Tooze- ‘John Mearsheimer and the Dark Origins of Realism’ Flashcards
What is Tooze’s position on the war in
Ukraine?
‘act of hubris’
–> critical of the other perspective - explains how he places significant blame on west which subsidises + excuses Russian aggression.
–> does not deny that this happened but takes as a given.
-Dogma of war 21CE + 20CE no one profited from the wars - especially from aggression - maybe from defence but not wars of aggression.
–> says real world politics works in different ways - careful in analysing complex political reality.
Tooze’s position on the war in Ukraine is critical of John Mearsheimer’s perspective on the conflict. He argues that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism fails to adequately explain the qualitative shift implied by the opening of hostilities and does not grasp the consequences of war in the modern era. Tooze also suggests that Mearsheimer’s view is shared de facto by a large part of the US foreign policy establishment, but he believes that Mearsheimer’s approach offers real insight and is appreciated by the foreign policy left. Tooze acknowledges the actual limits of Western commitment to Ukraine and the frustration of liberals with regards to these limits. He also highlights the dangers of a direct confrontation with Russia and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict.
How does tooze view the international
system following the end of the Cold War?
-war is not beneficial anymore and agrees with this realist perspective.
Adam Tooze views the international system following the end of the Cold War as a complex and constantly evolving world, in which there is a never-ending struggle to sensibly define interests and pursue them. He emphasizes that adopting a realistic approach towards the world does not consist in always reaching for a well-worn toolkit of timeless verities, nor does it consist in affecting a hard-boiled attitude to inoculate oneself forever against liberal enthusiasm. Instead, he suggests that realism, taken seriously, entails a minute-by-minute struggle to understand the world and its constantly evolving nature, in which individuals can influence and change it to a degree. Tooze also highlights the need to acknowledge the radical and perilous nature of war, and the moral consequences it carries. He argues that a realistic approach should not normalize war as the logical and obvious reaction to given circumstances, but should recognize it as a radical and perilous act. Tooze’s perspective on the international system emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of the world and a recognition of the consequences of actions, especially in the context of war and conflict
In which IR school would you place the
tooze?
-critiques other guys use of realism
–> saying he is correct about underlying causes of tension but that is not the same as actually explaining the war.
–> realist model ‘grossly underspecified’ + fails to grasp opening of hostilities
–> realism that fails to recognise the fact + consequences that have been drawn from it by most policymakers.
