Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault (2014) [pdf](mearsheimer.com)
mearsheimer.com
Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault (2014) [pdf]
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
72 コメント
This kind of analysis ignores what Ukraine and Ukrainians actually want. Western Ukraine, at the very least, is extremely nationalist and anti-Russian. Do they not have the right of self-determination as a sovereign country?
The author doesn't care what Ukrainians want, and neither does Russia or the United States for that matter. He's a political realist. I think the author would say that you have the right to self-determination if you actually possess the political capital to have the right to begin with. It is obvious that the Ukrainians do not (whereas the Poles, French, Germans, etc. do).
People are very much missing this point; there is no value judgement here over what "should" be happening.
There has always been clear red line; if NATO is attacked, we're starting WWIII. If a non-NATO friendly country is attacked, we'll complain loudly and declare sanctions.
Ukraine is not in NATO and we should've behaved accordingly (i.e, not sponsor a coup)
There has always been clear red line; if NATO is attacked, we're starting WWIII. If a non-NATO friendly country is attacked, we'll complain loudly and declare sanctions.
Ukraine is not in NATO and we should've behaved accordingly (i.e, not sponsor a coup)
"We" (whoever that is) did not "sponsor a coup". Stop spreading misinformation. What happened was that the Ukrainian people were sick of Russian puppet and kicked him out - at great cost, he murdered a lot of them.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a coup. Don’t forget Biden and his sons “business” there. It’s at the very least a valid theory.
What a monstrous attitude.
Luckily it is, essentialy, the basis of customary international law, otherwise the entire world would disintegrate in to ethnic violence until we ended up with perfectly aligned ethno-states rather than the borders we have now, the majority of which are in place as the relics of failed empires.
There is a reason Mearsheimer is part of an IR school of thought called "Realists." This analysis doesn't focus much on self-determinism or international law because it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence. I also think that it's regrettable, but people making foreign policy calls should be aware of this line of thinking.
For what it's worth, what Mearsheimer is saying here about NATO expansion being destabilizing is pretty much exactly what Putin is saying in his various speeches.
For what it's worth, what Mearsheimer is saying here about NATO expansion being destabilizing is pretty much exactly what Putin is saying in his various speeches.
> it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence.
But international law has a lot of influence. As a set of shared norms, it's something that most competently-run countries and polities explicitly foster in order to achieve some sort of long-term stability and predictability that ultimately benefits them all. A "realist" analysis that simply ignores these dynamics and pretends they do not exist is not very realistic after all.
But international law has a lot of influence. As a set of shared norms, it's something that most competently-run countries and polities explicitly foster in order to achieve some sort of long-term stability and predictability that ultimately benefits them all. A "realist" analysis that simply ignores these dynamics and pretends they do not exist is not very realistic after all.
On the other hand, international law only influences where the geopolitical setting allows it to. When it comes to the question of life and death for a superpower, international law no longer needs to mean anything.
I can observe an analogy of this for an individual person in a situation that he feels is life-threatening: criminal law or civil law are not the first things that come to mind but survival is. Only the one who first survives has a chance to return to law when things are settled back enough.
I can observe an analogy of this for an individual person in a situation that he feels is life-threatening: criminal law or civil law are not the first things that come to mind but survival is. Only the one who first survives has a chance to return to law when things are settled back enough.
[deleted]
Only when backed by force. There is no higher power in the playground of states. Ultimately countries by themselves are not necessarily rational actors. Smaller states join larger power blocs (either coerced or voluntarily, essentially they are trading off sovereignty for protection) and their own individual freedom to act gets subsumed. When it comes to dealing with Great Powers, realism is about as good as we can get, it is also predictably one of the oldest schools of thought in political science. The LIO theory is great in the decade post Cold War, but the world is multipolar now.
To my understanding it doesn’t ignore international law so much as singlemindedly focus on the forces and interests that “truly” drive it and are inherent to nature, ie global anarchy navigated by power/security concerns.
“Anarchy is what states make of it” is a great search phrase to pull on this thread with to say the least.
“Anarchy is what states make of it” is a great search phrase to pull on this thread with to say the least.
[deleted]
No, not if it significantly affects others, as it would in this case, by risking a nuclear war.
Should countries be able to get nuclear weapons just because they want them?
Should countries be able to get nuclear weapons just because they want them?
Russia is the one threatening nuclear war here.
That’s on Russia, no one else.
That’s on Russia, no one else.
It's on everyone who can take actions to prevent it.
Yes except your comment seemingly leaves out any responsibility on Russia’s part.
The only way Ukrainian sovereignty leads to nuclear war is if the Russians are making it so.
The only way Ukrainian sovereignty leads to nuclear war is if the Russians are making it so.
I do not know why you are downvoted and flagged. You are perfectly correct, the point of non-proliferation policy is exactly to prevent more states from acquiring such weapons. The agency and rights of non-nuclear owning nations have no bearing here.
His whole first chapter is about that, is it not?
A response by other IR theorists: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Mosco...
HN really don’t like IR and geopolitics. Almost all the other IR centric views on other threads have been downvoted or flagged.
HN really don’t like IR and geopolitics. Almost all the other IR centric views on other threads have been downvoted or flagged.
I think that there are a great many people who don't like realism when it interferes with their ability to enjoy sanctimoniously condemning the crimes of other states.
When their own state is the one attacking defenceless countries, the precepts of realism are their last line of defence to justify either their enthusiastic support, or their tacit consent.
When my country was destroying Libya, Iraq, and Afhanistan, I found that even those with no education in IR were able to spontaneously invent the precepts of realist theory without needing to read it in a textbook: the world is lawless and anarchic, Saddam is a baddy, if we don't stop him then nobody else will.
I try to be sympathetic to it though. When you've lived through enough of these wars (in the aggressor societies) you just get used to grimly observing how people react and I suppose it must build up a sense of righteous indignation and now here is a chance to safely vent it all without any consequences.
When their own state is the one attacking defenceless countries, the precepts of realism are their last line of defence to justify either their enthusiastic support, or their tacit consent.
When my country was destroying Libya, Iraq, and Afhanistan, I found that even those with no education in IR were able to spontaneously invent the precepts of realist theory without needing to read it in a textbook: the world is lawless and anarchic, Saddam is a baddy, if we don't stop him then nobody else will.
I try to be sympathetic to it though. When you've lived through enough of these wars (in the aggressor societies) you just get used to grimly observing how people react and I suppose it must build up a sense of righteous indignation and now here is a chance to safely vent it all without any consequences.
Thanks for posting this. I came away from those criticism thinking Mearsheimer's argument hadn't taken much damage, though I'm still not sure I agree. It is interesting that even the realist author doesn't frame NATO/EU expansion in the context of empire, but of liberal idealism.
It's a shame there isn't more IR discussion here. I'm actually pretty surprised by the low quality of the discourse.
It's a shame there isn't more IR discussion here. I'm actually pretty surprised by the low quality of the discourse.
Ditto. Have you checked out caspian report on youtube? I find him to be pretty biassed, but at least he's intelligible and fact-based on the actual economics and geostrategic stuff..
I found his lecture quite interesting as well on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Yup, came here to leave the same comment. The video is great and he actually has a solid take on modern geopolitics overall.
As a westernised russian I could be biased. But I’m also trying to maintain a neutral realistic perspective and this view resonates with me a lot.
As a westernised russian I could be biased. But I’m also trying to maintain a neutral realistic perspective and this view resonates with me a lot.
[deleted]
The US, etc could have banned Ukraine from NATO forever and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Putin's speech rarely mentioned NATO as his deciding factor. He said doesn't believe Ukraine should exist independently of Russia.
[deleted]
There's often a difference between what people say and what people think, as well as justifications for actions against the actual reasons they did the action. Because telling the public the real reason might be embarrassing.
He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Russia, what if his own citizenry gets the idea that if their neighbors can topple corrupt dictators, maybe they can do that as well..
He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Russia, what if his own citizenry gets the idea that if their neighbors can topple corrupt dictators, maybe they can do that as well..
2014 was about a trade deal with the EU not NATO.
NATO is not a threat to Russia as a sovereign state it’s a threat to Russia as a wanna be global superpower and an empire something they have no right too.
NATO is not a threat to Russia as a sovereign state it’s a threat to Russia as a wanna be global superpower and an empire something they have no right too.
> That's made up.
It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
About as much of a stretch that the US or Germany are ruled by Nazis because they have far right nut cases in their armed forces.
Ukraine is the only country other than Israel that both its head of state and head of government are Jews.
Ukraine is the only country other than Israel that both its head of state and head of government are Jews.
Oh I know. I've even followed Zelenskiy (his social media is usually entertaining...) since he was elected.
I just said there's a basis for it, not that it's true.
I just said there's a basis for it, not that it's true.
I think the author is mostly correct, however has one big blind spot.
US policy towards Ukraine is not incorrect, it’s working as designed from the start. They knew how Russia would react, they were just willing to throw them under the bus so they can force Russia’s hand.
US policy towards Ukraine is not incorrect, it’s working as designed from the start. They knew how Russia would react, they were just willing to throw them under the bus so they can force Russia’s hand.
It may be the case that "The West" could have done things to prevent this invasion, but the choice to start blowing up children and families was Putin's. It is his fault.
[deleted]
The crux of the argument is since the West is expanding NATO then it's the West's fault. Excuse me - what does national sovereignty mean? If the Ukraine desires to join NATO and NATO desires to have the Ukraine join then that's the Ukraine's prerogative as a sovereign nation. It's also Russia's prerogative to invade a sovereign nation, but they should fully expect to pay a price for that - up to and including all-out war. This isn't difficult. Both sides are calculating the costs and how much they're willing to pay.
>Ukraine desires to join NATO
Do phrases like this have any meaning, in a world where politicians cut out borders through parts of the world that are traditionally multi cultural and have a huge diversity in opinions?
Do phrases like this have any meaning, in a world where politicians cut out borders through parts of the world that are traditionally multi cultural and have a huge diversity in opinions?
Shockingly prescient and a well-done analysis in general, but I still don’t buy the “Putin had no other choice” argument.
It boils down to the equivalent of the “It wasn’t my fault that I raped the woman, she wore a short skirt!” bullshit argument.
I understand the “this is how realpolitik works” line of thought, I really do. But it doesn’t change who’s at fault here.
It boils down to the equivalent of the “It wasn’t my fault that I raped the woman, she wore a short skirt!” bullshit argument.
I understand the “this is how realpolitik works” line of thought, I really do. But it doesn’t change who’s at fault here.
You say you understand then you give a terrible example or two.
Sounds like a useful idiot to me.
Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time. The Kaliningrad region is Europe’s most militarised area, with SAM and tactical ballistic weaponry extending over most of Poland and the Baltic’s, quite possibly most of Europe in fact. Russian nuke-capable bombers graze NATO airspaces on an almost daily rate.
But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
In a 19th century Polish book (very racist by modern standards) by Nobel prize winning author Sienkiewicz, “In the desert and in the jungle”, an indigenous man Kali is being “enlightened” about Christianity. When asked to provide an example of a bad deed, he says “when someone take cow from Kali”. Asked for a good deed, he volunteers: “when Kali take cow”.
Basically, you don’t need to understand more about morality to understand Putin’s idea of statehood and leadership.
Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time. The Kaliningrad region is Europe’s most militarised area, with SAM and tactical ballistic weaponry extending over most of Poland and the Baltic’s, quite possibly most of Europe in fact. Russian nuke-capable bombers graze NATO airspaces on an almost daily rate.
But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
In a 19th century Polish book (very racist by modern standards) by Nobel prize winning author Sienkiewicz, “In the desert and in the jungle”, an indigenous man Kali is being “enlightened” about Christianity. When asked to provide an example of a bad deed, he says “when someone take cow from Kali”. Asked for a good deed, he volunteers: “when Kali take cow”.
Basically, you don’t need to understand more about morality to understand Putin’s idea of statehood and leadership.
> Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time.
You got this exactly backwards. NATO has been expanding towards Russia and is seen as aggressive by Russia. NATO/US "graze" Russian and Chinese airspace aswell - whats your point? This is just military tactics 101.
>But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
Ukraine is a buffer state. When your buffer state is being armed and funded by your political enemies, you draw a red line. When you cross a red line and you fail a diplomatic negotiations, what do you expect to happen?
You got this exactly backwards. NATO has been expanding towards Russia and is seen as aggressive by Russia. NATO/US "graze" Russian and Chinese airspace aswell - whats your point? This is just military tactics 101.
>But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
Ukraine is a buffer state. When your buffer state is being armed and funded by your political enemies, you draw a red line. When you cross a red line and you fail a diplomatic negotiations, what do you expect to happen?
Yes yes yes. Russia is a peaceful country, just somehow surrounded by festering wars. Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, not to forget its brainchild North Korea.
But sure, it’s everyone else’s fault!
But sure, it’s everyone else’s fault!
[deleted]
Imagine how different the world would be if the west allowed Putin to join NATO like he wanted...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
Putin never actually wanted to join NATO, some of his demands were that as Russia joins there is no more need for any US presence in Europe as well as he wanted Russia to be exempt from rule of law and the democracy requirements that NATO has.
Wait... Isn't Italy in NATO?
Haha funny joke.
Turkey would be a better example due to recent events but Spain is a more appropriate historic example as it wasn’t allowed to join until 1982.
But I'm (ethnically) Italian so I feel a bit safer being judgemental :)
Ukraine should have kept their nukes or joined Nato or Russia.
Um, no. It is the democratization, that ticks Russia off. Regardless of EU and US involvement, Russian leadership cannot tolerate a culturally similar country doing better. This would provoke so many questions: how come they get to change their leadership frequently and, apparently, this does not end in disaster? How come their oligarchy does not run rampant? Also, since this is a repeated pattern from Hungary and Czechoslovakia (county makes decisions Moscow does not like, Moscow sends tanks), who provoked them then? By the logic of the author, every move of every country defending themselves or making any decision against the interests of Moscow can be seen as provocation and thus condemned. That’s not realpolitik, that’s just plain old propaganda of the world order, where one or maybe two superpowers have a say and everyone else stays put. That world is gone.
Tankies. Tankies everywhere. Leave off Tankies. Imperialism is Imperialism, and it has nothing to do with NATO.
Please do not post flamebait, name calling, or unsubstantive comments. Those things are against the site guidelines, because they destroy what this place is supposed to be for. You can make your substantive points without any of that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
From the opening paragraph this is extremely dated.
Recently, in so many words, Putin himself said he wanted the rebuilding of the old Soviet empire. This might have seemed like a plausible explanation during Crimea. But this is all garbage when hearing straight from Putin a couple of days ago.
Recently, in so many words, Putin himself said he wanted the rebuilding of the old Soviet empire. This might have seemed like a plausible explanation during Crimea. But this is all garbage when hearing straight from Putin a couple of days ago.
I've collected the speeches on my website. He didn't say that.
http://pauleccles.co.za/
He's quite critical of the Soviet Union.
"Lenin criticised this plan and suggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution.
"This immediately raises many questions. The first is really the main one: why was it necessary to appease the nationalists, to satisfy the ceaselessly growing nationalist ambitions on the outskirts of the former empire? What was the point of transferring to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them? Let me repeat that these territories were transferred along with the population of what was historically Russia.
...
"When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
...
"In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic.
"And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future.
...
"I would like to repeat that today such a centre has already been deployed in Ochakov. In the 18th century, soldiers of Alexander Suvorov fought for this city. Owing to their courage, it became part of Russia. Also in the 18th century, the lands of the Black Sea littoral, incorporated in Russia as a result of wars with the Ottoman Empire, were given the name of Novorossiya (New Russia). Now attempts are being made to condemn these landmarks of history to oblivion, along with the names of state and military figures of the Russian Empire without whose efforts modern Ukraine would not have many big cities or even access to the Black Sea."
"Lenin criticised this plan and suggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution.
"This immediately raises many questions. The first is really the main one: why was it necessary to appease the nationalists, to satisfy the ceaselessly growing nationalist ambitions on the outskirts of the former empire? What was the point of transferring to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them? Let me repeat that these territories were transferred along with the population of what was historically Russia.
...
"When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
...
"In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic.
"And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future.
...
"I would like to repeat that today such a centre has already been deployed in Ochakov. In the 18th century, soldiers of Alexander Suvorov fought for this city. Owing to their courage, it became part of Russia. Also in the 18th century, the lands of the Black Sea littoral, incorporated in Russia as a result of wars with the Ottoman Empire, were given the name of Novorossiya (New Russia). Now attempts are being made to condemn these landmarks of history to oblivion, along with the names of state and military figures of the Russian Empire without whose efforts modern Ukraine would not have many big cities or even access to the Black Sea."
Is this surprising? He's a right wing guy - he doesn't like "the odious and utopian fantasies" of socialism, and his read of Stalin (and how Stalinism worked) is pretty standard.
It's actually a common understanding of what went so horribly wrong in the USSR: the party formed a sort of parallel administrative structure that basically undermined and supplanted all the actual laws and institutions of state.
It's actually a common understanding of what went so horribly wrong in the USSR: the party formed a sort of parallel administrative structure that basically undermined and supplanted all the actual laws and institutions of state.
He also said that he wanted to negotiate a peace agreement which excludes NATO from Ukraine. Why not take that statement at face value too?
Russia has already guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in 1994. Oops then helped itself to Crimea and the “people’s republics”.
Now “don’t arm Ukraine and we pinky promise not to attack it further”? Hmm...
Now “don’t arm Ukraine and we pinky promise not to attack it further”? Hmm...
If you take as an assumption that you can't negotiate with them then it's you who isn't willing to negotiate not them.
He said he wanting negotiations and then attacked days later. Suggesting we take that statement face value is patently absurd.
It was many weeks and the US basically said they would not even consider the main points at issue.
When the abusive ex-husband tells you that dating his ex-wife is crossing his "red line", do you carefully consider his position? Or do you refuse to consider it, because that's none of his business?
Putin's demand was none of his business, and was completely unacceptable. It wasn't going to be considered, not in days, not in weeks, and not in decades.
Putin's demand was none of his business, and was completely unacceptable. It wasn't going to be considered, not in days, not in weeks, and not in decades.
[deleted]
Then why does the West give him reason for "expansion" through aggressive expansion of NATO?
[deleted]
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't take Putin's word at face value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Or maybe we should take Putin's words more seriously? He was planning to invade Ukraine for at least a decade now, and was quite openly talking about it - all those times when he claimed that "The fall of Soviet Union was a great tragedy" it was quite obvious that he'll try to rebuild it, in its former borders. Western leaders chose to ignore all warning signs because of they greed (looking at you, Germany, with your Nord Stream 2), and that's how we end up in this mess today.
I think for many people in the former USSR, that the fall of the USSR was a tragedy is kind of obvious. Living standards dropped precipitously, whole industries closed overnight, and the state was basically stolen from under the citizen's feet. Even in east germany, probably best served by decomunization, you live amongst the carcasses of all the workplaces that closed down.
It doesn't mean that you can reverse that tragedy by lobbing missiles around. That's absurd.
It doesn't mean that you can reverse that tragedy by lobbing missiles around. That's absurd.