The World Knowledge Forum was held on October 10, 2025, in Seoul. One of the headline speakers on the panel “The Future of the Global Geoeconomic Order” was political scientist John Mearsheimer, known worldwide as a leading realist thinker.
His realism – often dismissed as pessimism by liberal internationalists – has repeatedly proven prescient. In international relations, theories are only as valuable as their predictive power, and Mearsheimer’s record stands out.
He warned in the 1990s that NATO’s eastward expansion would provoke Russia – a forecast borne out by the Ukraine war.
In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), he argued that a rising China would inevitably clash with the United States – a view now accepted as conventional wisdom.
He also foresaw that post-Cold War American overreach would exhaust US power while fueling nationalist backlash abroad.
America’s global posture
At the Seoul forum, Mearsheimer outlined Washington’s strategic priorities. The United States, he said, cares most about three regions: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. Europe was once foremost, but no longer. The Middle East remains critical mainly because of the US-Israel relationship and energy interests.
Today, East Asia is the most important region because of the US-China rivalry. Yet, as he noted, Washington is “deeply enmeshed” in wars elsewhere – bogged down in Ukraine and heavily engaged in the Middle East.
“The fact that we’re enmeshed in the Middle East and Europe means that the last thing we want is a crisis in East Asia,” he said.
With his trademark dry humor, he added that Americans would be “really, really in deep kimchi” if conflict erupted in East Asia while the US remained pinned down elsewhere.
A rare comment on Korea
“For the foreseeable future it’s likely there won’t be a major crisis in East Asia – and that is all for the good,” he concluded.
I have followed Mearsheimer for years, but his lectures and interviews have rarely addressed Korea directly. Rather his focus has almost always been on Europe, the Middle East, and China.
Therefore, I was especially curious to hear his view on Korea and was struck by his peculiar idea of how peace should be maintained on the Korean Peninsula.
“You Koreans should hope that the United States remains deeply engaged in the Middle East and deeply engaged in Europe so that we don’t cause any trouble in East Asia and you live peacefully for the foreseeable future,” he said.
He added, “I, as an American, have a deep-seated interest in greatly reducing our presence in the Middle East, getting out of the Ukraine conflict so we can concentrate on containing China.”
The message was clear: East Asia’s calm may depend not on diplomacy or deterrence, but on America’s exhaustion elsewhere.
The illusion of calm
Mearsheimer called this a moment of “optimism” – a time when South Korea can “focus on its own challenges” while Washington’s attention remains divided. But for South Korea, this optimism conceals danger.
If East Asia’s stability depends on America being tied down elsewhere, the peace we enjoy is contingent, not earned. The absence of war does not equal security. China’s maritime coercion, North Korea’s missile threats and the weaponization of trade and technology all show how competition is intensifying beneath the surface. Calm may simply be the pause before the next storm.
The record of loyalty
Mearsheimer’s perception ignores history. Few nations have stood by the United States as consistently as South Korea.
At his Build Up Korea 2025 speech, days before he died from an assassin’s bullet, American conservative commentator and activist Charlie Kirk reminded the audience:
In both of our countries, we celebrate those who fight for freedom everywhere on earth. More than 30,000 Americans died protecting the freedom of Korea.
Today Korea has repaid the debt many times over. For 75 years, Korea has stood alongside us in the battle for freedom against communist tyranny. Not just here but around the world.
Korean soldiers fought heroically at our side against communism in Vietnam.
May we never forget that Canada didn’t do that, Britain did not do that, Germany didn’t do that. But Korea was there and had America’s back.
Korean troops helped America in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now, today, Korea is our bulwark against the growing power of the Communist Chinese Party.
His remarks underscore what Mearsheimer’s framework omits – that alliances are not abstract structures; they are forged through shared sacrifice and trust. South Korea is not a passive beneficiary of US protection; it is a proven partner that has repeatedly shouldered burdens in defense of freedom.
From optimism to vigilance
Mearsheimer’s realism is valuable because it forces uncomfortable reflection. He views states as rational actors driven by survival, not sentiment. From that perspective, South Korea must behave as though its allies also act solely out of self-interest.
The lesson from his remarks is not to “hope” the US remains entangled abroad, but to prepare for the strategic vacuum that could follow.
East Asia’s peace will endure only if regional actors strengthen deterrence and balance power responsibly. For South Korea, that means coupling alliance loyalty with readiness for autonomy.
Peace through preparation
Mearsheimer calls this a period of optimism. But optimism is not strategy. South Korea cannot anchor its security on another power’s distractions.
The US-South Korea alliance remains vital, yet it will be credible only if both partners invest equally in deterrence and trust. As global attention drifts, Seoul must assert its own agency, modernize defense and diversify partnerships.
Hope is not a plan. Stability demands vigilance. And peace, in the realist world Mearsheimer describes, belongs only to those prepared to defend it.
Hanjin Lew is a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs.
