Great read! I agree with your sentiment and you do raise some factually and conceptually valid points. The Economist completely missed the point professor Mearsheimer makes and did indeed publish and seasoned this article with a flavor that is pro Putin and plays into his narrative. It is certainly the right of The Economist to publish as they see fit, I am simply disappointed that they were incapable of understanding the deeper and academic argument that the professor makes. I believe the point is that the type of military or mutual defense alliance and the related games of strategic interdependence that underpin such arrangements must all be scrapped once the core objective of the alliance disappears (Soviet union is no more). The point is that the community of game theorists in the USA should have known better than to allow NATO to exist as an independent agent in the system once the Soviet Union collapsed (think early 90's). Adhering to game matrices rooted in the Soviet era geopolitical landscape was bound to backfire at some point once the Soviet union was no more. It is akin to forming an alliance to defend against person X, then person X dies...well then there is no further need for this particular alliance, everyone shakes hands and you go on your separate ways and back to the game theory-board. If in the future and under unknown future conditions you need to form a NEW alliance then you do so, but the old one has got to go or there will be a risk of FUTURE substantial miscalculations by ALL agents in the system. The point is that the big brains in the American political science community should have been aware of this, they should have voiced their understanding of game matrices, Nash equillibria, the chain of influence related to strategic games allowed to continue and play beyond expiry of core objectives. The community should have known that the geo-political system was destined to achieve Nash equilibria one way or another (war being the always less efficient way or achieving either mixed or pure strategy Nash equilibria). The point is that mere reason, logic and evidence should have guided the community to dismantle NATO in the early 90's and if there ever needs to be a NATO 2.0 then you cross that bridge when you get there. Keep in mind that a fictitious post 1990 world where NATO is taken apart right away and the system is allowed to evolve could have led to a NATO 2.0 where the EU, the USA and Russia are aligned to defend Russia against attack by a unified cohort of former Soviet states. I don't believe the professor has ever claimed to make a moral argument in the support of Russia or Putin nor do I think his admittedly imperfect intellect is capable of falling for what you so rightly label as Putin propaganda.
Succinctly stated. A great overview of why we are where we are today. Thanks again.
Great read! I agree with your sentiment and you do raise some factually and conceptually valid points. The Economist completely missed the point professor Mearsheimer makes and did indeed publish and seasoned this article with a flavor that is pro Putin and plays into his narrative. It is certainly the right of The Economist to publish as they see fit, I am simply disappointed that they were incapable of understanding the deeper and academic argument that the professor makes. I believe the point is that the type of military or mutual defense alliance and the related games of strategic interdependence that underpin such arrangements must all be scrapped once the core objective of the alliance disappears (Soviet union is no more). The point is that the community of game theorists in the USA should have known better than to allow NATO to exist as an independent agent in the system once the Soviet Union collapsed (think early 90's). Adhering to game matrices rooted in the Soviet era geopolitical landscape was bound to backfire at some point once the Soviet union was no more. It is akin to forming an alliance to defend against person X, then person X dies...well then there is no further need for this particular alliance, everyone shakes hands and you go on your separate ways and back to the game theory-board. If in the future and under unknown future conditions you need to form a NEW alliance then you do so, but the old one has got to go or there will be a risk of FUTURE substantial miscalculations by ALL agents in the system. The point is that the big brains in the American political science community should have been aware of this, they should have voiced their understanding of game matrices, Nash equillibria, the chain of influence related to strategic games allowed to continue and play beyond expiry of core objectives. The community should have known that the geo-political system was destined to achieve Nash equilibria one way or another (war being the always less efficient way or achieving either mixed or pure strategy Nash equilibria). The point is that mere reason, logic and evidence should have guided the community to dismantle NATO in the early 90's and if there ever needs to be a NATO 2.0 then you cross that bridge when you get there. Keep in mind that a fictitious post 1990 world where NATO is taken apart right away and the system is allowed to evolve could have led to a NATO 2.0 where the EU, the USA and Russia are aligned to defend Russia against attack by a unified cohort of former Soviet states. I don't believe the professor has ever claimed to make a moral argument in the support of Russia or Putin nor do I think his admittedly imperfect intellect is capable of falling for what you so rightly label as Putin propaganda.