Latest news with #NeueZürcherZeitung
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - John Mearsheimer, the not-so-realistic ‘realist,' embarrasses himself again on Russia
The editors of Switzerland's leading newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, knew they had a terrific headline when political scientist John Mearsheimer said, 'I would have done the same as Putin. I would have attacked Ukraine even earlier.' As the paper no doubt realized, the controversy-loving University of Chicago professor had made an outrageous statement even by his own standards. It's one thing to accuse the West of provoking Russia's illegitimate president to invade Ukraine in defense of Russia's strategic interests. It's a whole different ball game actually to endorse Putin's invasion by associating oneself with it so clearly and openly. In effect, Mearsheimer has justified and legitimized Putin's war and genocide, thereby making himself complicit in the Russian dictator's crimes. This is where Mearsheimer's brand of so-called geopolitical 'realism' ultimately leads: not just indifference to morality, but the wholesale rejection of morality and its replacement with immorality. It is important to note that this statement is Mearsheimer's personal endorsement not only of Putin's war but also of his genocide of Ukrainians. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine began a systematic effort to kill Ukrainian civilians and destroy their language, culture, history and identity. That is genocide, by any definition. Mearsheimer believes Putin bears no animus toward Ukrainians — that he is acting in a purely rational manner focused only on Russia's strategic interests. That's nonsense. As scores of books, articles and journalistic accounts have made clear — including shockingly forthright statements by Putin, former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and many other members of Russia's elite — Putin and his set detest Ukrainians for having the gall to believe they aren't Russians. Russia's powers that be are determined to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, state and culture. 'It's quite clear that Putin is a first-class strategist and behaves rationally,' Mearsheimer has said in German (my translation). 'This doesn't mean that one has to agree with his behavior or must consider it good. Since April 2008, when NATO declared Ukraine would become a member, Putin has made one thing very clear: that he and his Russian elites regarded NATO membership for Ukraine as an existential threat for Russia. Since then he has acted according to this conviction. That includes the decision in February 2022 to invade Ukraine. From the viewpoint of Russia's interests he therefore behaved smartly.' But two points require a closer look: first, that Putin promoted Russia's interests by invading, and second, that Ukraine was on the path to becoming a NATO member. It is at least unclear how one can characterize as a brilliant strategic move a three-year war that has cost Russia close to a million dead and wounded and thousands of tanks and personnel carriers destroyed; revealed its armed forces as incompetent and third-rate; induced Sweden and Finland to join NATO; ruined Russia's economy; and transformed Russia into a rogue state dependent on North Korea and China. If this is smart behavior by a rational Putin, then heaven help us if he ever rejects Mearsheimer's advice and begins to act irrationally. Equally absurd is the notion, now a tenet within MAGA world, that Ukraine was marching toward NATO membership before the invasion. The exact opposite was the case. NATO and its member states had expressly rejected membership for Ukraine. Indeed, the West suffered from a recurring bout of 'Ukraine fatigue.' The fact that NATO and its members still oppose Ukrainian membership exposes the hollowness of Mearsheimer's claims. After all, if membership and the attendant threat to Russia were truly strategic priorities for NATO, why extend membership only to Sweden and Finland, and not to Ukraine? Things look even more fantastic when one considers the condition of the armed forces of NATO countries. It's no secret that it was and still is abysmal. Putin and his spies must have known that NATO posed no threat to Russia. A truly rational Putin would have known that NATO was a paper tiger and that Ukraine's chances of joining were worse than nil. Naturally, it's possible that Putin was trapped in his own ideological predispositions and couldn't think straight. But that's just another way of saying that he wasn't rational or that his notion of rationality consisted of Russia's self-destruction. What else is there to say as one observes a leading scholar commit intellectual and moral suicide? Perhaps that Mearsheimer owes Ukrainians — and Russians — an apology for associating himself with Putin's irrationality, war and genocide. As for the rest of us, his silence would be enough. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
John Mearsheimer, the not-so-realistic ‘realist,' embarrasses himself again on Russia
The editors of Switzerland's leading newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, knew they had a terrific headline when political scientist John Mearsheimer said, 'I would have done the same as Putin. I would have attacked Ukraine even earlier.' As the paper no doubt realized, the controversy-loving University of Chicago professor had made an outrageous statement even by his own standards. It's one thing to accuse the West of provoking Russia's illegitimate president to invade Ukraine in defense of Russia's strategic interests. It's a whole different ball game actually to endorse Putin's invasion by associating oneself with it so clearly and openly. In effect, Mearsheimer has justified and legitimized Putin's war and genocide, thereby making himself complicit in the Russian dictator's crimes. This is where Mearsheimer's brand of so-called geopolitical 'realism' ultimately leads: not just indifference to morality, but the wholesale rejection of morality and its replacement with immorality. It is important to note that this statement is Mearsheimer's personal endorsement not only of Putin's war but also of his genocide of Ukrainians. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine began a systematic effort to kill Ukrainian civilians and destroy their language, culture, history and identity. That is genocide, by any definition. Mearsheimer believes Putin bears no animus toward Ukrainians — that he is acting in a purely rational manner focused only on Russia's strategic interests. That's nonsense. As scores of books, articles and journalistic accounts have made clear — including shockingly forthright statements by Putin, former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and many other members of Russia's elite — Putin and his set detest Ukrainians for having the gall to believe they aren't Russians. Russia's powers that be are determined to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, state and culture. 'It's quite clear that Putin is a first-class strategist and behaves rationally,' Mearsheimer has said in German (my translation). 'This doesn't mean that one has to agree with his behavior or must consider it good. Since April 2008, when NATO declared Ukraine would become a member, Putin has made one thing very clear: that he and his Russian elites regarded NATO membership for Ukraine as an existential threat for Russia. Since then he has acted according to this conviction. That includes the decision in February 2022 to invade Ukraine. From the viewpoint of Russia's interests he therefore behaved smartly.' But two points require a closer look: first, that Putin promoted Russia's interests by invading, and second, that Ukraine was on the path to becoming a NATO member. It is at least unclear how one can characterize as a brilliant strategic move a three-year war that has cost Russia close to a million dead and wounded and thousands of tanks and personnel carriers destroyed; revealed its armed forces as incompetent and third-rate; induced Sweden and Finland to join NATO; ruined Russia's economy; and transformed Russia into a rogue state dependent on North Korea and China. If this is smart behavior by a rational Putin, then heaven help us if he ever rejects Mearsheimer's advice and begins to act irrationally. Equally absurd is the notion, now a tenet within MAGA world, that Ukraine was marching toward NATO membership before the invasion. The exact opposite was the case. NATO and its member states had expressly rejected membership for Ukraine. Indeed, the West suffered from a recurring bout of 'Ukraine fatigue.' The fact that NATO and its members still oppose Ukrainian membership exposes the hollowness of Mearsheimer's claims. After all, if membership and the attendant threat to Russia were truly strategic priorities for NATO, why extend membership only to Sweden and Finland, and not to Ukraine? Things look even more fantastic when one considers the condition of the armed forces of NATO countries. It's no secret that it was and still is abysmal. Putin and his spies must have known that NATO posed no threat to Russia. A truly rational Putin would have known that NATO was a paper tiger and that Ukraine's chances of joining were worse than nil. Naturally, it's possible that Putin was trapped in his own ideological predispositions and couldn't think straight. But that's just another way of saying that he wasn't rational or that his notion of rationality consisted of Russia's self-destruction. What else is there to say as one observes a leading scholar commit intellectual and moral suicide? Perhaps that Mearsheimer owes Ukrainians — and Russians — an apology for associating himself with Putin's irrationality, war and genocide. As for the rest of us, his silence would be enough. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.'
Gulf Insider
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Insider
Cultural Factors Drive 'Disproportionate' Crime Among Migrant Groups: Renowned Swiss Psychiatrist
Following the release of his new book, The Dark Sides of Migration, Swiss forensic psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok has called for European asylum policy to finally take migrant crime statistics into account, claiming that certain migrant groups are 'disproportionately criminal' due to cultural factors. Urbaniok, one of Switzerland's most prominent forensic experts with over three decades of experience analyzing violent offenders, suggests that cultural influences from countries such as Afghanistan, Morocco, and Tunisia contribute significantly to higher crime rates among migrants from these regions. 'Afghans are reported more than five times, Moroccans more than eight times, and Tunisians more than nine times more often than Swiss nationals for serious violent crimes,' Urbaniok stated in an interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, citing his analysis of crime data from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. 'The disproportionate crime rate has a lot to do with cultural influences. It is about how violence is dealt with, the image of women, or the role of the rule of law in these countries. I have been dealing with criminals for 33 years and have seen thousands of cases at close range. That's why I know how strong and relevant these imprints can be. Sometimes, they persist for generations,' he said. The cover of his book has drawn some criticism for prominently featuring a knife, which he insists is a 'good symbol' as it 'reflects the growing sense of insecurity in public spaces.' While careful to clarify that he does not condemn all migrants — he explains why he preceded 'Migration' in his book title with 'The Dark Side of' — Urbaniok makes no secret of his belief that the cultural background of asylum seekers should influence immigration decisions. 'There are countries that are unproblematic, those that are problematic, and those that are highly problematic… and I don't understand why that doesn't play a role in the question of who we let into the country.' Urbaniok proposes an explicit quota system that would limit asylum admissions from countries with high crime rates. In his view, the absolute right to asylum is unrealistic and harmful to public safety: 'Hundreds of millions of people would theoretically be entitled to seek asylum in Switzerland, but we could never take them all in.' The renowned psychiatrist rejected accusations of exaggeration in his book, countering that much of the public discourse on foreigner crime amounts to 'targeted disinformation' designed to downplay uncomfortable truths. 'Many fear that citizens will not be able to deal with the facts,' he said. In several European nations, foreign crime data is obscured by the fact that naturalized citizens in their respective countries are categorized as, for example, 'German' or 'Austrian,' even if they are foreign-born or of a historic migration background. 'Too many problematic people remain here,' Urbaniok said. 'I see them in the statistics and every day in my profession for thirty years. That's unpleasant. What is really unpleasant is the realization that these problems can still exist a generation later. That's why you can't say that we have the matter under control. On the contrary, the problems are huge.' Click here to read more…
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
German government urged to share report on Covid lab leak theory
The German parliament's oversight committee has called on the government to share the findings of an investigation into the origin of the coronavirus pandemic with the public, after reports that the government covered it up. "The committee expressly welcomes the interest in clarification and the investigation process itself," the committee said in a statement after a meeting on Thursday evening. It added that it expects the government to inform the public accordingly after the conclusion of the investigations. The meeting came after several newspapers reported that the German chancellery had asked scientists to examine evidence from the national BND spy agency regarding a theory that the virus had originated in a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The reports published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit said the BND had concluded in 2020 that there was a strong likelihood the coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab, but the finding was never released to the public. Investigators concluded there was an 80-95% likelihood that a lab leak was to blame, based on information in the public domain, the papers said. The theory posits that the Sars-CoV-2 virus, which causes the Covid-19 respiratory disease, originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which conducted research on coronaviruses. The evidence was to be evaluated by a panel of experts, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported. The other major theory for the pandemic's origin is that the virus had a natural origin, just like the SARS outbreak in 2002-03.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Merkel rejects claims Germany covered up Covid-19 lab leak report
Former German chancellor Angela Merkel dismissed accusations of a cover-up regarding her handling of intelligence reports on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, her spokeswoman said on Thursday. The comment came after three newspapers reported that Germany's BND spy agency had concluded in 2020 that there was a strong likelihood the coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab, but the finding was never released to the public. "Former chancellor Merkel categorically rejects the accusation implied in your question," a spokeswoman told Berlin's Tagesspiegel newspaper when asked whether Merkel, who left office in 2021, had concealed relevant information from the public. Merkel's successor, Olaf Scholz, has refused to discuss the reports. "As far as intelligence findings are concerned, this is not the place to discuss them," he said at a press conference on Wednesday. The reports published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit said that the BND and Germany's Chancellery had asked scientists to examine the evidence in regards to the lab leak theory. Investigators concluded that there was an 80% to 95% likelihood that a lab leak was to blame, based on information in the public domain, the papers said. This hotly contested theory posits that the Sars-CoV-2 virus, which causes the Covid-19 disease, originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which conducted research on coronaviruses, and began spreading through some sort of accident or failure at the lab. The findings by the German intelligence community have not been made public. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported that while the BND believed it had plausible evidence to support the theory, not all the researchers on the panel were convinced. The other major theory for the pandemic's origin is that the virus had a purely natural origin, just like the SARS outbreak in 2002-03. Beijung's response Earlier in Beijing, China had urged caution and political restraint in the wake of reports that Germany's BND intelligence agency gathered plausible evidence that the coronavirus pandemic originated with a laboratory leak in the Chinese city of Wuhan. "On the issue of the coronavirus, China firmly rejects any form of political posturing," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said in Beijing. She said any discussion of the scientific issues surrounding Covid-19 should be left to scientists. Mao also noted that an international team led by the World Health Organization had visited the Wuhan lab as part of their investigation into the origins of the pandemic. The team largely dismissed the so-called "lab leak" theory in 2021. Still, the WHO has emphasized that all hypotheses regarding the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remain on the table. As recently as December the UN agency called on Beijing to provide more pandemic-related data.
