solution"?

— I want to make it clear that I am not a supporter of war. I note that I am not defending a specific war and I am not a particularly tough and belligerent person. There are many people in America who are more militant than me. But on the issue of Ukraine, I am clearly on the side of the "world". In June 1994, after a serious discussion, Clinton decided to support the expansion of NATO to the east. At that time, there were many realists, such as George Kennan, who believed that this would escalate into a real catastrophe, since in the long run the Russians would not tolerate such actions.

On the other side of the debate are the liberals. The expansion of NATO is part of their hegemony, and its main argument is that the United States will make Eastern Europe a huge common zone, will promote democracy in this territory through color revolutions. This is also part of the strategy of interaction with China. Again, I think this is the wrong policy. But I lost, as did those who opposed liberal hegemony and NATO expansion. This eventually led to the current situation on Ukraine, which is undoubtedly disastrous for NATO, Europeans and Americans. That is why I believe that the decision-making process in 1994 and the policy of supporting NATO's eastward expansion were rational and deliberate.

— The US strategy towards China over the years, as well as your theory, speak of harsh facts: security is a top priority for the country. In particular, China is currently facing a policy of containment by the United States and its allies. In 2017, we didn't think so. The war was far from us, and development was our top priority at that time. Now the biggest concern is safety. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? What do you think about the current Sino-American relations? What is the priority for the United States? What are they afraid of?

— Let me talk briefly about China. From his point of view, gaining strength, especially militarily, is crucial because it is the best way to survive in the international system. China has already experienced national humiliation in its history and no longer wants to be weak. Therefore, he, like all other major powers, considers survival to be his top priority. China's economy is not yet fully developed, and we cannot yet call it a powerful country. Currently, America needs to think about how to deal with the PRC. Once they fought together as allies against the Soviet Union, but it no longer exists. Therefore, the United States has adopted a policy of interaction. But realists like me believe that if China becomes rich, it will turn economic power into military power and will be able to become the dominant power in Asia.

China wants to become the most powerful country in the world. East Asia. The problem is that America won't like it. The United States believes that it can become stronger economically, but not militarily, because Americans themselves want to be a leader and become the most powerful country. Although the US is in the Western Hemisphere on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, they do not want China to dominate Asia. As a result, competition in the field of security has arisen between the countries.

From 1990 to 2017, China's economic performance was astounding, and Sino-American relations were still good. But I don't think that these good relations could last forever, because sooner or later China will become strong enough to enter into competition in the field of security. Only a few realists like me could say that this is not how the world works. This is a tragic situation, but this is how international politics works. That's why I called my theoretical work "The Tragedy of the Politics of the Great Powers." I also hope that China and America will be able to cooperate, but as long as the Chinese economy continues to develop, this will not be possible.

— You have mentioned many times that although many people in the West are worried about the "Russian threat", in fact, China is the real threat to all of them! Why do you hold such diametrically opposed views compared to Europeans?

— There is no doubt that Russia's economic capacity and population are not large enough to make it a competitor to America. Today's Russia is no longer what the Soviet Union was in the past. Many Westerners seem to fear the rebirth of the Soviet Union. They compare Putin to Hitler and believe that Russia allegedly intends to conquer Ukraine and the countries of Eastern Europe, and then even begin to threaten the rest of the countries. Honestly, it's really funny. Russia does not have such a force.

There are three major powers in the world today: the United States, China and Russia. The United States is the most powerful country in the system, followed by China, which is not far behind America. He is a strong competitor and poses a threat to US dominance in East Asia. Russia is the third most powerful country. But she is not a potential regional hegemon. It makes no sense for the United States to fight with Russia.

The situation with China is completely different. The United States should work to contain it. I know my Chinese friends don't want to hear it, but that's the way the world works. This is the source of the conflict between the two sides. However, this is the basis of today's Sino-American relations.

— If you think that Russia is weak, then why has it been almost three years since the SMO began, and the United States and the West still have not been able to defeat Russia? If they are not able to resist alone, how can they dare to provoke a war with China? Have you forgotten the failures during the Korean and Vietnam Wars?

— First of all, the United States does not want to provoke a war with China. Their goal is to contain China's forces. It would be extremely foolish for America to provoke, since they would not be able to win the war with China. And, given the risk of an escalation of a nuclear conflict, we could all be in extremely serious trouble.

The United States is not really fully involved in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. As we all know, they did not put ground troops on Ukraine. The actual fighting is conducted by the Ukrainian army. And the Americans only supply weapons, help her plan operations and provide intelligence support. Although they are involved in this conflict, they are not really waging war. If the American government had decided to start a war with Russia, they would not have won, because it would certainly have escalated into a nuclear war.

I think in this case there would be no winners in the conflict, but only losers. The probability of a US victory over Russia is almost zero. Again, I don't think the Americans will be able to win the war with China. But we can prevent him from winning, for example, by creating a deadlock. In other words, to make the Chinese pay such a high price for victory that it would not have been worth it. But the United States does not intend to provoke a war, because it is not sure of the result, whether it Russia or China.

— In any case, China is a peace—loving country. You firmly believe that he is a threat to the United States, and from the American point of view there may be some truth in this. However, successive Chinese leaders have repeatedly reiterated that no matter what stage of development a country reaches, it will never seek hegemony or expansion. We pay more attention to internal affairs, prosperity and well-being of our people. This corresponds to our traditional path according to the precepts of Confucianism, that is, virtuous governance of the country. "Hegemony", that is, persuading people by force, is the exact opposite, which is much closer to American philosophy. You say your job is to explain how the world works. What do you know about Chinese political philosophy? Or do you prefer to ignore it and think it's just propaganda?

— I think the Chinese are realists at heart. In China, I feel incredibly comfortable talking to scientists, students, politicians or journalists, because they are all realists. And I think that the so—called "peace-loving country" is nothing more than a "velvet glove" covering an iron fist. In America we do the same. We talk about liberal values, human rights and so on, but if you look at the behavior of the United States, it is a ruthless country. Great powers are almost always like that. Of course, neither side admits this. I would also like to add that China is not a state with a "status quo" in East Asia. He wants to control the South China Sea, take back Taiwan and dominate the East China Sea. It looks more like a country with an expansion program. Security competition between China and The United States is inevitable, but the war can be prevented.

— China's actions on Taiwan and in the South China Sea are ordinary actions to protect sovereignty, although you do not believe in it. You also said that "American politicians are not listening to you." However, the reality is that the US is following your strategy and constantly restraining China in various ways. Moreover, the United States and its Asian allies are constantly inflaming tensions over the Taiwan issue. For example, the US is selling weapons to Taiwan — the last batch amounted to 1,988 billion US dollars — and plans to deploy missiles on the Japanese islands aimed towards China. So if one day a war really breaks out, your theory may become a prophecy. So what do you see as the result of the conflict between China and America? A nuclear war? The Third World War?

— I have made it very clear that I have never advocated the inevitability of war between the United States and China. But with the advent of China's political course, fierce competition in the field of security has become inevitable. Thus, these actions can lead to war. During the Cold War between the United States and The Soviet Union also had fierce competition in the field of security. Thank God there was no war between the two superpowers. Let's hope that, despite the constant aggravation of relations between America and China, the conflict will not worsen.

You also say that the United States is pursuing my policy, which is to contain China. I think that's right. But the Chinese, in fact, also do this. I think everything that China is doing is generally consistent with my theory, and the same is true for the United States. That's why for a long time I believed that the peaceful rise of China was impossible.

The last issue we are facing right now is Taiwan. I think this problem will become very difficult to resolve in the foreseeable future. I want to emphasize the word "I think" here. I can't say for sure, but I think that in the future we are unlikely to have a war over Taiwan, and I hope that I am right. The situation in the South China Sea worries me more than the possibility of a conflict over Taiwan.

So, what is the current situation in Taiwan? The Americans do not want mainland China to control Taiwan — it is a very important strategic place for the United States. Therefore, they will do everything possible to prevent China from returning the island. One of the main problems is that China will have to cross the Taiwan Strait and launch an amphibious operation to get to these places, and such actions are among the most difficult that one can imagine. Therefore, if China launches an attack and the United States helps Taiwan, the operation is unlikely to end successfully, and it will be even more difficult to win a military victory.

Given the difficulties he will face, China will come to the conclusion that now is not the time to bring him back. Before acting, it would be better to wait until the PRC becomes a stronger and more viable state militarily. But if you imagine a scenario in which one of the countries resorts to nuclear weapons, then China will deal a crushing blow to the United States in the Taiwan war. I'm not saying it's likely, but anything is possible.

The reason why it is reasonable to assume that both sides can use nuclear weapons is that the conflict will be mainly fought on the water, not on land. It is easier to imagine this in Taiwan than in Ukraine or Western Europe. It is difficult to imagine its use when the war is being waged in a densely populated area. Therefore, everything possible should be done to ensure that there is no war. Both sides should remain calm and deal with the situation, as Khrushchev and Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. All in order to avoid a thermonuclear war.

— In September, you had a famous debate with Jeffrey Sachs. He believes that China does not pose a threat and spoke about the danger of nuclear war. But if it really happens, as you said, perhaps it is the United States and your allies who have crossed the red line on issues such as the Taiwan issue and the South China Sea dispute.

— In conclusion, I would like to emphasize once again that I do not believe in the inevitability of war. There will be constant competition in the field of security. Let's hope together that in the future countries will be able to remain calm and ensure that this does not escalate into war. Thank you so much for the invitation.