Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
409 comments
>Why did Russia raise the stakes in December? Sure, NATO's eastward push has demonstrably increased tensions but the eastward push has been frozen since about 2014 since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts.
Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine. At some point, there are simply too many NATO arms in Ukraine to invade. Russian power is waning, and at the same time Ukraine-NATO integration was approaching the point of irreversibility.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
In 2021 NATO reaffirmed that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)", which is the most traction on the topic since 2008.
From the Russian perspective the window to stop Ukraine was closing. Look at how much trouble they are having now. It would only have been worse with another year of arms shipments and training. Perhaps Russia miscalculated an they already waited too long.
Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine. At some point, there are simply too many NATO arms in Ukraine to invade. Russian power is waning, and at the same time Ukraine-NATO integration was approaching the point of irreversibility.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
In 2021 NATO reaffirmed that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)", which is the most traction on the topic since 2008.
From the Russian perspective the window to stop Ukraine was closing. Look at how much trouble they are having now. It would only have been worse with another year of arms shipments and training. Perhaps Russia miscalculated an they already waited too long.
> Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine
Yes, after suffering defeat in an unprovoked invasion and occupation by Russia, Ukraine cranked up arms purchases and outside training for it's military.
Blaming this on NATO and not the invader is...beyond stupid.
Yes, after suffering defeat in an unprovoked invasion and occupation by Russia, Ukraine cranked up arms purchases and outside training for it's military.
Blaming this on NATO and not the invader is...beyond stupid.
I was answering a specific question as to why now, not assigning blame or cause. There we also lots of donated arms funded by NATO.
Keep in mind that in this time period the US also had a bombing campaign on Russian allied Syria and was actively killing Russian troops there.
My point is not to say one side is right or wrong, but show that Russia and US relations were very hostile, with attacks, military posturing, and threats from both sides.
Keep in mind that in this time period the US also had a bombing campaign on Russian allied Syria and was actively killing Russian troops there.
My point is not to say one side is right or wrong, but show that Russia and US relations were very hostile, with attacks, military posturing, and threats from both sides.
"...NATO/US troops in Ukraine..."
Do you have a source for that?
Don't forget,
"On June 1, 1996, Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation, sending the last of the 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads it had inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia for dismantling. Ukraine had committed to this by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in January 1994."
That was certainly a stupid idea.
Do you have a source for that?
Don't forget,
"On June 1, 1996, Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation, sending the last of the 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads it had inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia for dismantling. Ukraine had committed to this by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in January 1994."
That was certainly a stupid idea.
It's a little more complicated than that. Ukraine did not have the ability to use any of those nuclear weapons because they never had the launch codes. They were basically stationed in Ukraine but were still under Moscow's control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link
A rough analogy would be this, if the United States broke apart South Dakota would have hundreds of nuclear warheads but the South Dakotan Governor / State National Guard would not be able to use them because they never had the ability in the first place.
A rough analogy would be this, if the United States broke apart South Dakota would have hundreds of nuclear warheads but the South Dakotan Governor / State National Guard would not be able to use them because they never had the ability in the first place.
In 25 years? Ukraine is a country with a population of 44,000,000 not that much smaller than the UK or France; South Dakota has a population of 900,000.
Would Russia have recovered them if Ukraine did not want to relinquish them? Maybe, but in the 1990s they were in very bad shape, and before 2004 (and between 2010 and 2014) Ukraine was under a pro-Russian government.
The point here is that, at this point, if any country is under the illusion that it does not need nuclear weapons to maintain its independent existence, they probably deserve to be absorbed by their neighbors.
Would Russia have recovered them if Ukraine did not want to relinquish them? Maybe, but in the 1990s they were in very bad shape, and before 2004 (and between 2010 and 2014) Ukraine was under a pro-Russian government.
The point here is that, at this point, if any country is under the illusion that it does not need nuclear weapons to maintain its independent existence, they probably deserve to be absorbed by their neighbors.
And they lacked the knowledge and infrastructure to maintain or modify them.
And Russia didn't want them to have them and knew their exact locations.
And NATO and the rest of the world saw Ukraine as a violation of the non-proliferation treaty and didn't want them to have them.
And Russia didn't want them to have them and knew their exact locations.
And NATO and the rest of the world saw Ukraine as a violation of the non-proliferation treaty and didn't want them to have them.
I suspect they had the knowledge, considering Ukraine was where one of their early nuclear research facilities were - they were able to reproduce early fission experiments and made a proposal to leverage the ability in bombs in 1940 but were dismissed by nuclear experts in Moscow[0]. And it was Ukrainian's who worked to reverse engineer the V2 rockets post WWII and turned it into the rocket design that put Sputnik into space[1].
[0] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/ukraine-and-soviet-...
[1] - https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/07/26/how-ukraine-wants-to-...
[0] - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/ukraine-and-soviet-...
[1] - https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/07/26/how-ukraine-wants-to-...
If only they tried 00000000...
>That was certainly a stupid idea.
It is not at all clear that it was a stupid idea.
The nukes were useless because Russia had all of the access codes and the ICBMS had a minimum range of 5000 km. They could hit the USA but couldn't be aimed at Russia. The rest were disabled and Ukraine didn't have a nuclear weapons program or ability to repair them.
If they tried to keep them, they could have faced retaliation or attack from Russia, the United States, and other NATO allies.
It is not at all clear that it was a stupid idea.
The nukes were useless because Russia had all of the access codes and the ICBMS had a minimum range of 5000 km. They could hit the USA but couldn't be aimed at Russia. The rest were disabled and Ukraine didn't have a nuclear weapons program or ability to repair them.
If they tried to keep them, they could have faced retaliation or attack from Russia, the United States, and other NATO allies.
> Do you have a source for that?
US and other Western troops (not NATO per se, though I think all were NATO members) were openly present in Ukraine training the Ukraine military up until shortly before the recent Russian escalation of their long-running invasion of Ukraine (they were pulled out to avoid getting caught up in direct combat with Russia in the event of an invasion.)
EDIT: if you need a source, here's an article on the US/UK trainers being withdrawn: https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2022/02/12/us-uk-pul...
US and other Western troops (not NATO per se, though I think all were NATO members) were openly present in Ukraine training the Ukraine military up until shortly before the recent Russian escalation of their long-running invasion of Ukraine (they were pulled out to avoid getting caught up in direct combat with Russia in the event of an invasion.)
EDIT: if you need a source, here's an article on the US/UK trainers being withdrawn: https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2022/02/12/us-uk-pul...
Biden's withdraw of US troops in February was the green light for Russia to walk in.
Weren’t there less than 200 US troops and Russia had already amassed at the border of Ukraine?
Seems like it was going to happen regardless since the removal of US troops was because of the Russian build-up and not the other way around.
Seems like it was going to happen regardless since the removal of US troops was because of the Russian build-up and not the other way around.
Thank you!
The answer to 'why now' is COVID. People in the west are already worn-out by the pandemic and are in no mood to engage in a new conflict. Putin has simply picked an advantageous moment to make his move.
Also China. Even Biden recognizes China is a problem and is making moves to attempt to manage them (renewed alliance with Australia, domestic manufacturing). China has likely made some guarantees to Russia with regards to its economic security, in exchange for seeing how the West puts up with its annexation of more of Ukrainian territory.
And there's the recent Ukrainian rumblings about wanting to take Crimea back, which certainly did not help matters. Speaking of which, Russians in Crimea have been expensive to supply, and I would point back to how we're all taxed because of COVID.
There are certainly other variables, but the timing is not random. Putin certainly has not suddenly 'gone crazy'.
Also China. Even Biden recognizes China is a problem and is making moves to attempt to manage them (renewed alliance with Australia, domestic manufacturing). China has likely made some guarantees to Russia with regards to its economic security, in exchange for seeing how the West puts up with its annexation of more of Ukrainian territory.
And there's the recent Ukrainian rumblings about wanting to take Crimea back, which certainly did not help matters. Speaking of which, Russians in Crimea have been expensive to supply, and I would point back to how we're all taxed because of COVID.
There are certainly other variables, but the timing is not random. Putin certainly has not suddenly 'gone crazy'.
> The answer to 'why now' is COVID. People in the west are already worn-out by the pandemic and are in no mood to engage in a new conflict.
That may have been what Putin thought but it seems like a terrible misunderstanding of western resolve on his part.
That may have been what Putin thought but it seems like a terrible misunderstanding of western resolve on his part.
> Putin certainly has not suddenly 'gone crazy'.
I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I would say that if a theory relies on someone "going crazy" to explain the war its probably bunk. Putin has decades of proving himself to be an intelligent player.
The Covid and China pivot is an interesting theory and it would make Mearshimer's argument a lot more compelling if he used current events to explain his theory.
I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I would say that if a theory relies on someone "going crazy" to explain the war its probably bunk. Putin has decades of proving himself to be an intelligent player.
The Covid and China pivot is an interesting theory and it would make Mearshimer's argument a lot more compelling if he used current events to explain his theory.
> since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts
This rule... isn't. Heck, countries have been admitted to NATO with ongoing territorial disputes with NATO countries.
This rule... isn't. Heck, countries have been admitted to NATO with ongoing territorial disputes with NATO countries.
How about we just say that Germany and France are not going to let Ukraine join while it has territorial conflicts?
Right, so NATO could have decided to admit Ukraine at any time and then immediately attempt to force Russia out of Crimea, a scenario which I expect kept Putin awake at night.
> Right, so NATO could have decided to admit Ukraine at any time and then immediately attempt to force Russia out of Crimea
Just like when they admitted Spain, they immediately tried to force Britain out of Gibraltar. (Yes, that's an actual, ongoing, territorial dispute, that also involves a meta-dispute over who gets to be involved on discussion about resolving the primary dispute.)
The Washington Treaty does not have a prohibition against resolving territorial disputes without immediate resort to armed force.
Just like when they admitted Spain, they immediately tried to force Britain out of Gibraltar. (Yes, that's an actual, ongoing, territorial dispute, that also involves a meta-dispute over who gets to be involved on discussion about resolving the primary dispute.)
The Washington Treaty does not have a prohibition against resolving territorial disputes without immediate resort to armed force.
> This type of article is the international relations equivalent off economists have predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions.
I don't see why being able to predict events is important here because for this particular conflict, the key take away is how the knot became entangled since the late 90s and how we get can back to a more predictable, less paranoid Russia by untying it the same way we tied it.
> Notably absent from this article is any discussion of "why now?"
"Now" is a relative term in big history time scale, Putin's plan and might have been in action for a while, and now is just the time some strategic factors happen to be in their favour, or so they thought.
The "why now?" question doesn't seem to be very important to me comparing to "how to get out of this?". And you don't get out of this simply by addressing some recent trigger. Sounds like what Dr Mearsheimer said is that we should reverse course.
> why the Baltics entering NATO did not trigger the same reaction
Ukraine is the last straw, well, before Belarus that is, if that ever happens. They have always been calling for NATO to stop expansions for 20 years,
> agency of Ukrainians in this article
Could you give me the name of a country in the world that doesn't side with a great power? There should be some, but what they did is fundamentally different than what Ukraine is doing.
I don't see why being able to predict events is important here because for this particular conflict, the key take away is how the knot became entangled since the late 90s and how we get can back to a more predictable, less paranoid Russia by untying it the same way we tied it.
> Notably absent from this article is any discussion of "why now?"
"Now" is a relative term in big history time scale, Putin's plan and might have been in action for a while, and now is just the time some strategic factors happen to be in their favour, or so they thought.
The "why now?" question doesn't seem to be very important to me comparing to "how to get out of this?". And you don't get out of this simply by addressing some recent trigger. Sounds like what Dr Mearsheimer said is that we should reverse course.
> why the Baltics entering NATO did not trigger the same reaction
Ukraine is the last straw, well, before Belarus that is, if that ever happens. They have always been calling for NATO to stop expansions for 20 years,
> agency of Ukrainians in this article
Could you give me the name of a country in the world that doesn't side with a great power? There should be some, but what they did is fundamentally different than what Ukraine is doing.
[deleted]
Baltics are easily neutralized with taking the Suwalki gap. The Russians were also not happy with them joining NATO, but couldn’t do much about it. And Ukraine (Kievan Rus) is the center of eastern Slavic civilization and therefore much more important to Putin than a largely unrelated culture in Latvia, Lithuania, etc.
Otherwise yes I do think Mearsheimer is a little too mechanical in his theories and doesn’t factor in ideologies, especially in the modern Information Age.
Otherwise yes I do think Mearsheimer is a little too mechanical in his theories and doesn’t factor in ideologies, especially in the modern Information Age.
Once Russia has Ukraine, they will have met most of their core geostrategic security objectives. If they go any farther, then it will be WW3 as it should be.
Baltic’s will be greatly reinforced by Finland and Sweden joining NATO within 6 months to 2 years. 100% because of this act of war.
Here is an article about the background to the war: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/implementing-minsk-ag... Zelsynsky promised better relations with Russia but didn't follow through.
Zelenskyy promised? I can't see that anywhere in the article. In fact, the only mention of that sort of thing is Russian expectations:
"In 2019 the Kremlin expected that Volodymyr Zelensky’s victory in the presidential elections would change Ukraine’s agenda, making peace in the Donbas a top priority."
Zelenskyy has always been pro-EU, anti-Russian.
"In 2019 the Kremlin expected that Volodymyr Zelensky’s victory in the presidential elections would change Ukraine’s agenda, making peace in the Donbas a top priority."
Zelenskyy has always been pro-EU, anti-Russian.
It's not in the article but it is still a well-known fact: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-election-of-Vol... Zelensky ran on a platform that included reconcilation with Moscow and which was neither pro-EU nor anti-Russian.
There's not much in that article about Zelenskyy and Russian relations, before or after his election. Certainly nothing about "reconciliation" with Russia, just settlements in the Donbas war.
"...he leveraged his massive online following into a serious campaign against official corruption. ... [In his post-election speech,] Zelensky vowed that his first goal as president would be to achieve a lasting peace in war-torn eastern Ukraine. ... This confirmation of Zelensky’s mandate allowed him to promote a peace settlement that would see Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed insurgents withdraw from the so-called “contact line” in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky’s opponents characterized the move as a capitulation that would do nothing but legitimize Russian aggression in the Donets Basin and Crimea, but he retained widespread support from a war-weary public."
"...he leveraged his massive online following into a serious campaign against official corruption. ... [In his post-election speech,] Zelensky vowed that his first goal as president would be to achieve a lasting peace in war-torn eastern Ukraine. ... This confirmation of Zelensky’s mandate allowed him to promote a peace settlement that would see Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed insurgents withdraw from the so-called “contact line” in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky’s opponents characterized the move as a capitulation that would do nothing but legitimize Russian aggression in the Donets Basin and Crimea, but he retained widespread support from a war-weary public."
I don't get your point since that is what "reconcilation" means. Here is yet another article supporting my claim: https://www.ft.com/content/ed40d675-16b3-4a35-a157-b9bf0078b... Do your own research to learn more.
1. That speech was after the election. One generally makes campaign promises before the election.
2. If "reconciliation" is the same as a "peace settlement", it's exactly what Zelenskyy did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy#Attempts_t...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996
And he took a lot of heat for it, since at least some Ukrainians regarded it as "capitulation".
Unfortunately, as far as Mr. Putin (and most of the world) believes, "reconciliation" means distancing Ukraine from western Europe and becoming a Russian client state. Zelenskyy did not do that, he never promised to do that, it would be in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, and if your "research" has actual evidence that he promised that, I'd appreciate it if you would show me 'cause I can't find it.
2. If "reconciliation" is the same as a "peace settlement", it's exactly what Zelenskyy did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy#Attempts_t...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996
And he took a lot of heat for it, since at least some Ukrainians regarded it as "capitulation".
Unfortunately, as far as Mr. Putin (and most of the world) believes, "reconciliation" means distancing Ukraine from western Europe and becoming a Russian client state. Zelenskyy did not do that, he never promised to do that, it would be in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, and if your "research" has actual evidence that he promised that, I'd appreciate it if you would show me 'cause I can't find it.
Seeing this play out in the media reminds me of the Iraq War hysteria in 2003. Completely one-sided coverage, classic war-time propaganda (ghost of kiev), banning Russian arts and paralympians, etc. I've lost all faith in the media. Period.
You may think that there is an absolute answer to this situation, but there isn't. I recommend that you study commentators and scholars such as: John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brezinski, George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, George Kennan, Noam Chomsky, Peter Hitchens, Gonzalo Lira, Tim Marshall, Robert D Kaplan, etc., etc. to gain some insight into the other and more complex side of this story. Their books are a good and quick read.
I am a proud American -- but, I am convinced that my country started this entire episode and planned to have it be so for a long, long time. 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, etc. just got in their way. Instead of drawing a rational meet-me-in-the-middle red-line with Russia (ex: Poland and the Baltics) that we could live with, we decided to take Ukraine for this ride. We did that. We encouraged Zelensky to talk about acquiring nukes, grabbing Crimea back, grabbing Luhansk and Donestk, joining NATO and the EU, etc. -- instead of encouraging Austria-like neutrality, we promoted our-way-or-the-highway.
And now what are we doing? Fighting to the last Ukrainian? Fighting until they lose even more in a country that has lost ~20% of its population from its peak? We are literally sacrificing their country and encouraging suicide. This. is. just. wrong!
You may think that there is an absolute answer to this situation, but there isn't. I recommend that you study commentators and scholars such as: John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brezinski, George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, George Kennan, Noam Chomsky, Peter Hitchens, Gonzalo Lira, Tim Marshall, Robert D Kaplan, etc., etc. to gain some insight into the other and more complex side of this story. Their books are a good and quick read.
I am a proud American -- but, I am convinced that my country started this entire episode and planned to have it be so for a long, long time. 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, etc. just got in their way. Instead of drawing a rational meet-me-in-the-middle red-line with Russia (ex: Poland and the Baltics) that we could live with, we decided to take Ukraine for this ride. We did that. We encouraged Zelensky to talk about acquiring nukes, grabbing Crimea back, grabbing Luhansk and Donestk, joining NATO and the EU, etc. -- instead of encouraging Austria-like neutrality, we promoted our-way-or-the-highway.
And now what are we doing? Fighting to the last Ukrainian? Fighting until they lose even more in a country that has lost ~20% of its population from its peak? We are literally sacrificing their country and encouraging suicide. This. is. just. wrong!
I despise this western-centric view- were only the people in the west are real people, that can make decisions for themselves, and the rest is just pawns for playing a funny great board game.
The idea that even a new-born nation, could walk out of the board game and do its own thing is so outrageous to the players, it is not even considered.
Well, ukraine just tried that. Its a sovereign nation, and it wanted nothing to do with its imperialistic neighbourhood. And all the zhars horse and all the zhars man, could not hold all its conquered ethnicities in again and again, cause technology now favors david instead of goliath.
So ukraine might not walk this time, but others will, until this ball of muddy-power dissolves one last and final time. Russia, this unreformable assembly of thiefdoms, is stumbling like a feverish plague victime towards the end of its story and it will not be pretty. To blame this corrosion on the west, is pompous victim blaming.
Russia is also falling apart near the chinese border, were large parts of the economy are now owned by chinese state owned companies. Its just a failed state and to the man with glass-bones-disease even a friendly handshake is a attack.
The idea that even a new-born nation, could walk out of the board game and do its own thing is so outrageous to the players, it is not even considered.
Well, ukraine just tried that. Its a sovereign nation, and it wanted nothing to do with its imperialistic neighbourhood. And all the zhars horse and all the zhars man, could not hold all its conquered ethnicities in again and again, cause technology now favors david instead of goliath.
So ukraine might not walk this time, but others will, until this ball of muddy-power dissolves one last and final time. Russia, this unreformable assembly of thiefdoms, is stumbling like a feverish plague victime towards the end of its story and it will not be pretty. To blame this corrosion on the west, is pompous victim blaming.
Russia is also falling apart near the chinese border, were large parts of the economy are now owned by chinese state owned companies. Its just a failed state and to the man with glass-bones-disease even a friendly handshake is a attack.
As Václav Havel used to say, the problem with Russia is that it does not know where exactly it ends.
There's a geostrategic logic behind where Russia wants their borders positioned.
Your statement applies more to other countries in Europe, IMO.
Your statement applies more to other countries in Europe, IMO.
> There's a geostrategic logic behind where Russia wants their borders positioned.
Yes, imperialism usually has a geostrategic logic.
What it doesn't have is respect for the right of self-determination.
> Your statement applies more to other countries in Europe
Except you’ve literally just admitted that it is exactly the driving force for Russia.
Yes, imperialism usually has a geostrategic logic.
What it doesn't have is respect for the right of self-determination.
> Your statement applies more to other countries in Europe
Except you’ve literally just admitted that it is exactly the driving force for Russia.
> What it doesn't have is respect for the right of self-determination.
Did the US have any respect for self-determination in the 2014 putsch it backed in Ukraine?
Did the US have any respect for self-determination in the 2014 putsch it backed in Ukraine?
Well yeah, it backed the people over Russia in Euromaidan. That was kind of the point of the thing.
LOL. OMG. Please look more closely into it. It was undemocratic by a long shot.
https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia...
https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia...
It's not really western centric so much as military power centric - that only the military powers count and less armed people in the middle are pawns. For example in the 1904 skirmish between Russia and Japan those two powers were arguing over who should control Korea and nearby areas with weak militaries.
It's become a bit passe with the internet and human rights movements and the like - you can't just go militarily occupy the neighbours these days without pissing off a lot of people as Russia is finding just now.
The 1904 thing was quite interesting in the current context. Emperor of Russia Nicholas II thought it would be easy to take out the Japanese navy but they ended up with most of the Russian navy sunk and subsequently the Russian royals got overthrown and replaced by the communists which has led up to what we have now.
It's possible that history will play out in a similar way - Putin thought taking Ukraine would be easy but loses that and then loses power at home and ends up replaced. Perhaps by a normal democracy, looking on the optimistic side.
It's become a bit passe with the internet and human rights movements and the like - you can't just go militarily occupy the neighbours these days without pissing off a lot of people as Russia is finding just now.
The 1904 thing was quite interesting in the current context. Emperor of Russia Nicholas II thought it would be easy to take out the Japanese navy but they ended up with most of the Russian navy sunk and subsequently the Russian royals got overthrown and replaced by the communists which has led up to what we have now.
It's possible that history will play out in a similar way - Putin thought taking Ukraine would be easy but loses that and then loses power at home and ends up replaced. Perhaps by a normal democracy, looking on the optimistic side.
> It's possible that history will play out in a similar way - Putin thought taking Ukraine would be easy but loses that and then loses power at home and ends up replaced. Perhaps by a normal democracy, looking on the optimistic side.
This usually doesn't work. We've tried this before, believe it or not.
This usually doesn't work. We've tried this before, believe it or not.
The problem is you're arguing from an idealistic point of view.
But in the real world might makes right. Doesn't matter what Ukraine wants if it doesn't have nukes to back it up.
Does that go for the other 90% of countries that don't have nukes? Maybe Russia should take Canada as it's fairly close by and non nuclear?
USA won't let Russia come near the Americas so that won't happen.
France didn't care that Libya was a "sovereign" nation, neither did USA care about Iraq's sovereignty.
Unfortunately that's how the world works, rules are for the weak nations only. Superpowers don't really care.
Unfortunately that's how the world works, rules are for the weak nations only. Superpowers don't really care.
actually Mearsheimer's view is the opposite of western centric.
It says that there are other big players in the world other than the US that will behave following the exact same set of game theory laws.
It says that there are other big players in the world other than the US that will behave following the exact same set of game theory laws.
Thanks for this poetic comment
> Ukraine just tried that
no they did not, what they did is nothing like what Sweden, Finland, or Singapore did. Joining the EU, sure, but joining NATO and claim to be trying to "walk out of the game"?
no they did not, what they did is nothing like what Sweden, Finland, or Singapore did. Joining the EU, sure, but joining NATO and claim to be trying to "walk out of the game"?
> We encouraged Zelensky to talk about acquiring nukes, grabbing Crimea back, grabbing Luhansk and Donestk, joining NATO and the EU, etc.
This seems to be a US-centric view of the world, which assumes that Ukraine following blindly in whatever encouragement was provided.
Zelensky is Ukraine’s 7th President, 3 years into his term. Ukraine has had administrations that were Russia-centric (two Kuchma terms, and then half of Yanukovich’s term) and in economic terms those did not pan out to be impressive.
Ukrainian companies seem to crave access to European markets, as in many core areas (grains, livestock, aviation, machinery) they are competing with Russia. In energy consumption Ukraine also seems to get a better price for Russian natural gas when they are part of EU monopsony, negotiating a bulk discount, vs one-off negotiations.
Is it too radical to assume that Ukrainians were acting out of self interest?
This seems to be a US-centric view of the world, which assumes that Ukraine following blindly in whatever encouragement was provided.
Zelensky is Ukraine’s 7th President, 3 years into his term. Ukraine has had administrations that were Russia-centric (two Kuchma terms, and then half of Yanukovich’s term) and in economic terms those did not pan out to be impressive.
Ukrainian companies seem to crave access to European markets, as in many core areas (grains, livestock, aviation, machinery) they are competing with Russia. In energy consumption Ukraine also seems to get a better price for Russian natural gas when they are part of EU monopsony, negotiating a bulk discount, vs one-off negotiations.
Is it too radical to assume that Ukrainians were acting out of self interest?
> Is it too radical to assume that Ukrainians were acting out of self interest?
Zelenskyy ran on a platform of peace with Russia and neutrality vis-a-vis Russia and the West.
What changed?
The puppet-masters pulled strings or he was lying all along.
Zelenskyy ran on a platform of peace with Russia and neutrality vis-a-vis Russia and the West.
What changed?
The puppet-masters pulled strings or he was lying all along.
> I am convinced that my country started this entire episode
Unequivocally the government of the Russian Federation is the aggressor here. That the United States has been inconsistent with respect to Ukraine doesn't diminish the fact that the military of the Russian Federation is actively shelling hospitals, schools, residential dwellings and precipitating a humanitarian crisis in Europe.
Unequivocally the government of the Russian Federation is the aggressor here. That the United States has been inconsistent with respect to Ukraine doesn't diminish the fact that the military of the Russian Federation is actively shelling hospitals, schools, residential dwellings and precipitating a humanitarian crisis in Europe.
No. Not unequivocally.
Do you know about what Victoria Nuland (leaked intercepted tapes), Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, Hunter Biden, CIA John Brennan, etc. did in Ukraine?
Zelenskyy ran on peace with Russia, but his puppet masters in Washington would never have allowed that.
So, by late-2021, do you know that Zelenskyy had a sub-28% approval rating from his own population because he threatened to acquire nuclear weapons, threatened to join NATO, join the EU (comes with military connections also, BTW), take back Crimea and the entirety of the Donbas, etc.? His population mostly wanted Austria-style neutrality but he was being strung along by the US because we wanted to turn it into a battering ram against Russia.
So, Russia acted pre-emptively. Heck, by our logic, this war is more justified than the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
You have to look at the entire political situation in Ukraine, starting at least since 2003-4. And, especially 2014 and the US-backed putsch that took place that year.
Do you know about what Victoria Nuland (leaked intercepted tapes), Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, Hunter Biden, CIA John Brennan, etc. did in Ukraine?
Zelenskyy ran on peace with Russia, but his puppet masters in Washington would never have allowed that.
So, by late-2021, do you know that Zelenskyy had a sub-28% approval rating from his own population because he threatened to acquire nuclear weapons, threatened to join NATO, join the EU (comes with military connections also, BTW), take back Crimea and the entirety of the Donbas, etc.? His population mostly wanted Austria-style neutrality but he was being strung along by the US because we wanted to turn it into a battering ram against Russia.
So, Russia acted pre-emptively. Heck, by our logic, this war is more justified than the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
You have to look at the entire political situation in Ukraine, starting at least since 2003-4. And, especially 2014 and the US-backed putsch that took place that year.
No trace of irony that your response included the words, “take back Crimea.”
Can you expand on the US-backed putsch? Are you talking about Maidan? The thing where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Kiev?
unless ukraine was actually going to attack russia (and even then really re: preemptive war), none of that makes a difference.
So, unless Cuba was actually going to use those nuclear missiles and unless Turkey was actually going to use those nuclear missiles, the US and the USSR were both wrong in their actions?
Yes.
Oh, my. Please go explain that to the US public/media. They'll laugh you out of the room.
I'm also surprised at just how many of my friends have turned from dovish "can't we all just get along" types into rabid "Russia Delenda Est" types who think that anyone who believes that even a modicum of this is perhaps America's fault is committing treason.
For what it's worth, what Russia is doing is wrong. But I do absolutely understand Mearsheimer's perspective that this is basically a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 moment. The United States should have clearly recognized that trying to get Ukraine into NATO or even the EU was clearly going to make the Russians think they're being backed into a corner security-wise. We could have just as easily kept trading with Ukraine and cooperating without starting the process to join NATO.
For what it's worth, what Russia is doing is wrong. But I do absolutely understand Mearsheimer's perspective that this is basically a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 moment. The United States should have clearly recognized that trying to get Ukraine into NATO or even the EU was clearly going to make the Russians think they're being backed into a corner security-wise. We could have just as easily kept trading with Ukraine and cooperating without starting the process to join NATO.
The propaganda onslaught is unparalleled. Ukraine is painted as heaven on Earth, a beacon of democracy. McFaul even suggested that Putin essentially "hated Ukraine because it was free".
In reality Ukraine is even more corrupt than Russia, their economy is in terrible shape, despite having more natural resources than most, and a diligent educated population. GDP per capita is a third of Russia's, lower than Belarus! The elites, including Zelensky, are incredibly corrupt.
I love Ukraine, only had wonderful experiences there, but it's getting ridiculous.
In reality Ukraine is even more corrupt than Russia, their economy is in terrible shape, despite having more natural resources than most, and a diligent educated population. GDP per capita is a third of Russia's, lower than Belarus! The elites, including Zelensky, are incredibly corrupt.
I love Ukraine, only had wonderful experiences there, but it's getting ridiculous.
Does Ukraine kill journalists who criticize their government? Does it send assassins who murder political dissidents abroad with polonium? Do they imprison and torture people for being queer?
It seems your argument that Ukraine is corrupt and poor creates a false equivalence with Russia. It seems to me that Russia under Putin is far, far worse.
It seems your argument that Ukraine is corrupt and poor creates a false equivalence with Russia. It seems to me that Russia under Putin is far, far worse.
There is definitely less violent repression of journalists in Ukraine. But the corruption is worse, and the economy is doing very badly, it's the poorest country in Europe, despite fantastic conditions.
I'm obviously not saying it's OK to invade a country just because it's corrupt, and that's obviously not the reason. I'm only talking about the absurd apotheosis of the corrupt Zelensky and the crazy idea that Ukraine is some kind of democratic paradise.
I'm obviously not saying it's OK to invade a country just because it's corrupt, and that's obviously not the reason. I'm only talking about the absurd apotheosis of the corrupt Zelensky and the crazy idea that Ukraine is some kind of democratic paradise.
> the corruption is worse
Source? You keep repeating that, but Transparency International ranked Ukraine above Russia https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
You are correct on the poverty numbers if the peer group is “rest of Europe”, not “rest of USSR alumni”. Is it a reasonable peer group?
Source? You keep repeating that, but Transparency International ranked Ukraine above Russia https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
You are correct on the poverty numbers if the peer group is “rest of Europe”, not “rest of USSR alumni”. Is it a reasonable peer group?
If you listen to Western media, Ukraine is just another democratic European country. Most Americans probably imagine that it's something like the Czech republic, when in fact it's 50% poorer than Belarus.
By the way here's an article about Zelensky written 2 weeks ago, so about 1 week before his apotheosis: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-ze...
About corruption being worse, that's mostly anecdotal. I have friends running parts of, or working for major corporations in Russia and Ukraine. But also, look at the amazing wealth of natural resources in Ukraine and compare it to the GDP.
By the way here's an article about Zelensky written 2 weeks ago, so about 1 week before his apotheosis: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-ze...
About corruption being worse, that's mostly anecdotal. I have friends running parts of, or working for major corporations in Russia and Ukraine. But also, look at the amazing wealth of natural resources in Ukraine and compare it to the GDP.
Euromaidan (Nov 2013, leading to the Revolution of Dignity, Feb 2014) seems to be one of the main things that pissed Russia off, that made them fear for their national security. Here's the people of Ukraine, showing hope & trying to cast off the corruption, unwilling to simply swallow the long dark agenda their leaders are pushing them towards. Amazing.
Having hope & democracy & people getting better is an existential threat to a nearby country that rules via corruption & force. Ukraine has improved slowly, moved up in the ranks of corrupt countries, passed Russia (now #122 vs Russia' #136 in the Corruption Perception Index, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 ). The model of people being free to speak up against the bad is a primary threat, and happening too close to Russia for them to bear it.
As FP put in the Dec 2021 subheading,
> The country’s democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to Putin’s model of governance.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/17/ukraine-russia-corrupti...
Having hope & democracy & people getting better is an existential threat to a nearby country that rules via corruption & force. Ukraine has improved slowly, moved up in the ranks of corrupt countries, passed Russia (now #122 vs Russia' #136 in the Corruption Perception Index, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 ). The model of people being free to speak up against the bad is a primary threat, and happening too close to Russia for them to bear it.
As FP put in the Dec 2021 subheading,
> The country’s democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to Putin’s model of governance.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/17/ukraine-russia-corrupti...
>made them fear for their national security
I think Putin and friends are more worried about Putin and friends being overthrown. The Russian national security would be fine. Putin on the other hand has killed so many people that he can't allow a democratic takeover without going to jail.
I think Putin and friends are more worried about Putin and friends being overthrown. The Russian national security would be fine. Putin on the other hand has killed so many people that he can't allow a democratic takeover without going to jail.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
Zelenskyy is corrupt as they get. Don't buy the SM propaganda.
Zelenskyy is corrupt as they get. Don't buy the SM propaganda.
Your article seems to be "Congress Has Removed a Ban on Funding Neo-Nazis" and not much about Zelensky being corrupt.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
[deleted]
Ukraine is a free country, not Russian vassal state only for 8 years, during which of has been sabotaged by Russia by the war in Donbass.
> turned from dovish "can't we all just get along" types into rabid "Russia Delenda Est" types
Manufactured consent.
Manufactured consent.
This kind of sharp ideological turn is typical for outbreak of wars.
From what I have read, both the 1870 Prussian-French war and the outbreak of WWI in 1914 were followed by huge outpouring of militarist attitudes, even though there wasn't even radio (much less TV or Internet) and most common people didn't read newspapers, or rarely so.
We seem to have a collective subroutine for turning into murderous apes in our societal firmware. It was probably adaptive once. It may not be as adaptive in the nuclear age.
From what I have read, both the 1870 Prussian-French war and the outbreak of WWI in 1914 were followed by huge outpouring of militarist attitudes, even though there wasn't even radio (much less TV or Internet) and most common people didn't read newspapers, or rarely so.
We seem to have a collective subroutine for turning into murderous apes in our societal firmware. It was probably adaptive once. It may not be as adaptive in the nuclear age.
I agree with Chomsky on a lot of things, don’t think I need to watch CNN or read the New York Times to take Ukraine’s side on this one.
The international condemnation and lock step sanctions, is that the media’s doing? Or is it the consequence of Russia being the aggressor? I agree with my sibling, opinions tend to stiffen up when war breaks out, with or without the radio.
The international condemnation and lock step sanctions, is that the media’s doing? Or is it the consequence of Russia being the aggressor? I agree with my sibling, opinions tend to stiffen up when war breaks out, with or without the radio.
It may appear so from the west for someone who is mostly depending upon major Western news sources, but in the larger context, many countries including Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Pakistan and many major Middle Eastern Nations are refusing to join in sanctions or even in trying to condemn Russian actions and is essentially seeing the conflict from a neutral perspective. Condemning Russia and trying to sanction them is not a universal policy among nations.
[deleted]
Have you looked into what started this crisis in 2014?
Seems to be mostly the people of Ukraine being pissed off with their government going by the Wikipedia write up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
It is important to remember that Chomsky has repeatedly supported actual genocides so long as the person committing the genocides was anti western in some way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
Dude. This is just not true. He didn't deny genocide. There are many reasons not to like Chomsky. I don't like him as of late. But, genocide-denial isn't one of them.
You can literally read it. He denied the genocide while it was going on. He later gave a notpology but that doesnt change that he denied it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
Where in that does he deny it? LOL. Agenda much?
No shit. Russia just launched an unprovoked attack on another country. That's about the farthest from "just getting along" that you can get.
Is it any wonder that people who like peace get mad when countries start wars?
Is it any wonder that people who like peace get mad when countries start wars?
Which people like peace? Modern USA two decades in Afghanistan?
People exist in the West outside the USA, you know. They also have their own agency and a fear of Russia annexing their countries thanks to the close proximity to the current conflict.
Hey, you're being unfair!
Don't forget Iraq, Lybia, Syria and the others!
The US is all about peace, how could you forget??
Don't forget Iraq, Lybia, Syria and the others!
The US is all about peace, how could you forget??
>But I do absolutely understand Mearsheimer's perspective that this is basically a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 moment.
There was no hope of Ukraine joining NATO without the resolving of the Crimea/eastern Ukraine territories. In other words, not in the foreseeable future. Same with the EU, in practice.
Even if Ukraine were to a) resolve the territorial issues and b) convince the rest of NATO (any one member country being able to veto accession), this would not have brought NATO to the Russian border; Norway was a founding NATO member in 1949, and Poland and the Baltic states joined 15 years ago.
There was no hope of Ukraine joining NATO without the resolving of the Crimea/eastern Ukraine territories. In other words, not in the foreseeable future. Same with the EU, in practice.
Even if Ukraine were to a) resolve the territorial issues and b) convince the rest of NATO (any one member country being able to veto accession), this would not have brought NATO to the Russian border; Norway was a founding NATO member in 1949, and Poland and the Baltic states joined 15 years ago.
> friends have turned from dovish "can't we all just get along" types into rabid "Russia Delenda Est" types
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I'm no fan of the USian empire, but there is a categorical difference between playing the propaganda / political puppet game to affect a democratic process, and open war against another sovereign country because you don't like the result.
All this talk of Russia getting upset that "its" sphere of influence would rather look westward is completely writing off the agency of individual countries that haven't been part of the USSR for over a generation. There are very good reasons why Ukraine et al look West instead of East - chiefly riches and individual freedoms. Russia could have riches, but instead suffers from the resource curse. Russia could have liberalized, but instead continued to rely on (and is now even tightening up) uniparty-based censorship.
Say what you will about the failings and pathologies of Western liberalism. In fact, it's your patriotic duty to do so! But never take it for granted.
All this talk of Russia getting upset that "its" sphere of influence would rather look westward is completely writing off the agency of individual countries that haven't been part of the USSR for over a generation. There are very good reasons why Ukraine et al look West instead of East - chiefly riches and individual freedoms. Russia could have riches, but instead suffers from the resource curse. Russia could have liberalized, but instead continued to rely on (and is now even tightening up) uniparty-based censorship.
Say what you will about the failings and pathologies of Western liberalism. In fact, it's your patriotic duty to do so! But never take it for granted.
> All this talk of Russia getting upset that "its" sphere of influence would rather look westward is completely writing off the agency of individual countries that haven't been part of the USSR for over a generation.
Exactly. Russia has no inherent right to a sphere of influence. If it wants the support of its neighbours it will have to work hard to win that support.
Exactly. Russia has no inherent right to a sphere of influence. If it wants the support of its neighbours it will have to work hard to win that support.
Yes, I agree. Russia doesn't have an inherent right to a sphere of influence. But, it is also a principle in international relations that one nation-state should not increase its security at the expense of another. This situation is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
[deleted]
> We are literally sacrificing their country and encouraging suicide. This. is. just. wrong!
what on earth? Who is we? Policy that pisses Russia off I can take blame for, but Americans sacrificing Ukrainians? I really just cannot parse how you lay guilt at our feet for Ukrainians’ propensity for defending their sovereignty from invaders.
what on earth? Who is we? Policy that pisses Russia off I can take blame for, but Americans sacrificing Ukrainians? I really just cannot parse how you lay guilt at our feet for Ukrainians’ propensity for defending their sovereignty from invaders.
do you not understand how pissing Russia off leads to sacrificing Ukrainian lives, or are you choosing not to?
It can be America’s fault for antagonizing Russia, while it is Russia’s fault for shelling college dorms. If this is cognitive dissonance so be it.
If you are fine with the claim America goaded Russia into war, I don't see how you can then say America doesn't have blood on its hands. Clearly both would be culpable under the premise, regardless of who deserves what share of blame.
[deleted]
No. Letting Russia do with foreign democracies leads to war like this. Appeasing dictators doesn't work.
Ukraine is far from a democracy. Far from it. Look deeper than this. This isn't a Chamberlain moment.
> do you not understand how pissing Russia off leads to sacrificing Ukrainian lives,
Russia has been literally inventing pretexts for this action and keeps inventing new ones. No one's outside action “pissing them off” (in any immediate sense) is relevant here. It's driven more by economic gain and national greatness ideology than as a response to any immediate action or inaction of outside actors.
Russia has been literally inventing pretexts for this action and keeps inventing new ones. No one's outside action “pissing them off” (in any immediate sense) is relevant here. It's driven more by economic gain and national greatness ideology than as a response to any immediate action or inaction of outside actors.
This is similar to what i had argued in another thread.
NATO/US/EU played a geopolitical game with Russia where Ukraine is the sacrificial pawn. While Russia is the naked aggressor, the role of NATO/US/EU is more insidious and needs to be called out. It is the Ukrainian (and Russian) soldiers/people dying and suffering while NATO/US/EU have gotten away scot-free.
Relevant Reading:
1) Opinion piece from Henry Kissinger himself; written after the last conflict in 2014 : https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine
2) Article showing excerpts from US archives : https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis
3) The relevant research by the professor referenced in the above article can be found at https://www.jrishifrinson.com/ Excerpt from one of his papers "George H.W.Bush: Conservative Realist as President" :
Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger observed in an accompanying memorandum, “It is in our interest to see the peaceful end of the Soviet Union as we have known it since 1917—a strong, totalitarian central government able to mobilize the vast human and material resources at its control. . . . The sine qua non for eliminating this threat is substantial devolution of economic and political power [emphasis added].” Even more direct was Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, who argued in a June 1991 meeting of senior policymakers that “A real reform program would turn [the Soviet Union] into a third-rate [military] power, which is what we want;” judging from their comments at this meeting, Baker, Scowcroft, and others seemed to accept this point of view. Put simply, the spread of freedom, liberty, and U.S. values into the Soviet space was normatively attractive, but it also carried starkly advantageous geopolitical consequences for the United States.
NATO/US/EU played a geopolitical game with Russia where Ukraine is the sacrificial pawn. While Russia is the naked aggressor, the role of NATO/US/EU is more insidious and needs to be called out. It is the Ukrainian (and Russian) soldiers/people dying and suffering while NATO/US/EU have gotten away scot-free.
Relevant Reading:
1) Opinion piece from Henry Kissinger himself; written after the last conflict in 2014 : https://cnnbc.com/henry-kissinger-on-ukraine
2) Article showing excerpts from US archives : https://www.dawn.com/news/1677138/ukraine-crisis
3) The relevant research by the professor referenced in the above article can be found at https://www.jrishifrinson.com/ Excerpt from one of his papers "George H.W.Bush: Conservative Realist as President" :
Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger observed in an accompanying memorandum, “It is in our interest to see the peaceful end of the Soviet Union as we have known it since 1917—a strong, totalitarian central government able to mobilize the vast human and material resources at its control. . . . The sine qua non for eliminating this threat is substantial devolution of economic and political power [emphasis added].” Even more direct was Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady, who argued in a June 1991 meeting of senior policymakers that “A real reform program would turn [the Soviet Union] into a third-rate [military] power, which is what we want;” judging from their comments at this meeting, Baker, Scowcroft, and others seemed to accept this point of view. Put simply, the spread of freedom, liberty, and U.S. values into the Soviet space was normatively attractive, but it also carried starkly advantageous geopolitical consequences for the United States.
> Completely one-sided coverage
I'm not sure what else you expected, it's completely one-sided issue - one side started and continues the war. One side can stop this war at any time.
Did you expect 50-50 coverage, with 50% repeating Putin's propaganda?
I'm not sure what else you expected, it's completely one-sided issue - one side started and continues the war. One side can stop this war at any time.
Did you expect 50-50 coverage, with 50% repeating Putin's propaganda?
> one side started and continues the war
Not true. You have to look at the entire political situation in Ukraine, starting at least since 2003-4. And, especially 2014 and the US-backed putsch that took place that year.
Not true. You have to look at the entire political situation in Ukraine, starting at least since 2003-4. And, especially 2014 and the US-backed putsch that took place that year.
I'm well aware of political situation in Ukraine. I took part in the protests of 2004 that led to "US-backed putsch", had nothing to do with USA. You're stripping Ukrainian people of any agency. Not everything is secretly manipulated by USA or Russia, people of the country are not mindless bots.
This time it wasn't very secret though, they were quite open about it.
why would USA be secret about supporting Ukraine? USA was one of the countries guaranteeing Ukraine's safety in exchange for nuclear weapons release. I would argue USA is not doing enough for what they signed up for.
We are not talking about "supporting", we are talking about staging coups and meddling in their internal politics and economy.
We made no such guarantee. This is a tiresome revisionist reading of history. No one in the United States signed up to turn Ukraine into an American protectorate in 1994.
2014
Feels like the books written by the old hands are losing, badly, to the comic books and the movies, doesn't it?
Yup. We have this MCU good guys vs bad guys thing ingrained in us now.
Nobody wants to talk seriously about the intricate complexities. My way or the highway.
Russia bad. Ukraine good. America leader of the free world. Go to sleep. Eat. Buy. Work. Rinse. Repeat.
Nobody wants to talk seriously about the intricate complexities. My way or the highway.
Russia bad. Ukraine good. America leader of the free world. Go to sleep. Eat. Buy. Work. Rinse. Repeat.
There is nothing complex about it. They're bombing hospitals and schools and they're doing it intentionally.
Just like we do!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs...
It's deeply dishonest to claim that a handful of deeply tragic mistakes are in any way morally equivalent to the systematic and relentless targeting of civilians that the Russians are engaged in.
The U.S. military has committed war crimes. They have all been prosecuted by the U.S. government. From Abu Ghraib to Clint Lorance to the Marine Snipers to Eddie Gallagher. There is no moral equivalence.
https://twitter.com/truthsunchained/status/14987658293825454...
The U.S. military has committed war crimes. They have all been prosecuted by the U.S. government. From Abu Ghraib to Clint Lorance to the Marine Snipers to Eddie Gallagher. There is no moral equivalence.
https://twitter.com/truthsunchained/status/14987658293825454...
Sorry dawg, but I accidentally bombed your hospital and your wedding party! We cool though, right?
Napalming the Vietnamese... rice farmers on the other side of the world who couldn't hurt us if they tried... and spending so much money to do it that we had to end Bretton Woods... a "deeply tragic mistake."
Destroying Iraq, over imaginary WMDs and Bin Laden (playing xbox in Pakistan at the time)... shelling the cities with so much depleted uranium that the babies are coming out deformed... oopsie!
And I'm the one being "deeply dishonest"? Ha!
Now that we've gotten the obligatory moral scolding out of the way, who really cares what John Mearsheimer or George Kennan have to say when we have twitter?
I go to the website... "Thanks to the Global Shapers Community...," another offshoot of the World Economic Forum. The Spice must flow, I guess.
"Built by Stanford Ukranians...," foreign silver-spoons agitating for Americans to die for mommy and daddy's regime. It's an understandable move--Iranian and Iraqi expats made the same one years ago--but no thank you.
Napalming the Vietnamese... rice farmers on the other side of the world who couldn't hurt us if they tried... and spending so much money to do it that we had to end Bretton Woods... a "deeply tragic mistake."
Destroying Iraq, over imaginary WMDs and Bin Laden (playing xbox in Pakistan at the time)... shelling the cities with so much depleted uranium that the babies are coming out deformed... oopsie!
And I'm the one being "deeply dishonest"? Ha!
Now that we've gotten the obligatory moral scolding out of the way, who really cares what John Mearsheimer or George Kennan have to say when we have twitter?
I go to the website... "Thanks to the Global Shapers Community...," another offshoot of the World Economic Forum. The Spice must flow, I guess.
"Built by Stanford Ukranians...," foreign silver-spoons agitating for Americans to die for mommy and daddy's regime. It's an understandable move--Iranian and Iraqi expats made the same one years ago--but no thank you.
And again...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley#Murder_trial
Feel free to criticize Nixon for getting involved but the U.S. prosecutes soldiers who commit war crimes. Even in Vietnam. And when people try to cover it up, U.S. service members have the moral courage to push back.
Russia intentionally encourages, even orders, soldiers to commit war crimes. There are no prosecutions for it. There is no comparison.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley#Murder_trial
Feel free to criticize Nixon for getting involved but the U.S. prosecutes soldiers who commit war crimes. Even in Vietnam. And when people try to cover it up, U.S. service members have the moral courage to push back.
Russia intentionally encourages, even orders, soldiers to commit war crimes. There are no prosecutions for it. There is no comparison.
This is just phariseeism. "See, we punished the guy who did the illegal killings!" -- while whistling right past all of the legal ones.
NO! I hate looking in the mirror!
"We"? I don't remember becoming American anytime recently.
georgia_peach, American, replying to torstenvl, "U.S. Marine Officer."
We.
We.
[deleted]
Graham and McCain were giving speeches in Ukraine in 2016. Apparently designed to annoy neighboring Russia.
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/12/kl...
Meddling and stirring up trouble. And Biden's son was on board of directors of a Ukranian energy company getting paid $50,000 per month. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine/what...
Meddling and stirring up trouble. And Biden's son was on board of directors of a Ukranian energy company getting paid $50,000 per month. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine/what...
> We are literally sacrificing their country
A little correction though: you need to replace "we" with "Russia", or "Putin".
Fully agree with "This is just wrong" part.
A little correction though: you need to replace "we" with "Russia", or "Putin".
Fully agree with "This is just wrong" part.
>We encouraged Zelensky to talk about acquiring nukes
This is literally Kremlin lies and talking points.
This is literally Kremlin lies and talking points.
> We are literally sacrificing their country and encouraging suicide.
Who is we ?
A) President Z and the Ukrainian army can literally wave the white flag and let the Russian tanks roll into Kiev - they are the ones doing the sacrifice here
B) Or President Putin can give the order to withdraw
Who else need to be involved here ?
Who is we ?
A) President Z and the Ukrainian army can literally wave the white flag and let the Russian tanks roll into Kiev - they are the ones doing the sacrifice here
B) Or President Putin can give the order to withdraw
Who else need to be involved here ?
The West is clearly egging the Ukrainians on.
> The West is clearly egging the Ukrainians on
Is that why they keep fighting?
OTOH The east is clearly bombing Ukraine
Is that why they keep fighting?
OTOH The east is clearly bombing Ukraine
They're fighting because they are being attacked, and because Slavs are courageous and stubborn. But the West are not telling them to give up, to save civilian lives. Instead they encourage them to keep fighting, delaying the inevitable. I don't know by how many days that will prolong the war, but it's reckless.
Imagine Biden telling Ukraine to lay down arms and capitulate to the Russian occupation, and we thought Trump acted like the Manchurian candidate !
I really can’t see into your mind, how is Putin not the reckless one here? He’s going on a military adventure that has kept the Russian stock market closed for a week.
I really can’t see into your mind, how is Putin not the reckless one here? He’s going on a military adventure that has kept the Russian stock market closed for a week.
There can be more than one reckless party. Putin obviously started the war, and Russia will have suffered huge losses, not to mention the devastating human toll.
But do you think Ukraine has a chance here? What is the purpose of fighting? It would only make sense if there was a chance of NATO or the EU stepping in to help them, but that seems to be ruled out.
But do you think Ukraine has a chance here? What is the purpose of fighting? It would only make sense if there was a chance of NATO or the EU stepping in to help them, but that seems to be ruled out.
NATO absolutely has stepped in via intelligence and ammunition. Kyiv would not stand for as long as it has without this support.
What is the purpose of fighting? Have you looked at Russia? ukrainians would like to remain free of totalitarianism and will die trying. They will not accept becoming a vassal state. What is the alternative to fighting?
It is clear to me they have a chance, as Russia has failed to gain air supremacy and the conscripts keep defecting. [I admit I only see pro-Ukraine propaganda, but as long as they are transmitting this propaganda out of Kyiv they are winning]
What is the purpose of fighting? Have you looked at Russia? ukrainians would like to remain free of totalitarianism and will die trying. They will not accept becoming a vassal state. What is the alternative to fighting?
It is clear to me they have a chance, as Russia has failed to gain air supremacy and the conscripts keep defecting. [I admit I only see pro-Ukraine propaganda, but as long as they are transmitting this propaganda out of Kyiv they are winning]
> What is the purpose of fighting? Have you looked at Russia? ukrainians would like to remain free of totalitarianism and will die trying. They will not accept becoming a vassal state. What is the alternative to fighting?
The point is that it seems completely hopeless without direct military help from the West. Looked at Russia, in what sense? I have lived there, so I know what life is like there, but I don't know the state of the military. Except that it's enormous, and only a fraction has been deployed so far.
Why won't they accept becoming a vassal state, if the alternative is complete destruction? Or are they betting that Putin will back off before it's levelled to the ground. Perhaps he will, but I wouldn't bet on it, look at Chechnya.
Clearly Putin thought the resistance would be weak and starting out they went to great lengths to spare civilians, but that has already started to give way. It's awful to think what will happen if this drags on.
The point is that it seems completely hopeless without direct military help from the West. Looked at Russia, in what sense? I have lived there, so I know what life is like there, but I don't know the state of the military. Except that it's enormous, and only a fraction has been deployed so far.
Why won't they accept becoming a vassal state, if the alternative is complete destruction? Or are they betting that Putin will back off before it's levelled to the ground. Perhaps he will, but I wouldn't bet on it, look at Chechnya.
Clearly Putin thought the resistance would be weak and starting out they went to great lengths to spare civilians, but that has already started to give way. It's awful to think what will happen if this drags on.
> Looked at Russia, in what sense?
I will respect that you know better than me, an American that would like to see the sights of Russia one day.
In the sense that Putin murders/poisons his political opponents and journalists like Navalny & Politkovskaya, tortures and imprisons activists like Magnitsky and Nadya Tolokno. I can sympathize with anyone who would avoid a government responsible for such acts, granting that I'm ignorant of any Ukrainian equivelancies.
To me, Ukraine has the hope of a European future of democratic rule and economic prosperity, unburdened by such kleptocracy as that which has deprived the Russian military of its competence. Really, I think Putin was told his forces on the border were topped off with food, fuel, and combat units hungry for conquest. He is sorely mistaken, and his troops are hungry, out of gas, and without purpose. Again, this is just what I see. A superpower that isn't. As the war drags on, Putin has to answer to his fellow oligarchs as much as anyone else, and Ukraine will continue to be supplied by Russia's enemies.
I will respect that you know better than me, an American that would like to see the sights of Russia one day.
In the sense that Putin murders/poisons his political opponents and journalists like Navalny & Politkovskaya, tortures and imprisons activists like Magnitsky and Nadya Tolokno. I can sympathize with anyone who would avoid a government responsible for such acts, granting that I'm ignorant of any Ukrainian equivelancies.
To me, Ukraine has the hope of a European future of democratic rule and economic prosperity, unburdened by such kleptocracy as that which has deprived the Russian military of its competence. Really, I think Putin was told his forces on the border were topped off with food, fuel, and combat units hungry for conquest. He is sorely mistaken, and his troops are hungry, out of gas, and without purpose. Again, this is just what I see. A superpower that isn't. As the war drags on, Putin has to answer to his fellow oligarchs as much as anyone else, and Ukraine will continue to be supplied by Russia's enemies.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.
Are you replying to me or just spamming links?
I watched the fox news clip with the colonel and find it frankly offensive. All Putin wants is a nuetral Ukraine, Zelensky should just hand over all his weapons?
Tell me, do you believe Ukrainians preferred the government they deposed in 2014 ? That would see them never joining EU, never joining a defence pact to protect from Russian invasion?
I see people fighting for their country, as if they know that if Ukraine is without an army, there will not be a Ukraine for long. I trust their judgement, not that of thinkpieces and fox news guests.
I watched the fox news clip with the colonel and find it frankly offensive. All Putin wants is a nuetral Ukraine, Zelensky should just hand over all his weapons?
Tell me, do you believe Ukrainians preferred the government they deposed in 2014 ? That would see them never joining EU, never joining a defence pact to protect from Russian invasion?
I see people fighting for their country, as if they know that if Ukraine is without an army, there will not be a Ukraine for long. I trust their judgement, not that of thinkpieces and fox news guests.
> In the sense that Putin murders/poisons his political opponents and journalists like Navalny & Politkovskaya, tortures and imprisons activists like Magnitsky and Nadya Tolokno.
In that regard, Ukraine is doing much better. But it's nevertheless utterly corrupt, and Zelensky has been closing down opposition media, but as far as I know they're not killing journalists or jailing opposition politicians. But politics are sort of a moot point, since the oligarchs essentially run the country as they wish.
> I can sympathize with anyone who would avoid a government responsible for such acts, granting that I'm ignorant of any Ukrainian equivelancies.
Sure, we all want freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc, but is it worth dying for? Especially if you're desperately poor?
In that regard, Ukraine is doing much better. But it's nevertheless utterly corrupt, and Zelensky has been closing down opposition media, but as far as I know they're not killing journalists or jailing opposition politicians. But politics are sort of a moot point, since the oligarchs essentially run the country as they wish.
> I can sympathize with anyone who would avoid a government responsible for such acts, granting that I'm ignorant of any Ukrainian equivelancies.
Sure, we all want freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc, but is it worth dying for? Especially if you're desperately poor?
No need to imagine: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/26/europe/ukraine-zelensky-e...
Does the West have anything to do with Slav courage?
Do you think Ukrainians are incapable of deciding for themselves?
Putin seems to think so
Do you think Ukrainians are incapable of deciding for themselves?
Putin seems to think so
As I wrote. Ukraine will obviously defend itself when attacked, with or without the West. And the West has been clear about not helping. But encouraging them to keep fighting, when it seems completely hopeless, is not doing them a service. Keyboard warriors in the US telling Ukrainian civilians to throw Molotov cocktails on tanks is especially infuriating.
There's nothing inevitable here. The Russian army is being show to be a joke right now.
Ultimately there will have to be some sort of negotiated peace (Ukraine can't fight all the way to Moscow) but the more of the Russian Army they destroy and the longer they hold them off the better the terms they will get.
Ultimately there will have to be some sort of negotiated peace (Ukraine can't fight all the way to Moscow) but the more of the Russian Army they destroy and the longer they hold them off the better the terms they will get.
If you said something like that to a Polish person during early days of WW2, they would slap you in the face, or worse. You have no right to say something like that. If Ukrainians want to fight until the end, that is a choice they can make.
I'm not saying they "can't make that choice". I'm saying it's a bad idea to make that choice. If Russia tried to invade Sweden, my home country, I would say the same. Resisting an overwhelming force might sound good on paper, but when it's your own country that is being laid waste to it's different. If Finland tried to invade, fighting back would be more attractive.
The comparison with Poland and the Nazis is not an apt one. The Nazis despised Slavs, and life under German occupation would be terrible, WAS terrible. Unless you believe the craziest Western propaganda, you know that Russia has no plans to set up concentration camps, Russians consider Ukraine a brother, not a lesser form of human. If Ukraine waves the white flag Putin will most likely install a loyal government, peel off DNR and LNR, keep Crimea, establish some Russian military bases and then leave.
Life in Ukraine as a Russian vassal state would be nothing like life as a Pole under Nazi Germany, it's not a reasonable comparison. It would be more like living in Belarus. That's not amazing, but it's better than total destruction.
The comparison with Poland and the Nazis is not an apt one. The Nazis despised Slavs, and life under German occupation would be terrible, WAS terrible. Unless you believe the craziest Western propaganda, you know that Russia has no plans to set up concentration camps, Russians consider Ukraine a brother, not a lesser form of human. If Ukraine waves the white flag Putin will most likely install a loyal government, peel off DNR and LNR, keep Crimea, establish some Russian military bases and then leave.
Life in Ukraine as a Russian vassal state would be nothing like life as a Pole under Nazi Germany, it's not a reasonable comparison. It would be more like living in Belarus. That's not amazing, but it's better than total destruction.
But, the media told me that Putin is Hitler reincarnated.
More like, Ukrainians want to fight and the West is sending weapons their way. It's not as much egging on as it is providing a force multiplier.
Zelenskyy is a corrupt puppet. Don't buy the hype. There's much more to this entire saga than the media's letting on to.
> Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen,
Got in their way? What? Nonsense?!
When you go to war based on lies you yourself made up, then it's intentional.
That's not accidents that "get in the way".
Got in their way? What? Nonsense?!
When you go to war based on lies you yourself made up, then it's intentional.
That's not accidents that "get in the way".
One sided coverage in 2003? That's not what I remember, and that was definitely NOT the case in Europe.
This is spot on! What has shocked me is how easily the narrative has been pushed in the EU. There has not been much backing for less confrontation. On the contrary, EU more than anything, is escalating by imposing economic sanctions on the Russian people. (Does sanctions ever do anything else than push people into poverty?) Everything appears to be designed to push Putin into a corner so he has no choice but to use those nukes. Are there any efforts at all to de-escalate the situation?
Not to mention the fact that these sanctions are going to make poor people starve. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine make up a huge chunk of world grain, fertilizer, oil, and gas exports.
In the Grand Chessboard, former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski openly talks about oil and gas pipelines and diverting them away from Russia. That's what this war is really about.
In the Grand Chessboard, former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski openly talks about oil and gas pipelines and diverting them away from Russia. That's what this war is really about.
> Not to mention the fact that these sanctions are going to make poor people starve.
This seems a very likely outcome. The EU obviously has no other "weapon" than sanctions. In my view, it has become a social media popularity contest. Let's punish everyone in Russia financially so maybe there will be an uprising. And, let's top it up with a free for all hunt on the assets of oligarchs. Is it anything else than the popularity contest playing out? Maybe it's ultimately like you say: about control of the oil and gas coming from Russia.
This seems a very likely outcome. The EU obviously has no other "weapon" than sanctions. In my view, it has become a social media popularity contest. Let's punish everyone in Russia financially so maybe there will be an uprising. And, let's top it up with a free for all hunt on the assets of oligarchs. Is it anything else than the popularity contest playing out? Maybe it's ultimately like you say: about control of the oil and gas coming from Russia.
> about control of the oil and gas coming from Russia.
No one focuses on this, but that's what WW1 and WW2 were always about. The eastern theatre was the most active one and it still is.
The EU should just increase its defensive capabilities and call it a day.
Make Poland and the Baltics the new red-line/frontier.
No one focuses on this, but that's what WW1 and WW2 were always about. The eastern theatre was the most active one and it still is.
The EU should just increase its defensive capabilities and call it a day.
Make Poland and the Baltics the new red-line/frontier.
I have studied this situation nonstop for the last week and I pretty much have the same opinion as you. If you ask a simple question, Cui bono? (Who benefits?) it becomes clear that it’s ultimately another military industrial complex project. The sad part is that the only real victims here are the Ukrainian people, who were led along with false promises.
Had NATO been wiser, none of this would be happening.
Had NATO been wiser, none of this would be happening.
These would be of interest for you:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...
https://archive.ph/gnqkv - among the signers who opposed the NATO expansion during the late 90s to include the Visegrad group, Former SoD MacNamara
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
Fog of War (Errol Morris documentary) - rather telling in there is empathy for your adversary, and the fact that there's so many parallels with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Seems like we've learnt nothing from it.
Quite the list of signatories, including C. William Maynes (editor of Foreign Policy magazine), Sen. Bill Bradley, Raymond Garthoff (former ambassador to Bulgaria), Morton Halperin (former ACLU director), Sen. Gary Hart, Arthur Hartman (Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union), Sen. Mark Hatfield, Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Fred Ikle (the man who proposed sending weapons to the Mujahideen), Sen. Bennett Johnston, James Leonard (ambassador to the UN), former Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze, former Secretary of Defense McNamara, Sen. Sam Nunn, Ambassador to East Germany Herbert S. Okun, commander of US Air Force Japan Robert E. Pursley, CIA Director Stansfield Turner, plus a list of everything from well-known professors to Purple Heart recipients.
In other words - left and right, ACLU and Senators, academia and veterans, a broad swath of the American political landscape - I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.
In other words - left and right, ACLU and Senators, academia and veterans, a broad swath of the American political landscape - I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.
> I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.
Because this perspective dampens the prevailing narratives, that Russia is spinning pure propaganda in regards to NATO?
Because this perspective dampens the prevailing narratives, that Russia is spinning pure propaganda in regards to NATO?
This is also playing right into NATO's hands in a way.
But, after reading the authors I mentioned closely, I now realize that this is a war for control/negative-control over natural resources (grain, oil, gas, fertilizers, etc.). Also, this is about geostrategic security (anchoring at the Carpathian mountains and Bessarabia Gap).
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
But, after reading the authors I mentioned closely, I now realize that this is a war for control/negative-control over natural resources (grain, oil, gas, fertilizers, etc.). Also, this is about geostrategic security (anchoring at the Carpathian mountains and Bessarabia Gap).
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU
And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
This has helped me better understand the strategic significance. Thank you.
Edit: As a seeker of answers to the "why", I can't recommend these links enough.
Edit: As a seeker of answers to the "why", I can't recommend these links enough.
Same here, I too seek out the motive behind actions; otherwise, history is the most boring and unintelligible sequence of events known to man.
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
This — only have listened to the Hitchens so far — was fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing this. I wonder what he would say about Germany deciding to militarize overnight. No wonder Macron was telling Putin Russia is “European”. Wheels within wheels.
Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
I seek out the motive behind actions; otherwise, history is the most boring and unintelligible sequence of events known to man.
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...
* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg
I seek out the motive behind actions; otherwise, history is the most boring and unintelligible sequence of events known to man.
I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger
I think military-industrial complex gets its pound of flesh rain or shine. Westerners like their high-paying defense jobs. This is about bringing the entire world, state-by-state, under anglosphere concepts of law/property/morality/etc--but instead of subordinating Indians and Africans, it's Slavs this time.
Lessee here,...
Following several hundred years of rule by Poland and then Russia, in 1991 the Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. (I assume you think that was a mistake?)
Between 1991 and 2004, two the administrations of two presidents retained close ties to Russia. However, in 2004, in an election festooned with accusations of fraud (serious accusations, not Trump-accusations), another pro-Russian president was elected, sparking protests and a second election, which brought into power another president who called for closer ties with the European Union. (Yeah, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko demonstrating the results of not recognizing Russian authority.) Corruption seems to have abounded during most of these and the next president's terms.
In 2010, another pro-Russian president was elected, which in 2013 and 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk. (They should have just given up then, right?)
The next President, elected in 2014, began again the policy of closing the relationship with the EU and withdrawing from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the association of countries from the USSR, and generally trying to clean up the mess. In 2019 the constitution was amended:
"The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine include ... determining the principles of internal and foreign policy, realization of the strategic course of the state on acquiring full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"The President of Ukraine is a guarantor of the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine provides the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
(Stupid fools, don't they know they have no rights a world power is bound to respect? They're barely human!)
Also in 2019, Zelenskyy was elected president with 73% of the vote, a group of prisoners were exchanged with Russia, freeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Sentsov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sushchenko and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olexandr_Kolchenko, among others, and here we are today. (Not that I'm suggesting holding political prisoners is bad, mind you.)
Now, Putin has said that the big mistake happened when Lenin's USSR gave Ukraine any autonomy at all, which may in fact be true. But,
1. The Ukrainians are not victims. Well, they are, but only of Russian aggression.
2. The military-industrial complex seems to have an awful lot of reach and power. Shades of the Elders of Zion, eh? On the other hand, seems like they could have worked a bit faster.
3. NATO does not look to be a very big player; the EU and Poland have had as big a hand in "false promises" if you choose to look at it that way.
Following several hundred years of rule by Poland and then Russia, in 1991 the Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. (I assume you think that was a mistake?)
Between 1991 and 2004, two the administrations of two presidents retained close ties to Russia. However, in 2004, in an election festooned with accusations of fraud (serious accusations, not Trump-accusations), another pro-Russian president was elected, sparking protests and a second election, which brought into power another president who called for closer ties with the European Union. (Yeah, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko demonstrating the results of not recognizing Russian authority.) Corruption seems to have abounded during most of these and the next president's terms.
In 2010, another pro-Russian president was elected, which in 2013 and 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk. (They should have just given up then, right?)
The next President, elected in 2014, began again the policy of closing the relationship with the EU and withdrawing from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the association of countries from the USSR, and generally trying to clean up the mess. In 2019 the constitution was amended:
"The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine include ... determining the principles of internal and foreign policy, realization of the strategic course of the state on acquiring full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"The President of Ukraine is a guarantor of the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine provides the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
(Stupid fools, don't they know they have no rights a world power is bound to respect? They're barely human!)
Also in 2019, Zelenskyy was elected president with 73% of the vote, a group of prisoners were exchanged with Russia, freeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Sentsov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sushchenko and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olexandr_Kolchenko, among others, and here we are today. (Not that I'm suggesting holding political prisoners is bad, mind you.)
Now, Putin has said that the big mistake happened when Lenin's USSR gave Ukraine any autonomy at all, which may in fact be true. But,
1. The Ukrainians are not victims. Well, they are, but only of Russian aggression.
2. The military-industrial complex seems to have an awful lot of reach and power. Shades of the Elders of Zion, eh? On the other hand, seems like they could have worked a bit faster.
3. NATO does not look to be a very big player; the EU and Poland have had as big a hand in "false promises" if you choose to look at it that way.
> 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk
Your have written a lot but omitted the crucial details about the maidan. US instigated the coup and installed nationalistic government. The separatist tendencies were the direct result of that government's actions.
Your have written a lot but omitted the crucial details about the maidan. US instigated the coup and installed nationalistic government. The separatist tendencies were the direct result of that government's actions.
Bingo. There are audio tapes that prove this as well.
These audio tapes:
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
* https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/...
(I like the line, "A "new low?" From a Russian perspective, assuming they did it, it was brilliant. And it didn't require assassinating a former spy in a foreign capital with a radioactive isotope.")
There's nothing there about a "US instigated coup." What you're looking at are boring US State Department discussions of how to, yes, arrange to move the situation closer to something the US would like. Who to talk to, what to talk about. That's what they do. Here's the conclusion of the BBC diplomatic correspondent:
"The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked."
One should note that Russia was also engaged in shenanigans, including providing advisors in the operations to suppress the protests. (You don't see the phrase "the use of snipers to disperse crowds" very often.)
This phone call was released in early February 2014, during the protests. Unless you somehow believe that the US has mind-control technology that can cause tens of thousands of innocent people to risk their lives protesting their government, there is not a whole lot of US agency here.
I know this is hard to believe, but people outside the US are actually people, and have their own beliefs and values, and are capable of making their own decisions.
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
* https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/...
(I like the line, "A "new low?" From a Russian perspective, assuming they did it, it was brilliant. And it didn't require assassinating a former spy in a foreign capital with a radioactive isotope.")
There's nothing there about a "US instigated coup." What you're looking at are boring US State Department discussions of how to, yes, arrange to move the situation closer to something the US would like. Who to talk to, what to talk about. That's what they do. Here's the conclusion of the BBC diplomatic correspondent:
"The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked."
One should note that Russia was also engaged in shenanigans, including providing advisors in the operations to suppress the protests. (You don't see the phrase "the use of snipers to disperse crowds" very often.)
This phone call was released in early February 2014, during the protests. Unless you somehow believe that the US has mind-control technology that can cause tens of thousands of innocent people to risk their lives protesting their government, there is not a whole lot of US agency here.
I know this is hard to believe, but people outside the US are actually people, and have their own beliefs and values, and are capable of making their own decisions.
"Instigated" is inaccurate, I agree.
There were protests going on but there's still a legitimate president (de jure at least). US diplomats are caught on tape discussing who should be and should not be in the new government.
To me it means that they were directly talking to the protesters leaders and assuring them of us support.
If that kind of diplomacy sounds fine I don't quite understand why the Americans were so sensitive about the so-called "Russian involvement" in the US elections
There were protests going on but there's still a legitimate president (de jure at least). US diplomats are caught on tape discussing who should be and should not be in the new government.
To me it means that they were directly talking to the protesters leaders and assuring them of us support.
If that kind of diplomacy sounds fine I don't quite understand why the Americans were so sensitive about the so-called "Russian involvement" in the US elections
I read Mearsheimer's "Tragedy of Great Power Politics", and I think it's one of the most important books ever written. It completely changed the way I think about what's going on in the world.
That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily). But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.
US and NATO do whatever is in their best interest, and that implicitly means they will try to reduce Russia's power. Russia knows that. In turn, Russia will try to reduce NATO's and US's power (and increase their own). That's all rational. Now, to say that the US and NATO have to have some form of guilt, and they should change their actions, that's crazy, it does not make any sense.
To say that the US, or NATO, or Russia, or anyone else is hypocritical, or they say one thing and do another, well, welcome to politics. "Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. Russia calls foul play. Well, what did they think? People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.
But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?
That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily). But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.
US and NATO do whatever is in their best interest, and that implicitly means they will try to reduce Russia's power. Russia knows that. In turn, Russia will try to reduce NATO's and US's power (and increase their own). That's all rational. Now, to say that the US and NATO have to have some form of guilt, and they should change their actions, that's crazy, it does not make any sense.
To say that the US, or NATO, or Russia, or anyone else is hypocritical, or they say one thing and do another, well, welcome to politics. "Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. Russia calls foul play. Well, what did they think? People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.
But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?
The thing about this archaic, old-fashioned "power politics" is that it's self-defeating in the age of late-stage modernity. You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong. Japan has power. South Korea has power. But the thing is that, invariably, they did not gain that power by playing zero-sum "power politics" games, but rather as a side-effect of broad-based economic development, mutually beneficial trade and successful multi-national cooperation. Russia has just willfully thrown away a lot of their potential power and influence for the foreseeable future, with no gains whatsoever to make up for that - and they're yet to look down into the abyss and face that situation. They seem incredibly complacent - that's ultimately what's so strikingly irrational about their current stance.
>>You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong.
From the perspective of power maximizing their willingness to go to war is puzzling. But most research suggests states are not power maximizing but rather security maximizing. States don't consider their military potential in a vacuum but rather relative to other states that could disrupt their security. ( see: Collateral Damage Sino-Soviet Rivalry and the Termination of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance)
In this regard, Russia's decision for war is very easy to understand even if it comes across as blindingly machiavellian and immoral. Even if the Russian economy is wrecked and the people of Russia are materially worse off Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.
From the perspective of power maximizing their willingness to go to war is puzzling. But most research suggests states are not power maximizing but rather security maximizing. States don't consider their military potential in a vacuum but rather relative to other states that could disrupt their security. ( see: Collateral Damage Sino-Soviet Rivalry and the Termination of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance)
In this regard, Russia's decision for war is very easy to understand even if it comes across as blindingly machiavellian and immoral. Even if the Russian economy is wrecked and the people of Russia are materially worse off Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.
>Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.
I don't get that. How does having a democratic neighbour like say Estonia, or a democratic Ukraine, make Russia insecure? No one's going to go invading them with them having the world's largest nuke stockpile and people were happy trading.
Now Putin personally, I can see how he might have issues.
I don't get that. How does having a democratic neighbour like say Estonia, or a democratic Ukraine, make Russia insecure? No one's going to go invading them with them having the world's largest nuke stockpile and people were happy trading.
Now Putin personally, I can see how he might have issues.
MAD is insufficient. There are a vast array of security threats that nukes dont protect you from. This is true for all nuclear powers.
Given that the US has nukes, why have any other military at all? You could ask the same China.
Conventional military and geopolitics are relevant for everything that you wont launch a nuke over. Without conventional power, any nuclear power can be bled to death with 1000 small cuts nukes cant stop.
Given that the US has nukes, why have any other military at all? You could ask the same China.
Conventional military and geopolitics are relevant for everything that you wont launch a nuke over. Without conventional power, any nuclear power can be bled to death with 1000 small cuts nukes cant stop.
I might agree but "states" here should really mean "decision making elites within states". It's not like "Russia" as a country fears for her security (that's of course a category error!), it's more that there's a pretty well-defined elite of people with decision making power within Russia who fear that their current power might not be stable.
Democracy helps solve these screwed up incentives by vesting sovereignty (the source for legitimacy of that sort of power) in the people as a whole, and making the status as an "elite" highly time-limited and contestable. So nobody has to fear more for their security than anyone else.
Democracy helps solve these screwed up incentives by vesting sovereignty (the source for legitimacy of that sort of power) in the people as a whole, and making the status as an "elite" highly time-limited and contestable. So nobody has to fear more for their security than anyone else.
I don't mean of course that states are somehow sentient entities but decision makers in charge of states are, not surprisingly, very interested in the security of the thing they are in charge of.
I disagree that the decision makers in Russia who made the decision for war were motivated mostly in their own hold on power. If they were, they probably would not engage in such a risky business as a major war. Power is more secure in a stable political environment. To take one example, decision makers in Germany before the first world war had no illusions that a major industrialized european war was risky for the political order and its outcome was very uncertain. One reason why Germany refused to expand conscription was the fear the aristocratic class would lose power in any new citizen army with mass conscription( which in fact, happened).
So even in an autocracy this incentive problem still exists. Democracy certainly reduces the incentives for decision makers to go to war over security concerns but even in a democratic states these cross cutting concerns of political stability and economic well being could find themselves at odds with having to ensure the security of the state that makes such prosperity possible.
I disagree that the decision makers in Russia who made the decision for war were motivated mostly in their own hold on power. If they were, they probably would not engage in such a risky business as a major war. Power is more secure in a stable political environment. To take one example, decision makers in Germany before the first world war had no illusions that a major industrialized european war was risky for the political order and its outcome was very uncertain. One reason why Germany refused to expand conscription was the fear the aristocratic class would lose power in any new citizen army with mass conscription( which in fact, happened).
So even in an autocracy this incentive problem still exists. Democracy certainly reduces the incentives for decision makers to go to war over security concerns but even in a democratic states these cross cutting concerns of political stability and economic well being could find themselves at odds with having to ensure the security of the state that makes such prosperity possible.
Most East Asian countries have a huge advantage in labor cost. If they don’t have one now, they often did in the past during the ascent. That’s basically the definition of zero-sum. Yes, worker productivity increases over time, so the size of the pie grows, but how those gains are distributed is zero-sum. It’s not clear to me that growing your power, e.g. receiving more of the pie, somehow leads to you increasing productivity more later.
Mearsheimer talks about this in other talks. He likes speaking in China because “he’s among his people”, that is, people who understand Great Power Politics is as relevant today as it’s always been.
What is NATO's objective except to defend the member countries from aggressors? As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, perhaps what is happening is about the control of natural resources. The entire situation is then politically motivated. Aren't NATO and Ukraine then simply actors that have been strung along? (Obviously at great cost to Ukraine now.) This would also explain why EU has been so quick to respond with sanctions. This is about cause and effect. Russia attacking Ukraine is obviously very wrong. It seems philosophical to discuss if the cause should be blamed. However, Mearsheimer has warned about this aggression for a very long time. The history seems to indicate that this outcome has been forced.
NATOs objective has always been to eliminate or minimize the Russian threat to NATO.
An armed an strong Ukraine furthers this goal.
A bloody war between Ukraine and Russia also furthers this goal.
An armed an strong Ukraine furthers this goal.
A bloody war between Ukraine and Russia also furthers this goal.
I think Russia fears an Embrace, Extend, Extinguish approach to geopolitics where their historic power is diminished or extinguished by an encroaching NATO as it absorbs nations at the periphery of the previous local hegemon.
I think that is part of it, but I think they also fear direct attack, or the threat of direct attack being used to undermine their geopolitical goals and autonomy.
People who view this as paranoid are simply not being rational. MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.
People who view this as paranoid are simply not being rational. MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.
> But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.
My take on it is: if you willingly push a bear in a tight corner, you have it coming when he starts biting and fighting.
Now, this is no valid excuse for me when it comes to nation states and their actions, but nations are just run by humans, aren't they?
My take on it is: if you willingly push a bear in a tight corner, you have it coming when he starts biting and fighting.
Now, this is no valid excuse for me when it comes to nation states and their actions, but nations are just run by humans, aren't they?
Invading Russia would be pushing the bear into a tight corner.
This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no claim.
This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no claim.
How close would you let your enemy put a knife to your throat before stopping them?
The best way to avoid a knife fight is for two people to stay far apart. If you keep getting closer to someone with a knife, you shouldn't be surprised when you get stabbed.
The best way to avoid a knife fight is for two people to stay far apart. If you keep getting closer to someone with a knife, you shouldn't be surprised when you get stabbed.
But Russia has thousands of nukes, and that's not a secret. Russia knows that nobody would dare attack them, ever. And the rest of the world knows that too.
The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.
The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.
MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection.
Non nuclear military projection matters because not everything is a nuclear war. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.
It still matters where bases are.
If it comes to nuclear war, it also matters where bases are.
Non nuclear military projection matters because not everything is a nuclear war. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone.
It still matters where bases are.
If it comes to nuclear war, it also matters where bases are.
> strangulation via power projection.
Cool metaphor there, but exactly what do you have in mind? Let's say every single neighbor of Russia becomes a NATO member, how does that strangulation via power projection work?
Or in our concrete case, let's say Ukraine becomes a NATO member, who is going to threaten Russia, and how? Preferably in more concrete terms, rather than metaphors.
Cool metaphor there, but exactly what do you have in mind? Let's say every single neighbor of Russia becomes a NATO member, how does that strangulation via power projection work?
Or in our concrete case, let's say Ukraine becomes a NATO member, who is going to threaten Russia, and how? Preferably in more concrete terms, rather than metaphors.
In concrete examples if a future conflict of interests arises:
They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies.
They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea.
They could invade Belarus on a new front.
They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow.
They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder.
Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats.
In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.
They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies.
They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea.
They could invade Belarus on a new front.
They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow.
They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder.
Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats.
In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.
All these could be valid grievances. Great powers keep poking and prodding each other all the time. Russia does all sorts of chicanery back. They are mounting right not psy ops in Eastern Europe (e.g. the current "word" over there is that they are in danger of being nuked because of the US bases, and it's all US's fault, they'd be just fine if US got out of there... and some people swallow that stuff hook, line and sinker).
Russia and the US spy each other. The US sanctioned Russia because of the Manitsky assassination. One can easily claim that this is economic warfare, and the if it weren't for that assassination, some other pretext could have been found. On the other hand Russia does kill people (and in the process they increase the popular awareness to such technical tems as Polonium and Novichok).
This is again, just to say Russia and the US keep taking shots of each other. That does not mean Russia needs to start a real war, where tens of thousands of people die. And if Russia does, that's in no way the US's fault.
Russia and the US spy each other. The US sanctioned Russia because of the Manitsky assassination. One can easily claim that this is economic warfare, and the if it weren't for that assassination, some other pretext could have been found. On the other hand Russia does kill people (and in the process they increase the popular awareness to such technical tems as Polonium and Novichok).
This is again, just to say Russia and the US keep taking shots of each other. That does not mean Russia needs to start a real war, where tens of thousands of people die. And if Russia does, that's in no way the US's fault.
Ukraine was a game of chicken where Russia had something to lose from backing down and they do had nothing to lose from backing down
Problem is that Putins mindset seems to be exactly opposite to your statement. He sees the west setting up camp in an ecosystem he should not be.
Hint: I do not endorse that thinking but I can understand that someone with this mindset might react strongly to us (the west) starting to play in “his” front yard.
Hint: I do not endorse that thinking but I can understand that someone with this mindset might react strongly to us (the west) starting to play in “his” front yard.
""Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. "
I don't think there was any kind of commitment about this. Definitely not in a form of a signed treaty.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/312636...
I don't think there was any kind of commitment about this. Definitely not in a form of a signed treaty.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/312636...
> But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.
He's saying it is US's fault because Russia has been accommodating the US for decades. Russia allowed NATO to gobble up country after country all the way to Russia's borders.
> People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.
Hence it's NATO's fault. It is NATO's greed that resulted in Georgians dying. It's NATO's greed that resulted in ukrainians dying.
> But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?
War is politics by other means. As you said "well, welcome to politics.". Yes, ukrainians are dying. You can thank NATO.
The war in ukraine is a result of NATO's ( ultimately america's ) actions. NATO was the first mover ( aka the cause of it ). Nobody who has taken a class in international politics will debate it. None. And the biggest beneficiary of the ukraine war is NATO. Ukraine suffers, Russia suffer. NATO is sitting pretty.
US told the Soviet Union putting nukes in cuba would lead to nuclear war. The soviet union backed off. Russia said NATO expansion to Ukraine or Georgia would lead to war. NATO discarded it. If the soviet union had put nukes on cuba and got attacked, it would be the soviet union's fault. Just like the blame for ukraine lies entirely with NATO. But that's academics. In reality, the propaganda will tell you who is to be blamed for what in each country.
Can't wait to see what our meddling in Taiwan will lead to. Hopefully a serious punch in the mouth so we'll quit the empire business once and for all.
He's saying it is US's fault because Russia has been accommodating the US for decades. Russia allowed NATO to gobble up country after country all the way to Russia's borders.
> People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.
Hence it's NATO's fault. It is NATO's greed that resulted in Georgians dying. It's NATO's greed that resulted in ukrainians dying.
> But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?
War is politics by other means. As you said "well, welcome to politics.". Yes, ukrainians are dying. You can thank NATO.
The war in ukraine is a result of NATO's ( ultimately america's ) actions. NATO was the first mover ( aka the cause of it ). Nobody who has taken a class in international politics will debate it. None. And the biggest beneficiary of the ukraine war is NATO. Ukraine suffers, Russia suffer. NATO is sitting pretty.
US told the Soviet Union putting nukes in cuba would lead to nuclear war. The soviet union backed off. Russia said NATO expansion to Ukraine or Georgia would lead to war. NATO discarded it. If the soviet union had put nukes on cuba and got attacked, it would be the soviet union's fault. Just like the blame for ukraine lies entirely with NATO. But that's academics. In reality, the propaganda will tell you who is to be blamed for what in each country.
Can't wait to see what our meddling in Taiwan will lead to. Hopefully a serious punch in the mouth so we'll quit the empire business once and for all.
> Russia allowed NATO to gobble up country after country all the way to Russia's borders.
NATO didn't gobble them up, they voluntarily joined, and they weren't Russian colonies such that it was a matter of Russia “letting” anyone do anything.
Russia is the one that has been literally gobbling up (at least parts of, prior to the most recent attempt) neighboring cointries.
NATO didn't gobble them up, they voluntarily joined, and they weren't Russian colonies such that it was a matter of Russia “letting” anyone do anything.
Russia is the one that has been literally gobbling up (at least parts of, prior to the most recent attempt) neighboring cointries.
That's a very naive take. They weren't russian colonies but they were within its sphere of influence. Just like cuba, canada and the entire western hemisphere is within our sphere of influence. Do you know what would have lead to an invasion of canada? Canada's request to join the soviet union. Every major power has its sphere of influence and limits. The only shame is that we don't get to feel the pain of our actions. It will be ukrainians and eventually taiwanese who will feel the pain of our meddling. Just like in iraq, iran, syria, libya, etc. Hopefully that comes to an end sooner than later so we'll stop causing trouble everywhere in the world. When you actually look all the wars and death and suffering in the past few decades, we've had a hand in practically all of them.
> That's a very naive take.
No, it's factual.
> They weren't russian colonies but they were within its sphere of influence
A “sphere of influence” is a collection of peripheries of metropolitan state, a geographically compact set of colonies. Your explanation is self-contradictory.
> Just like cuba, canada and the entire western hemisphere is within our sphere of influence.
They... aren't. Yes, the US asserted something like that with the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th C, but it's not at all the case now. The US has many allies in the Western Hemisphere, some of who might reasonably be viewed as client states, but it definitely doesn't include Cuba or the whole hemisphere.
> Do you know what would have lead to an invasion of canada? Canada's request to join the soviet union.
Whataboutism is silliest when it has to rely on speculative assumptions about ridiculous counterfactuals.
> The only shame is that we don't get to feel the pain of our actions
If you really feel it is a shame that you don't get to feel the pain of the crisis in Ukraine, that's...easily fixable.
No, it's factual.
> They weren't russian colonies but they were within its sphere of influence
A “sphere of influence” is a collection of peripheries of metropolitan state, a geographically compact set of colonies. Your explanation is self-contradictory.
> Just like cuba, canada and the entire western hemisphere is within our sphere of influence.
They... aren't. Yes, the US asserted something like that with the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th C, but it's not at all the case now. The US has many allies in the Western Hemisphere, some of who might reasonably be viewed as client states, but it definitely doesn't include Cuba or the whole hemisphere.
> Do you know what would have lead to an invasion of canada? Canada's request to join the soviet union.
Whataboutism is silliest when it has to rely on speculative assumptions about ridiculous counterfactuals.
> The only shame is that we don't get to feel the pain of our actions
If you really feel it is a shame that you don't get to feel the pain of the crisis in Ukraine, that's...easily fixable.
No we basically begged nato to take us under protection. There are many things people don't like in Eastern Europe about America but no one doubt Russia is the greater evil. Only Americans can afford self reflection and self criticism. There is no such thing in Russia and no one wants to live under baron robber regime, its objective reality. Some countries have been born to wrong geopolitical location and don't have much choice.
Maybe they don’t want to be ruled by Russia? This whole comment is pointless as you just discard what the actual people and countries want. Smaller countries are not just chess pieces.
Naive it not, these countries have a right to self-determination and sovereignty, especially after what the USSR has been doing to them for decades.
Defensive realism?
“My theory, which I label “offensive realism,” is essentially realist in nature; it falls thus in the tradition of realist thinkers such as E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz.”: John J. Mearsheimer. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
>>That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily).
Except Mearsheimer explicity didn't predict a major war between Ukraine and russia. He has commented on this situation repeatedly and failed to accurately predict the outbreak of major war. Mearsheimer has a problem here: Russia is weakening its military potential against other major states by going to war against ukraine. His formulation of offensive realism does not really produce a testable prediction in this case.
>>That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily).
Except Mearsheimer explicity didn't predict a major war between Ukraine and russia. He has commented on this situation repeatedly and failed to accurately predict the outbreak of major war. Mearsheimer has a problem here: Russia is weakening its military potential against other major states by going to war against ukraine. His formulation of offensive realism does not really produce a testable prediction in this case.
Good point, it's offensive realism, not defensive realism.
Here's how this war fits into Mearsheimer's framework: great powers have a certain amount of power. There are 3 great powers today, the US, China and Russia. The power of a nation depends on its population and GDP, and lots of other things as well. Russia's population is going down, its GDP is just a fraction of China's or America's. So, their great power standing is on the decline.
A conquest of Ukraine, if speedy and decisive, would convince all the other former Soviet Republics to submit to Russia voluntarily, maybe with the exception of the Baltic republics which are part of NATO.
If Putin reincorporates the Russian Empire, the population doubles overnight, a feat not achieved even by Bismark. The GDP also increases, although not that much. Still, under such a scenario, Russia under Putin would achieve a huge leap in great power standing. It would probably still not be number 1, but it could be number 2, because, despite having much lower population and GDP than China, it would have fresh war experience.
Given that this fits so well in Mearsheimer's framework, it's obvious that all of Putin's rhetoric about the NATO transgressions is just that, rhetoric.
Here's how this war fits into Mearsheimer's framework: great powers have a certain amount of power. There are 3 great powers today, the US, China and Russia. The power of a nation depends on its population and GDP, and lots of other things as well. Russia's population is going down, its GDP is just a fraction of China's or America's. So, their great power standing is on the decline.
A conquest of Ukraine, if speedy and decisive, would convince all the other former Soviet Republics to submit to Russia voluntarily, maybe with the exception of the Baltic republics which are part of NATO.
If Putin reincorporates the Russian Empire, the population doubles overnight, a feat not achieved even by Bismark. The GDP also increases, although not that much. Still, under such a scenario, Russia under Putin would achieve a huge leap in great power standing. It would probably still not be number 1, but it could be number 2, because, despite having much lower population and GDP than China, it would have fresh war experience.
Given that this fits so well in Mearsheimer's framework, it's obvious that all of Putin's rhetoric about the NATO transgressions is just that, rhetoric.
Mearsheimer also is directly blaming Ukraine here in a way that hardly seems reasonable.
"When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States."
This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America. "It's not our fault those countries poked us in the eye by being [democratic/socialistic/whatever]."
Maybe Putin and American leaders both need to stop trying to ruling other countries. Putin has fucking nukes, is he seriously afraid of being invaded himself?
"When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States."
This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America. "It's not our fault those countries poked us in the eye by being [democratic/socialistic/whatever]."
Maybe Putin and American leaders both need to stop trying to ruling other countries. Putin has fucking nukes, is he seriously afraid of being invaded himself?
I'm Canadian. As a Canadian I am fully aware that my country exists strictly at the whim of the US. If we were to decide to form a military alliance with Russia, hosting Russian troops on our soil, Canada would be invaded by the US in a New York minute. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
It sucks of course but it is what it is. That is all he is saying.
It sucks of course but it is what it is. That is all he is saying.
At the end of the day most people still have some sense of justice and morality (misguided or not.) In the interview, he could have acknowledged that these values still exist and influence the decisions of individuals and countries, without at all compromising his (many good) points about the politics of the region.
The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?
The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?
>> The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?
I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer here (he was wrong on whether Russia would go to war for one thing; for another, he extrapolates way too far in ascribing motives to Putin/Russia that he doesn't have evidence for) and I think states are generally security maximizing and not power maximizing.
But Mearsheimer's book title of "The Tragedy of Great Power politics" is apt. Because the tragedy is that states have different interests than the well being of the people that live in them. I don't think pointing that out is immoral, quite the opposite; hard truths are still truths.
I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer here (he was wrong on whether Russia would go to war for one thing; for another, he extrapolates way too far in ascribing motives to Putin/Russia that he doesn't have evidence for) and I think states are generally security maximizing and not power maximizing.
But Mearsheimer's book title of "The Tragedy of Great Power politics" is apt. Because the tragedy is that states have different interests than the well being of the people that live in them. I don't think pointing that out is immoral, quite the opposite; hard truths are still truths.
> The people of Ukraine have ... overthrown a president ...
It's more accurate to say that some ukranian people have ousted the president and let US decide whom to put in place
The country was split nearly 50/50 between pro-us and pro-russian. Surely enough the second half was cancelled after the coup (change in language laws for instance).
It's more accurate to say that some ukranian people have ousted the president and let US decide whom to put in place
The country was split nearly 50/50 between pro-us and pro-russian. Surely enough the second half was cancelled after the coup (change in language laws for instance).
If this is true, and 50% of the Ukrainian people see this operation as a liberation – why, then, are people fleeing west, not east?
There is a good number of people fleeing east to Russia as well, even as per a report in the BBC yesterday.
Of course russia is the aggressor now, and people are generally fleeing west.
My estimate for maidan times is based on preceding elections where "pro-russian" yanukovich won by a small margin.
My estimate for maidan times is based on preceding elections where "pro-russian" yanukovich won by a small margin.
It was 50/50 before Russia annexed Crimea and started war in Donbass.
So you think if Canada got friendly with Russia it would be invaded by "the US", meaning that the people of the US would democratically elect a government that would not avert this scenario through diplomatic negotiation and nurturing relations between the countries, not by the considerable pressure of economic sanctions, not even through propaganda and covert CIA ops, but they'd actually march the military in and start shelling major Canadian cities killing civilians? And the people of the US would support that?
That sounds unlikely to me.
That sounds unlikely to me.
This is a bad analogy.
First of all, we have nukes. Why would we care if Russian troops showed up on the border. If they cross that line, their country gets wiped off the map. The same dynamic exists with Ukraine and Russia.
Also, you analogy completely ignores the economic relationships that the West has been trying to build with Russia for the last few decades. Western doctrine has been largely focused on building international trade and economic relationships as a method for maintaining peace. There is a reason we exported a good chunk of our manufacturing after all.
The only way your analogy holds is if Russia and Canada had been spending decades trying to build peaceful economic relationships with the US. And they openly express little interest in invading the US. But then the US starts saber rattling at Canada and claims that they feel their security is threatened. I think most people would agree that the US is behaving belligerently in that scenario and that Canada would be justified in building up defenses.
First of all, we have nukes. Why would we care if Russian troops showed up on the border. If they cross that line, their country gets wiped off the map. The same dynamic exists with Ukraine and Russia.
Also, you analogy completely ignores the economic relationships that the West has been trying to build with Russia for the last few decades. Western doctrine has been largely focused on building international trade and economic relationships as a method for maintaining peace. There is a reason we exported a good chunk of our manufacturing after all.
The only way your analogy holds is if Russia and Canada had been spending decades trying to build peaceful economic relationships with the US. And they openly express little interest in invading the US. But then the US starts saber rattling at Canada and claims that they feel their security is threatened. I think most people would agree that the US is behaving belligerently in that scenario and that Canada would be justified in building up defenses.
So if that happened... who would you blame? Russia?
The notion of "blame" isn't really useful when you're leading a country, and want to not get invaded. Moral superiority won't repel attacks of enemy troops.
Then why are we even talking about who Mearsheimer blames?
Because Mearsheimer is trying to throw a wrench in the narrative by blaming the exact people who think they are blameless.
I'd blame Canada for putting the Russian military on American's doorstep.
Who would you blame?
Who would you blame?
Probably the US and then Canada.
But what if the Russian military didn't even have any significant presence in Canada but the US invaded anyway? Then I'd absolutely blame the US primarily.
I wouldn't blame Russia in that situation.
But what if the Russian military didn't even have any significant presence in Canada but the US invaded anyway? Then I'd absolutely blame the US primarily.
I wouldn't blame Russia in that situation.
What if Russia had their bases in most of the South American countries and had been openly discussing having their base in Mexico for 14 years. And then 5 years ago, if all of the Mexican leaders that America was maintaining relationship with were suddenly arrested for "corruption" and then Gabriel Iglesias was elected for the president... and you try to befrend the new leadership, but then they start speaking the Russian talking points.
Who would you blame then?
Who would you blame then?
Who is democratic in this scenario?
Let's say everyone's constitution says they are "democratic", just like they do in the real world.
I'll just note that Canadian-Cuban relations are a thing.
It's different in many degrees. Canada has been warmer and colder to the US at various times but since NAFTA has been very friendly. If a less-US-friendly politics started winning out, Canada could back away from the US orbit in a lot of ways and the US probably would not push for regime change.
A future of a pro-Putin Canada is just absurd in its own right. Why not North Korea or Iran? It only really makes sense to talk about realistic possibilities. However, if they wanted to align closer to European powers, such as UK and France, again, I don't think the US would be invading Ontario.
A future of a pro-Putin Canada is just absurd in its own right. Why not North Korea or Iran? It only really makes sense to talk about realistic possibilities. However, if they wanted to align closer to European powers, such as UK and France, again, I don't think the US would be invading Ontario.
I think you countered your own counter argument there. Embedded in your argument is this tidbit: "A future where Canada is pro-Russia is unthinkable, not ever going to happen". Canada-US relations may freeze and thaw but even at the deepest freeze, you know Canada is never going break with the US and associate with Russia. What the poster is saying is "IF Canada were to make significant overtures to Russia, US would be apoplectic with rage", which is most definitely correct.
Note: I have no bone in this fight, just trying to clarify what I think is a decent argument.
Note: I have no bone in this fight, just trying to clarify what I think is a decent argument.
And I think it requires a realistic view of the world and what is actually possible. There was a time (1812-1815) when Canada and the US were at war. The circumstances of that are no longer relevant. If the US had decided to ally with the Nazis in World War II, what then? Oh, it didn't happen? But what if, huh?
If the US became a worse option for Canada than Russia, none of this discussion would be relevant. For one thing, Putin wouldn't be running Russia. And the US would be a very different place as well. Either that or Canada would have to have been overrun by an incredibly anti-American streak that doesn't really seem natural in the country right now.
The Monroe doctrine is important, but it is currently nothing like what Mearsheimer claims Ukraine owes Russia, which is fealty. I can see many places where the cold-war order has gone away. Perhaps in 1983, someone like Evo Morales would not have been allowed to run Bolivia. Ortega came back to power and was not opposed by a new batch of Contras. Brazil suggested that it was friendly to Putin and was not sanctioned for it. I think the times when Latin America was dominated by a few US multinational corporations backed by the Marines have passed and now the dynamic is much more like the relationships of smaller independent countries around their larger neighbors. When we are describing what relationship Ukraine deserves with Russia in the modern world, it should be much more like the US-Mexico relationship or the US-Canada relationship than the pre-2014 Russia-Ukraine relationship.
If the US became a worse option for Canada than Russia, none of this discussion would be relevant. For one thing, Putin wouldn't be running Russia. And the US would be a very different place as well. Either that or Canada would have to have been overrun by an incredibly anti-American streak that doesn't really seem natural in the country right now.
The Monroe doctrine is important, but it is currently nothing like what Mearsheimer claims Ukraine owes Russia, which is fealty. I can see many places where the cold-war order has gone away. Perhaps in 1983, someone like Evo Morales would not have been allowed to run Bolivia. Ortega came back to power and was not opposed by a new batch of Contras. Brazil suggested that it was friendly to Putin and was not sanctioned for it. I think the times when Latin America was dominated by a few US multinational corporations backed by the Marines have passed and now the dynamic is much more like the relationships of smaller independent countries around their larger neighbors. When we are describing what relationship Ukraine deserves with Russia in the modern world, it should be much more like the US-Mexico relationship or the US-Canada relationship than the pre-2014 Russia-Ukraine relationship.
Right, but the fact is Canada wouldn't be able to get away with aligning with Russia. That's the central point here, likelihood notwithstanding. I'd point you towards the Monroe Doctrine.
The problem is, what do you do when people really really want to change geopolitical circumstances and jump over to the other alliance? Refuse their company and tell them to GTFO to abusive neighbour they're tired of? And then watch on 24/7 news channel how is it going?
if that neighbor can end life on earth, cockroaches notwithstanding, then yes, please pass the popcorn
Step by step, that neighbour will become your neighbour sooner or later ;)
What a ludicrous claim when there was a Soviet-aligned country 90 miles south of Florida for most of the cold war that the US never invaded.
Does the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by the US not count?
That was an invasion by Cubans that was covertly supported by the US, not a US invasion.
It was only a US invasion in the sense that the US entered World War II in 1939 and in the sense that the US is currently at war with Russia.
It was only a US invasion in the sense that the US entered World War II in 1939 and in the sense that the US is currently at war with Russia.
An interesting theory, but hardly comparable to what is going on in Ukraine.
Canada is not compatible with Russia, so forming a military alliance is a crazy idea.
Putin is the aggressor who has invaded an European country just because their actions did not suit him.
There are no acceptable excuses for the invasion, it's a very dangerous game he is playing as Russia cannot live with the sanctions in the long run.
At the very best he can hope to get away with an agreement that Ukraine will never join EU or NATO, and will stay neutral forever.
Even then, there is no 100% guarantee that Ukraine will not go back on that deal in the future.
Canada is not compatible with Russia, so forming a military alliance is a crazy idea.
Putin is the aggressor who has invaded an European country just because their actions did not suit him.
There are no acceptable excuses for the invasion, it's a very dangerous game he is playing as Russia cannot live with the sanctions in the long run.
At the very best he can hope to get away with an agreement that Ukraine will never join EU or NATO, and will stay neutral forever.
Even then, there is no 100% guarantee that Ukraine will not go back on that deal in the future.
It doesn't matter if it's a crazy idea or not. The US simply would not permit Canada to align with Russia and would use military force to do so, and certainly before Russia had the opportunity to station troops in Canada.
Would the Americans' actions be 'wrong' from Canada's point of view? Of course. Would they be 'right' from America's point of view? Absolutely! That's the point here. Both sides are simultaneously both right and wrong, from each other's perspectives.
Once again, it sucks, but it is how it is.
Would the Americans' actions be 'wrong' from Canada's point of view? Of course. Would they be 'right' from America's point of view? Absolutely! That's the point here. Both sides are simultaneously both right and wrong, from each other's perspectives.
Once again, it sucks, but it is how it is.
You seem to forget that the us and canada have similar ethnicity. The only difference is that the pop industry in Canada runs on a piss poor budget.
Perhaps it is, but my use of crazy was to state that a democratic USA would not invade a democratic Canada as you describe.
That only happens in cartoons.
That only happens in cartoons.
>This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America.
He seems to be saying that Russia/the US reaction is probably morally wrong, but completely expected behavior. And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration.
Yeah, it'd be great if great power politics ended. Ukraine trying to change to the US's side isn't going to end them.
He seems to be saying that Russia/the US reaction is probably morally wrong, but completely expected behavior. And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration.
Yeah, it'd be great if great power politics ended. Ukraine trying to change to the US's side isn't going to end them.
Both aspects exist, that's my only real disagreement with Mearsheimer (the significance of each is another issue.) You just laid it out in a way that he seems to refuse to in the interview, so unfortunately half the interview was the 2 guys talking past each other.
I don't think he denies both aspects exist, he spent much of the interview discussing various examples where a great power clearly acted immorally. He just knows that if he says "Russia is acting immorally" that becomes the headline and thousands of other stories will be printed saying "Mearsheimer reverses former position, denounces Russia."
That's what the two people talking past each other felt like to me. A journalist trying to force him into a sound byte that ignores his entire position.
That's what the two people talking past each other felt like to me. A journalist trying to force him into a sound byte that ignores his entire position.
> And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration
If you are trying to decide how to exert influence on how your country should react, rather than being a passive observer, the moral aspect is worth considering.
If you are merely a passive observer, you aren't worth considering.
If you are trying to decide how to exert influence on how your country should react, rather than being a passive observer, the moral aspect is worth considering.
If you are merely a passive observer, you aren't worth considering.
[deleted]
"Blame"/"responsibility"/"at fault" all seem like questions with a certain natural moral slant to them. He's putting moral fault onto the US for failing to properly respect the likely immoral acts of Putin? That's ludicrous.
[deleted]
"Many Ukrainians may die in order that NATO expands, but that's a cost we, the United States of America, are prepared to pay."
/sarc
/sarc
I wonder if Ukraine should possibly get any say in the matter.
Of course, Ukraine can talk all they want (and they are).
At some point, though, boots on the ground matter more than words.
The Russians have evidently reached that point.
As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements[0], voted on unanimously by the UN (including Ukraine and Russia).
Why Ukraine chose not to live up to their written agreements is anyone's guess. In hindsight, it looks pretty stupid. It's almost like—when you don't live up to your word—people stop caring what you have to say.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
At some point, though, boots on the ground matter more than words.
The Russians have evidently reached that point.
As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements[0], voted on unanimously by the UN (including Ukraine and Russia).
Why Ukraine chose not to live up to their written agreements is anyone's guess. In hindsight, it looks pretty stupid. It's almost like—when you don't live up to your word—people stop caring what you have to say.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
Weird classification of Ukraine not living up to the agreement therefore mainly responsible. There were accusations of cease-fire violation from both sides. This is also the conflict that brings us the phrase "Little Green Men", and later the destruction of flight MH-17. Russia has continually played a major part in escalating this conflict just has been done recently where they have gone to full-scale invasion.
> As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements
Those were the agreements that said Russia wasn't allowed to pump money and weapons into the separatist regions of Ukraine, yeah? Huh.
Well then, too bad Russia's fucking the invasion up so utterly. Whatever replaces them will be a whole lot worse for it.
Those were the agreements that said Russia wasn't allowed to pump money and weapons into the separatist regions of Ukraine, yeah? Huh.
Well then, too bad Russia's fucking the invasion up so utterly. Whatever replaces them will be a whole lot worse for it.
It's not that he's worried about being invaded tomorrow, it's that he doesn't want to let the slippery slope get started.
I don't know how old you are, but when I was young and idealistic I felt the same way you seem to. Now I see a world of grey and I can, at least a little bit, empathize with (though not condone) the Russian position here. From their perspective the West is being intentionally belligerent, and we know it.
Despite what the media and the talking heads say, the west poking the bear is not about democracy or western values. It's about power and control. And Putin is repaying us in kind. And the Ukrainians are left to pick up the pieces.
I don't know how old you are, but when I was young and idealistic I felt the same way you seem to. Now I see a world of grey and I can, at least a little bit, empathize with (though not condone) the Russian position here. From their perspective the West is being intentionally belligerent, and we know it.
Despite what the media and the talking heads say, the west poking the bear is not about democracy or western values. It's about power and control. And Putin is repaying us in kind. And the Ukrainians are left to pick up the pieces.
The point Geopolitical Realism is that it’s Realism - how things are, not how they should be.
Yes, in an ideal world countries can do whatever they want within their own borders and other countries respect that sovereignty.
But we don’t live in an ideal world.
Countries like Vietnam understand this - they cozy up to the Russians, to China, to the US. Never getting too close and never pissing anyone off too much. Always assert your sovereignty, but avoid war at all costs since you’ll never win except at Pyrrhic victory.
They recognize that we don’t live in an ideal world and act according to how things are.
Yes, in an ideal world countries can do whatever they want within their own borders and other countries respect that sovereignty.
But we don’t live in an ideal world.
Countries like Vietnam understand this - they cozy up to the Russians, to China, to the US. Never getting too close and never pissing anyone off too much. Always assert your sovereignty, but avoid war at all costs since you’ll never win except at Pyrrhic victory.
They recognize that we don’t live in an ideal world and act according to how things are.
"Putin has fucking nukes, is he seriously afraid of being invaded himself?"
He is afraid of insignificance. Once there was a great RUS empire, now there isn't. Many russians feel sad about that.
I don't to be honest, because those great empires, whether from the tsar or sowjets, were mainly known for slave conditions for most people.
He is afraid of insignificance. Once there was a great RUS empire, now there isn't. Many russians feel sad about that.
I don't to be honest, because those great empires, whether from the tsar or sowjets, were mainly known for slave conditions for most people.
After the arguable win in the Cold War, the winning party has failed to offer the better peace to Russia.
Just compare the fate of Japan in 1944 vs. 1954 and Russia in 1989 vs. Russia in 1999. It has caused an enormous traumatic syndrome in the russian society.
Just compare the fate of Japan in 1944 vs. 1954 and Russia in 1989 vs. Russia in 1999. It has caused an enormous traumatic syndrome in the russian society.
Russia could be a great friend of the west if it wanted and would be very helpful in countering China's influence. Unfortunately the Russian leadership is more interested in enriching themselves and trying to revive the the USSR.
Russia did a lot of friendly steps towards the west but never got anything in return.
Up to until 2005 (half of its existence) Russia were comliant in all its actions. Got nothing out of it.
Up to until 2005 (half of its existence) Russia were comliant in all its actions. Got nothing out of it.
This is true as well.
The russian patriots would not need the nationalism substitute so much, if they had wealth in real life.
A Ryszard Kapuściński quote from one of the sowjet people I remember:
"We might be poor, but our empire is big"
Now they are just poor, without the comfort of being part of a big empire.
The russian patriots would not need the nationalism substitute so much, if they had wealth in real life.
A Ryszard Kapuściński quote from one of the sowjet people I remember:
"We might be poor, but our empire is big"
Now they are just poor, without the comfort of being part of a big empire.
I don't think he is making any moral judgements in his analysis. It is you who are imposing your moral judgement here. He is taking a realist position here.
I don’t think the word “blaming“ describes what it’s about. Blaming doesn’t help anybody. What it is about is agency. It’s an important distinction.
Putin feels invaded from the day USSR collapsed. By countries that were annexed or controlled by USSR regaining sovereignty.
That is still actually different from what Mearsheimer is claiming - that happened much earlier than NATO expansion and recent changes in Ukraine.
NATO expansion was a natural next step after USSR dissolution. Which, according to Putin, was the biggest catastrophy of 20th century.
I get that Mearsheimer is supposed to be some kind of astute expert on this topic, but he is really embarrassing himself here. His whole argument basically rests on 3 points:
1. Russia is a great power. As such, it is effectively an automaton that must react in specific ways to external stimuli. There's no reasoning, and no morality, only stimuli and response. Thus the concept of blame and responsibility are meaningless when applied to Russia.
2. Europe and the west are not great powers. Instead they are thinking, feeling actors with a moral obligation to tiptoe around and appease great powers like Russia. Because the west are the only thinking feeling people, they're the only ones that can be responsible for anything.
3. Ukrainians are neither a great power or real people. They just need to sit there and accept whatever other actors want to do to them. Any attempt to make decisions for themselves means they deserve any bad thing that happens.
Mearsheimer's statements read like a setup to a punchline (A great power, a real human, and a useless blob walk into a bar). I appreciate that after the interviewer got over his initial shock, he started making fun of Mearsheimer with questions like "But his bombs are touching it [western Ukraine], right?" Also, "I thought you said that he was not interested in taking Kyiv" is a nice touch.
Most ridiculous of all is that Mearsheimer's defines giving improving the economy, reducing corruption, increasing political liberty, and generally improving peoples lives as "western aggression".
1. Russia is a great power. As such, it is effectively an automaton that must react in specific ways to external stimuli. There's no reasoning, and no morality, only stimuli and response. Thus the concept of blame and responsibility are meaningless when applied to Russia.
2. Europe and the west are not great powers. Instead they are thinking, feeling actors with a moral obligation to tiptoe around and appease great powers like Russia. Because the west are the only thinking feeling people, they're the only ones that can be responsible for anything.
3. Ukrainians are neither a great power or real people. They just need to sit there and accept whatever other actors want to do to them. Any attempt to make decisions for themselves means they deserve any bad thing that happens.
Mearsheimer's statements read like a setup to a punchline (A great power, a real human, and a useless blob walk into a bar). I appreciate that after the interviewer got over his initial shock, he started making fun of Mearsheimer with questions like "But his bombs are touching it [western Ukraine], right?" Also, "I thought you said that he was not interested in taking Kyiv" is a nice touch.
Most ridiculous of all is that Mearsheimer's defines giving improving the economy, reducing corruption, increasing political liberty, and generally improving peoples lives as "western aggression".
As someone from Central and Eastern Europe - blaming U.S. or 'west' is just cope mechanism for some people in the west. "If we did this or that differently Russia would not attack". Well that may be just wishful thinking. But they haven`t realized that we are sovereign countries and it is not Russian business where we want to belong. Just ours.
These so called "realists" haven`t considered one simple fact. Ukraine was attacked. Not Latvia nor Lithuania nor Estonia. What is the difference? NATO.
These so called "realists" haven`t considered one simple fact. Ukraine was attacked. Not Latvia nor Lithuania nor Estonia. What is the difference? NATO.
> Just ours.
I understand your sentiment.
The point is that in case of Ukraine the pro-russian half of the population did not want to be governed by us-installed government who started their reign by changing the language legislature in favor of the ukranian language. The anti-russian political tilt resulted in federalisation demands from the eastern regions as well as crimea which progressed into full-blown separatism (eventually supported by russia).
I believe it is quite immoral to blame Russia for supporting pro-russian separatists when the federal government installed by the US was effectively nationalistic.
I understand your sentiment.
The point is that in case of Ukraine the pro-russian half of the population did not want to be governed by us-installed government who started their reign by changing the language legislature in favor of the ukranian language. The anti-russian political tilt resulted in federalisation demands from the eastern regions as well as crimea which progressed into full-blown separatism (eventually supported by russia).
I believe it is quite immoral to blame Russia for supporting pro-russian separatists when the federal government installed by the US was effectively nationalistic.
> pro-russian half of the population
Half?! Putin's propaganda is quite effective
Half?! Putin's propaganda is quite effective
> Putin's propaganda is quite effective
It is. It is fascism and it is very effective. Frighteningly so. Twitter videos conducting interviews with Russian citizens on the streets are easy to come by. Many of them wholly support their president and his actions.
It is. It is fascism and it is very effective. Frighteningly so. Twitter videos conducting interviews with Russian citizens on the streets are easy to come by. Many of them wholly support their president and his actions.
Obviously Ukraine didn't split in two and only small parts seceded. As to how many Ukrainians were unhappy with the new government - I don't have a good estimate as I wasn't interested in Ukranian politics and might be wrong.
I would be curious to hear your version of the events.
I would be curious to hear your version of the events.
From the Kievan Rus times Ukraine has fought many times for its independence. They have fought the Russian empire, Ottoman Empire, and often joined sides with a former foe to fight off a bigger menace.
Until about ten years ago Ukraine has tried to maintain sovereignty by doing a balancing act between West and Russia - similar to what Belarus did until the recently. In 2005 I realized that balancing is impossible when Russia supported the election fraud and poisoned the western-leaning president Yushchenko.
Mearsheimer is right that the US and Europe are using Ukraine as a shield for the Western Europe. However, this aligns well with the desires of the Ukrainians - most would rather fight for independence than live oppressed under a decaying chauvinistic dictatorship. Another motivation is that Russia has long history of ethnic cleansing in the regions it captured - that includes Crimea, Western and Eastern Ukraine, and the Caucasus.
Until about ten years ago Ukraine has tried to maintain sovereignty by doing a balancing act between West and Russia - similar to what Belarus did until the recently. In 2005 I realized that balancing is impossible when Russia supported the election fraud and poisoned the western-leaning president Yushchenko.
Mearsheimer is right that the US and Europe are using Ukraine as a shield for the Western Europe. However, this aligns well with the desires of the Ukrainians - most would rather fight for independence than live oppressed under a decaying chauvinistic dictatorship. Another motivation is that Russia has long history of ethnic cleansing in the regions it captured - that includes Crimea, Western and Eastern Ukraine, and the Caucasus.
As a Lithuanian...
All the „It's the West fault“ crowd is missing the elephant in the room. What is the alternative if West did what Russia want? De-facto Iron curtain still up with tens of millions of people living under authoritarian regimes similar to Belarus and, well, Russia.
Yes, it's completely „West fault“ since they could have left us for Russia to eat for lunch. More „West faults“ please.
All the „It's the West fault“ crowd is missing the elephant in the room. What is the alternative if West did what Russia want? De-facto Iron curtain still up with tens of millions of people living under authoritarian regimes similar to Belarus and, well, Russia.
Yes, it's completely „West fault“ since they could have left us for Russia to eat for lunch. More „West faults“ please.
Ukraine stays neutral and doesn't join Russia nor NATO?
Ukraine is not neutral. Ukraine oligarchs tried to stay with Russia in 90s and due to that Ukraine missed the opportunity to join NATO when Russia was weak. Now Ukraine is in similar position as central europe in mid-90s. Striving to ally with West. Unfortunately this time Russia is stronger to try to prevent that.
In that case, would you rely on Russia to stay neutral?
Why didn’t staying neutral prevent Russia from occupying Crimea?
Why didn’t staying neutral prevent Russia from occupying Crimea?
Because the CIA backed a coup in Ukraine?
Says who?
I’m only caught up to what’s been declassified, so I had to google what you’re talking about. This [0] is a good enough answer for me: CIA involvement in 2014 is a rumor at best and Russian propaganda at worst. I like knowing what my government is up to so if you have a credible source by all means…
> The claims are coming from Putin's advisers who threatened to invade Ukraine. However, there's a problem with this stance - Ukraine protesters did not need significant funds and had very few weapons, mostly self-made Molotov cocktails, and absolutely no heavy weapons or even machine guns. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. In the meantime, no CIA agents were documented in Kiev - Russia would have advertised such evidence if there was any.
Further down:
> There was no “coup.” After about three months of protests and police violence against demonstrators, Ukrainian president Yanukovych fled the country to escape prosecution, was kicked out of his own party, and voted out of office, peacefully, by a majority of the democratically elected parliament, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The largest block of parliamentarians that voted him out were his own party members and former party members.
[0] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Uk...
I’m only caught up to what’s been declassified, so I had to google what you’re talking about. This [0] is a good enough answer for me: CIA involvement in 2014 is a rumor at best and Russian propaganda at worst. I like knowing what my government is up to so if you have a credible source by all means…
> The claims are coming from Putin's advisers who threatened to invade Ukraine. However, there's a problem with this stance - Ukraine protesters did not need significant funds and had very few weapons, mostly self-made Molotov cocktails, and absolutely no heavy weapons or even machine guns. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. In the meantime, no CIA agents were documented in Kiev - Russia would have advertised such evidence if there was any.
Further down:
> There was no “coup.” After about three months of protests and police violence against demonstrators, Ukrainian president Yanukovych fled the country to escape prosecution, was kicked out of his own party, and voted out of office, peacefully, by a majority of the democratically elected parliament, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The largest block of parliamentarians that voted him out were his own party members and former party members.
[0] https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Uk...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/ukraines-de...
In April 2014 the CIA director was in Kiev, immediately after the coup.
Additionally, federal law prohibits diplomacy with governments who came to power via coups, yet we were engaging in diplomacy immediately after it happened.
In April 2014 the CIA director was in Kiev, immediately after the coup.
Additionally, federal law prohibits diplomacy with governments who came to power via coups, yet we were engaging in diplomacy immediately after it happened.
Thanks for the link, I do want to understand this perspective.
The article makes some claims I'm skeptical of
> Obama administration-backed coup that toppled a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv.
I haven't seen any material evidence of how the coup was backed by America. Obviously it wouldn't be the first time, but I see this stated as fact when it's little more than he-said she-said.
> Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994 in exchange for U.S. security guarantees in the event its neighbors, Russia in particular, turned hostile.
It was never Ukraine's arsenal, it was USSR leftovers, the launch codes were in Moscow. Further, this "in exchange" is without citation. The Budapest agreement is short and sweet, we (UK/USA/Rus) promise not to attack Ukraine, we promise to come to her aide in the event of nuclear war. It is not a defence pact, and the only nation in violation is Russia.
And look, I was born in 1990, I am not a political scientist nor historian. I just don't take Putin's word on any of this. I don't know how federal law applies to international relations, but saying USA somehow holds itself back from diplomacy with post-coup-power is laughable to me given how many coups we instigated and then normalized relations (I am not beyond recognizing USA as the bad guy, but coup is a somewhat intersubjective notion outside of military juntas). What law is this?
The article makes some claims I'm skeptical of
> Obama administration-backed coup that toppled a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv.
I haven't seen any material evidence of how the coup was backed by America. Obviously it wouldn't be the first time, but I see this stated as fact when it's little more than he-said she-said.
> Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994 in exchange for U.S. security guarantees in the event its neighbors, Russia in particular, turned hostile.
It was never Ukraine's arsenal, it was USSR leftovers, the launch codes were in Moscow. Further, this "in exchange" is without citation. The Budapest agreement is short and sweet, we (UK/USA/Rus) promise not to attack Ukraine, we promise to come to her aide in the event of nuclear war. It is not a defence pact, and the only nation in violation is Russia.
And look, I was born in 1990, I am not a political scientist nor historian. I just don't take Putin's word on any of this. I don't know how federal law applies to international relations, but saying USA somehow holds itself back from diplomacy with post-coup-power is laughable to me given how many coups we instigated and then normalized relations (I am not beyond recognizing USA as the bad guy, but coup is a somewhat intersubjective notion outside of military juntas). What law is this?
[deleted]
I am all for making Poland and the Baltics a hard red-line front that we protect against Russia. But, taking Ukraine from Russia in this non-neutral manner is just wrong. We can easily hold the Polish and Baltic fronts. And, Russia can live with that too. We can then trade as usual.
> But, taking Ukraine from Russia in this non-neutral manner
Taking Ukraine from Russia? What have Russia the right to take Ukraine from (checks) Ukraine?
Taking Ukraine from Russia? What have Russia the right to take Ukraine from (checks) Ukraine?
The same "right" the US would have had with Cuba if Khrushchev didn't remove the missiles, or the same "right" the US exercises when a small country with oil ponders denominating it in a different currency.
And US was also fucking wrong. Imperialism is evil.
At the same time US supported right of self determination after WW1. That allowed many small states to pop up in eastern/central europe. Which, IMO, was the last nail in the coffin of several empires.
Agreed. You have to ask yourself though: Why is the Western media so intent on cleaning Russia's house, while vehemently denying, dutifully downplaying, the West's own squalor?
It is a truly striking example of "the beam and the mote." After we remove the beam from our own eye, I will be glad to address Russia's splinter.
It is a truly striking example of "the beam and the mote." After we remove the beam from our own eye, I will be glad to address Russia's splinter.
Coming from ex-USSR, West's issues are minuscule compared to the ones that Russia brings. I love having petty first world problems compared to what people 100km east from me deals. It's just entirely different leagues of issues.
And reading Western media, it usually downplays Russian issues and present West's much bolder than they truly are.
And reading Western media, it usually downplays Russian issues and present West's much bolder than they truly are.
What gives US the right to take Ukraine from Ukraine? Thats where the story started
> Thats where the story started
Did I miss the bit where the US invaded Ukraine in effort to take it over?
Did I miss the bit where the US invaded Ukraine in effort to take it over?
Ukraine crisis has a long history, we're only witnessing and recalling the last 40 years or so. Putin views Ukraine as a country which should not exist at all. This is a position that Stalin took almost a century ago before causing 5 millions Ukrainians to die from starvation. We have to understand this: West can not make Russia to change this view. With our without the support of West, whether Ukrainians want to join EU/NATO or not, no matter what West or Ukrainians do, Putin will never leave Ukraine or any other Brezhnev doctrine[1] countries alone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine
> This is a position that Stalin took almost a century ago before causing 5 millions Ukrainians to die from starvation.
The deliberate ethnic genocide is not universally accepted. The famine affected large areas of the USSR besides Ukraine.
The deliberate ethnic genocide is not universally accepted. The famine affected large areas of the USSR besides Ukraine.
Not to mention that Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian.
A lot of current news feels very biased, even from sources I previously found unbiased. Fortunately I was recently shared a link to John Mearsheimers 2015 YT video where he very clearly explains what has led to the current situation. In that light I now feel it's a lot easier to filter the news.
> A lot of current news feels very biased, even from sources I previously found unbiased.
I wholeheartedly agree. I feel like I could write an entire book of what it reveals about the state of Western culture. But when something is so obnoxious I try to remind myself to be especially careful about how I react. Because one of the other obnoxious things about contemporary Western culture is how partisan political sentiments are driven by spiteful contrarianism.
> he very clearly explains what has led to the current situation.
He very clearly explains his opinion, at least. Much of what he says is pretty much consensus opinion. The U.S. and Europe did push NATO expansion too aggressively. (Though that's different from saying that it was wrong to include, e.g., Latvia and Estonia, which IIRC is a claim Mearsheimer wasn't willing to state outright.) In fact, this was a moderately important point of domestic U.S. political debate which even featured in the 2008 presidential campaigns; particularly regarding ABMs in Poland.
One of the flaws in his PoV is that none of it actually justifies Russia's behavior. It makes most sense only if you conceive of Russia as a scared child, rather than a hyper rational, deliberate, realpolitik actor, which most people (until recently) consider to be Putin's M.O. It also ignores the fact that Germany, France, and even the U.K. were more restrained than the U.S., and Russia well understood that there were some bright lines those countries wouldn't cross (and the U.S. couldn't force them to cross), especially after the dust settled from the 2004 expansion that put NATO on Russia's doorstep.
Moreover, we're 6+ years on from that speech and the status quo had only further solidified. That's why Russia in 2014 and now in 2022 knew with absolute certainty that NATO would not directly intervene in its invasions of Ukraine. At most there'd be a proxy war, but that's typical Cold War realpolitik and Russia couldn't with a straight face call foul.
No observer can seriously dispute that Europe and the US had as a practical matter committed to and contented themselves with keeping Ukraine and Belarus as buffer states, at least in terms of military posture. Now, however, everything has been upended. Russia's revealed, hard irredentist ambitions has fundamentally changed the situation. If Ukraine ends up in the EU or even NATO, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because things were inexorably moving in that direction.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that just because Russia had very legitimate security grievances does not, by itself, explain or excuse the Ukraine invasion. To my ears (having studied International Politics in college and staying apprised of events over the past 25 years), Mearsheimer's speech borders on a dangerous apology of Russia and other authoritarian regimes. His factual recounting is on its face reasonable, but those facts only beg the question. The question is whether Russia was justified, according to even the most conservative, zero sum, realpolitik perspective, in invading Ukraine in 2022. The answer is a resounding, "No". Just as the answer to whether the U.S. was justified in invading and overthrowing Iraq is, "No". And in neither case were those decisions inevitable, nor does culpability lie anywhere other than with the invaders. The U.S. for its part recognized the inexcusable harm the Iraq invasion did to global and American security stability when Obama took a huge bite of humble pie (both personally and on behalf of the country) and refused to escalate in Syria. Unfortunately Putin, like Bush in 2003, has already committed Russia to carrying through an unforgivable injury to global and its own security stability.
I wholeheartedly agree. I feel like I could write an entire book of what it reveals about the state of Western culture. But when something is so obnoxious I try to remind myself to be especially careful about how I react. Because one of the other obnoxious things about contemporary Western culture is how partisan political sentiments are driven by spiteful contrarianism.
> he very clearly explains what has led to the current situation.
He very clearly explains his opinion, at least. Much of what he says is pretty much consensus opinion. The U.S. and Europe did push NATO expansion too aggressively. (Though that's different from saying that it was wrong to include, e.g., Latvia and Estonia, which IIRC is a claim Mearsheimer wasn't willing to state outright.) In fact, this was a moderately important point of domestic U.S. political debate which even featured in the 2008 presidential campaigns; particularly regarding ABMs in Poland.
One of the flaws in his PoV is that none of it actually justifies Russia's behavior. It makes most sense only if you conceive of Russia as a scared child, rather than a hyper rational, deliberate, realpolitik actor, which most people (until recently) consider to be Putin's M.O. It also ignores the fact that Germany, France, and even the U.K. were more restrained than the U.S., and Russia well understood that there were some bright lines those countries wouldn't cross (and the U.S. couldn't force them to cross), especially after the dust settled from the 2004 expansion that put NATO on Russia's doorstep.
Moreover, we're 6+ years on from that speech and the status quo had only further solidified. That's why Russia in 2014 and now in 2022 knew with absolute certainty that NATO would not directly intervene in its invasions of Ukraine. At most there'd be a proxy war, but that's typical Cold War realpolitik and Russia couldn't with a straight face call foul.
No observer can seriously dispute that Europe and the US had as a practical matter committed to and contented themselves with keeping Ukraine and Belarus as buffer states, at least in terms of military posture. Now, however, everything has been upended. Russia's revealed, hard irredentist ambitions has fundamentally changed the situation. If Ukraine ends up in the EU or even NATO, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because things were inexorably moving in that direction.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that just because Russia had very legitimate security grievances does not, by itself, explain or excuse the Ukraine invasion. To my ears (having studied International Politics in college and staying apprised of events over the past 25 years), Mearsheimer's speech borders on a dangerous apology of Russia and other authoritarian regimes. His factual recounting is on its face reasonable, but those facts only beg the question. The question is whether Russia was justified, according to even the most conservative, zero sum, realpolitik perspective, in invading Ukraine in 2022. The answer is a resounding, "No". Just as the answer to whether the U.S. was justified in invading and overthrowing Iraq is, "No". And in neither case were those decisions inevitable, nor does culpability lie anywhere other than with the invaders. The U.S. for its part recognized the inexcusable harm the Iraq invasion did to global and American security stability when Obama took a huge bite of humble pie (both personally and on behalf of the country) and refused to escalate in Syria. Unfortunately Putin, like Bush in 2003, has already committed Russia to carrying through an unforgivable injury to global and its own security stability.
> One of the flaws in his PoV is that none of it actually justifies Russia's behavior.
He seems unable to assign blame to Russia/Putin
> It makes most sense only if you conceive of Russia as a scared child,
It comes over as appeasement- with mentions of “poking in the eye” - as if it were a bear
He seems unable to assign blame to Russia/Putin
> It makes most sense only if you conceive of Russia as a scared child,
It comes over as appeasement- with mentions of “poking in the eye” - as if it were a bear
The reasons for Russia's hyperagression are simple and stated by Putin himself - he sees it as reacting to an existential threat. Right now US can't do a preemptive nuclear strike without retaliation. If military bases pop up in Ukraine the russians will have no chance to react. And US knows it and has been actively involved in Ukraine's affairs for a decade and now Ukrainians are paying the price. Putin will "watch the world burn" before it sees Ukr fall into US sfere of influence. And the worst part is that Putin can't win. Ukrainians are already against Russia the same as afghani people hate the US liberators. Putin's country and army will get increasingly depleted until there will be no other options left on the table. If this war takes more than six months we're going to see some beautiful mushroom clouds. P.S. I don't think the cockroaches are going to care who's to blame for the anihilation of our species.
This is a bullshit argument. US could do nuclear submarine strike as close to Russia's shores as they wanted. Or from Latvia or Estonia.
Ground-based hypersonics and right-wing neo-fascist terrorist groups right on your border are not threat you can respond to quickly enough.
> I try to remind myself to be especially careful about how I react
This is good advice and possibly a fault on my part. Coming from a deep frustration about not being able to make sense of current news, then finding out about Mearsheimer, it is very easy to see it as the truth.
> One of the flaws in his PoV is that none of it actually justifies Russia's behavior
I am not looking to find justifications. What happens in Ukraine is awful. There are no excuses.
What is the problem is that I (as Danish person) feel a great injustice has been seeded by the West and that no European politician now takes that responsibility upon them. On the contrary, they only repeat the narrative that this is the fault of Russia and, obviously, Putin.
That's probably what should be expected during times of war. Answering the "why?" is very difficult without the historical background and the interpretations from people like yourself.
This is good advice and possibly a fault on my part. Coming from a deep frustration about not being able to make sense of current news, then finding out about Mearsheimer, it is very easy to see it as the truth.
> One of the flaws in his PoV is that none of it actually justifies Russia's behavior
I am not looking to find justifications. What happens in Ukraine is awful. There are no excuses.
What is the problem is that I (as Danish person) feel a great injustice has been seeded by the West and that no European politician now takes that responsibility upon them. On the contrary, they only repeat the narrative that this is the fault of Russia and, obviously, Putin.
That's probably what should be expected during times of war. Answering the "why?" is very difficult without the historical background and the interpretations from people like yourself.
You're not losing your mind. You are not out of line either. The media is pushing just 1 primary narrative. Period. We are being used as geopolitical pawns.
Rather than filtering from one perspective like Mearsheimers I find it interesting to see what both sides argue. But from the Russian side you get stuff like
>Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov set out Russia’s objectives in the Eastern European nation.
>“After the 2014 coup d’état, Ukraine has become influenced by Nazi ideology. We want to free her from this ideology,” he claimed.
Which doesn't really make sense with a democratically elected jewish former comedian being president. (thats from https://www.rt.com/russia/551294-kremlin-goal-ukraine-offens...)
>Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov set out Russia’s objectives in the Eastern European nation.
>“After the 2014 coup d’état, Ukraine has become influenced by Nazi ideology. We want to free her from this ideology,” he claimed.
Which doesn't really make sense with a democratically elected jewish former comedian being president. (thats from https://www.rt.com/russia/551294-kremlin-goal-ukraine-offens...)
> Which doesn't really make sense with a democratically elected jewish former comedian being president. (thats from https://www.rt.com/russia/551294-kremlin-goal-ukraine-offens...)
Is racism in America gone because we had a black POTUS?
Zelenskyy is backed by an oligarch who funds right-wing neo-fascist groups.
Dig deeper.
Is racism in America gone because we had a black POTUS?
Zelenskyy is backed by an oligarch who funds right-wing neo-fascist groups.
Dig deeper.
> We should be pivoting out of Europe to deal with China in a laser-like fashion, number one. And, number two, we should be working overtime to create friendly relations with the Russians. The Russians are part of our balancing coalition against China. If you live in a world where there are three great powers—China, Russia, and the United States—and one of those great powers, China, is a peer competitor, what you want to do if you’re the United States is have Russia on your side of the ledger. Instead, what we have done with our foolish policies in Eastern Europe is drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. This is a violation of Balance of Power Politics 101.
This is the part that confuses me about recent American foreign policy. This line of reasoning seems so blatantly clear that I don't understand why we have consistently adopted such hawkish policies against Russia. We have allies that do stuff that is at least as sketchy, morally and legally, as what we accuse Russia of doing, so why have we made Russia an enemy?
This is the part that confuses me about recent American foreign policy. This line of reasoning seems so blatantly clear that I don't understand why we have consistently adopted such hawkish policies against Russia. We have allies that do stuff that is at least as sketchy, morally and legally, as what we accuse Russia of doing, so why have we made Russia an enemy?
Good question.
The answer is the inertial of interest groups. US had put its weight on every corner of the society to demonize Russia, cut off every economic tie over 70 years, while done the exact opposite towards China. According to what I've read, a majority of members of congress and senate have business connections with China back in 2018 (80%? I don't remember the exact number). Never mention the bad images lasting forever in the entertainment(mass brain wash) industry.
Inside of the government, there have been piles of research papers, plans, and millions of man-year brain power accumulated on screwing Russia, it's cheap, reliable, achievable and efficient to just follow what old hands had envisioned.
For great powers, it's painful to conduct strategic adjustment. In authoritarian countries, it's mostly done through cold blooded purge. In liberal democracy, it's often the mass propaganda campaign with helps of God sent PR events, under extraordinary leadership, which believe or not, is not what elected are good at.
The answer is the inertial of interest groups. US had put its weight on every corner of the society to demonize Russia, cut off every economic tie over 70 years, while done the exact opposite towards China. According to what I've read, a majority of members of congress and senate have business connections with China back in 2018 (80%? I don't remember the exact number). Never mention the bad images lasting forever in the entertainment(mass brain wash) industry.
Inside of the government, there have been piles of research papers, plans, and millions of man-year brain power accumulated on screwing Russia, it's cheap, reliable, achievable and efficient to just follow what old hands had envisioned.
For great powers, it's painful to conduct strategic adjustment. In authoritarian countries, it's mostly done through cold blooded purge. In liberal democracy, it's often the mass propaganda campaign with helps of God sent PR events, under extraordinary leadership, which believe or not, is not what elected are good at.
Could we actually forge a tight alliance with Russia, while maintaining our alliances in western Europe?
In strictly political terms, I'll side with Germany, France, UK, etc. which all have bigger GDP's than Russia.
In strictly political terms, I'll side with Germany, France, UK, etc. which all have bigger GDP's than Russia.
In recent geo-politics, we have generally pushed Europe away from Russia, rather than the other way around.
Because people in central-eastern europe keep making noise about Russia's actions. Can't they just shut up and let Russia take advantage of them?
I took a number of classes with Mearshiemer in college. He's right on many things, wrong on others. In this case, he's right that NATO expansion at least contributed to the current situation, but I think he's wrong in undervaluing the great increases in peace and prosperity that have been gained in those countries that did join NATO.
He is wrong, eastern Europe countries joined NATO because they were scared of Russia, and they were right, Russia has a long history of invasions.
His answer always seems to be, "No it's all a big political game, that's the only lens from which we can view this." The politics may be the most important thing from a geopolitical perspective, but they aren't the only thing.
The best question to ask those who are on a fence... Would Russia attack Ukraine if it was a NATO member? :)
Maybe Russia should just join NATO.
This would require Russia to change in a lot of ways from how Putin runs things, but who would that be bad for, really?
This would require Russia to change in a lot of ways from how Putin runs things, but who would that be bad for, really?
> Maybe Russia should just join NATO.
Putin asked Bill Clinton about this in 2000; was rebuffed.
Putin asked Bill Clinton about this in 2000; was rebuffed.
Cannot remember the US general defining the purpose of the NATO as below:
"Keeping the US in, the Russia out and the Germany down"
"Keeping the US in, the Russia out and the Germany down"
> Putin asked Bill Clinton about this in 2000; was rebuffed.
This is misleading. Russia was admitted to the NATO Partnership for Peace, an onramp to membership, before Putin came to power. What Putin asked for, and was rebuffed on, was to skip the political, military compatibility, etc. readiness process then being required of aspiring members and be directly admitted.
This is misleading. Russia was admitted to the NATO Partnership for Peace, an onramp to membership, before Putin came to power. What Putin asked for, and was rebuffed on, was to skip the political, military compatibility, etc. readiness process then being required of aspiring members and be directly admitted.
Was that Russia more consistent with Western values than now? https://time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/ Here's a Dutch ex-NATO Secretary General saying Russia would have to change quite a bit.
[deleted]
Maybe rather the EU instead of NATO?
It would be bad for China.
People in the US have a hard time having an intelligent discussion about subjects like this because of the "Well it's different when the US does it". John is right about all of this for sure:
> Right, but saying that America will not allow countries in the Western hemisphere, most of them democracies, to decide what kind of foreign policy they have—you can say that’s good or bad, but that is imperialism, right? We’re essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business.
> We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave.
> Of course we did, but I’m wondering if we should be behaving that way. When we’re thinking about foreign policies, should we be thinking about trying to create a world where neither the U.S. nor Russia is behaving that way?
> That’s not the way the world works.
What is unsaid is does the world HAVE to behave this way? Are humans capable of cooperation beyond petty short-sighted resource grabs? If the US ceased it's imperial ambitions, and all discrimination and capitalist exploitation ended, would we be able to build a harmonious society where we cooperate on prosperity?
Up until the COVID pandemic, I would have said yes. In spite of religion, capitalism, communism, genocide, or the entire history of the world, the human capacity for empathy and adaptability is strong enough that we could build a utopia.
I genuinely believed this until I saw 21st century internet-connected individuals politicize the science of virology, immunology, and epidemiology. When I realized people - MANY people - genuinely valued their own discomfort of wearing a mask over the safety and LIVES of others. When I realized that Alan Moore was actually too optimistic during the ending of The Watchmen.
> Right, but saying that America will not allow countries in the Western hemisphere, most of them democracies, to decide what kind of foreign policy they have—you can say that’s good or bad, but that is imperialism, right? We’re essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business.
> We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave.
> Of course we did, but I’m wondering if we should be behaving that way. When we’re thinking about foreign policies, should we be thinking about trying to create a world where neither the U.S. nor Russia is behaving that way?
> That’s not the way the world works.
What is unsaid is does the world HAVE to behave this way? Are humans capable of cooperation beyond petty short-sighted resource grabs? If the US ceased it's imperial ambitions, and all discrimination and capitalist exploitation ended, would we be able to build a harmonious society where we cooperate on prosperity?
Up until the COVID pandemic, I would have said yes. In spite of religion, capitalism, communism, genocide, or the entire history of the world, the human capacity for empathy and adaptability is strong enough that we could build a utopia.
I genuinely believed this until I saw 21st century internet-connected individuals politicize the science of virology, immunology, and epidemiology. When I realized people - MANY people - genuinely valued their own discomfort of wearing a mask over the safety and LIVES of others. When I realized that Alan Moore was actually too optimistic during the ending of The Watchmen.
> What is unsaid is does the world HAVE to behave this way? Are humans capable of cooperation beyond petty short-sighted resource grabs? If the US ceased it's imperial ambitions, and all discrimination and capitalist exploitation ended, would we be able to build a harmonious society where we cooperate on prosperity?
Because unfortunately fear is pretty much our biggest driver as a species. So many of these unforgivable actions are done in varyingly twisted degrees of self-interest to protect our 'national interests' or our 'way of life', big country or small.
Because unfortunately fear is pretty much our biggest driver as a species. So many of these unforgivable actions are done in varyingly twisted degrees of self-interest to protect our 'national interests' or our 'way of life', big country or small.
This is so subjective... do you believe every person deserves freedom? Or are you happy with accepting that some parts may never have them, because whatever reasons, maybe to get the emotion of extra security, however temporary it may be? Answers might make you lean in this topic to each side.
I am never too far from blaming US fuckups in past decades, be it Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and maybe some more. But I still struggle to find any meaningful reason to accept freedom denial to a country who is fighting so hard to retain it, against clear, completely amoral and frankly abhorrent aggressor. Just because Russia has nukes? Well then we can always back away from any conflict... till we have nowhere to back and they are stronger, bolder and more numerous than we can handle.
Russia has been asking for this for a long time. They are meddling in internal politics, in many cases very openly, for past 20 years. One example out of many - blowing up munition depot in Czech republic very openly, laughing at any investigations. Trump is a topic on its own. And every single time, without exception, they were/are the force of evil. Force of death, corruption in many ways.
So, if we stand up this one time, I believe it will have huge consequences for decades to come. It can show other bullies where are the lines that shouldn't be crossed. Otherwise, there are no lines, and psychopaths in power can do whatever they want, wherever they want. And for sure they will just like now.
I am never too far from blaming US fuckups in past decades, be it Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and maybe some more. But I still struggle to find any meaningful reason to accept freedom denial to a country who is fighting so hard to retain it, against clear, completely amoral and frankly abhorrent aggressor. Just because Russia has nukes? Well then we can always back away from any conflict... till we have nowhere to back and they are stronger, bolder and more numerous than we can handle.
Russia has been asking for this for a long time. They are meddling in internal politics, in many cases very openly, for past 20 years. One example out of many - blowing up munition depot in Czech republic very openly, laughing at any investigations. Trump is a topic on its own. And every single time, without exception, they were/are the force of evil. Force of death, corruption in many ways.
So, if we stand up this one time, I believe it will have huge consequences for decades to come. It can show other bullies where are the lines that shouldn't be crossed. Otherwise, there are no lines, and psychopaths in power can do whatever they want, wherever they want. And for sure they will just like now.
Instinctively it makes sense that Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorsteps, but at the same time, why not? He already has NATO in the Baltics, and it's not like NATO would try to invade Russia just because they are neighbours. They are showing now very clearly that they are not interested in a conflict with Russia.
Sure I understand it's not black and white, but NATO is already the stronger party, by far, so what does it REALLY matter if they put up some more bases nearby?
Sure I understand it's not black and white, but NATO is already the stronger party, by far, so what does it REALLY matter if they put up some more bases nearby?
I don't believe this is about NATO.
What Putin does not want is Ukraine as a democratic state where a president loses an election and steps down peacefully. Ukraine is "small Russia" and Russians could start asking questions.
What Putin does not want is Ukraine as a democratic state where a president loses an election and steps down peacefully. Ukraine is "small Russia" and Russians could start asking questions.
That's exactly what McFaul suggested, and it's frankly absurd. Putin is quite popular, even my modern, non-Putinist friends in Moscow think he would win a fair election. Besides, he never lost an election, it's not that he lost and stayed on, that's not the issue.
And every one already knows that there are democratic countries, it's not like Russians would suddenly stage a coup because Ukraine has a fair election. Which they won't have any time soon, by the way. Ukraine is more corrupt than Russia.
And every one already knows that there are democratic countries, it's not like Russians would suddenly stage a coup because Ukraine has a fair election. Which they won't have any time soon, by the way. Ukraine is more corrupt than Russia.
You wrong on all accounts.
Putin has never had fair elections in the first place. He was appointed first and ran as an incumbent already. He never held a single public debate with any of his opponents. He never faced a single opposition TV channel. Shutting down TV was his first term agenda. He never faced a single popular opposition leader competition, because they've been always excluded from elections in the first place.
And no, Ukraine rates better than Russia in corruption. Not saying Ukraine is a true democracy, which means the power was passed to opposition multiple times.
Putin has never had fair elections in the first place. He was appointed first and ran as an incumbent already. He never held a single public debate with any of his opponents. He never faced a single opposition TV channel. Shutting down TV was his first term agenda. He never faced a single popular opposition leader competition, because they've been always excluded from elections in the first place.
And no, Ukraine rates better than Russia in corruption. Not saying Ukraine is a true democracy, which means the power was passed to opposition multiple times.
I’m saying he probably WOULD win a hypothetical fair election. Or rather, that even my non-Putinist friends think so. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?
Even this brutal war on a brother nation has popular support according to surveys https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/08/russia-publi.... Presumably Putin is not less popular than this.
Even this brutal war on a brother nation has popular support according to surveys https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/08/russia-publi.... Presumably Putin is not less popular than this.
Since it is now Putin's stated goal to annex Ukraine, he's going to end up with more NATO states on his doorstep if he wins this war. So is he going to demand that Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia renounce their membership next?
Last I read he explicitly said that this was not his goal. When did he say that?
This Thursday, apparently: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/ukraine-russia-evening-...
And if you don't trust secondhand reports of a phone call between him & Macron, there is also a public statement today to similar effect, though couched in "look what you might make me do" rhetoric: https://news.yahoo.com/putin-warns-ukraine-might-lose-160156...
And if you don't trust secondhand reports of a phone call between him & Macron, there is also a public statement today to similar effect, though couched in "look what you might make me do" rhetoric: https://news.yahoo.com/putin-warns-ukraine-might-lose-160156...
I mean sure he's planning to "seize all of Ukraine", but I don't think he wanted to make Ukraine a federal subject, at least originally. My theory was always that he wanted to capture Ukraine to force a very favourable (for him) peace agreement, install a loyal regime, keep Crimea, give independence to the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, with borders corresponding to the oblasts, and then leave. Possibly make the republics federal subjects of Russia.
The statehood threat actually strengthens my belief, it sounds like he will only annihilate Ukraine unless they give up soon. If he was planning to do that anyway, the threat makes less sense.
But of course I'm just guessing.
The statehood threat actually strengthens my belief, it sounds like he will only annihilate Ukraine unless they give up soon. If he was planning to do that anyway, the threat makes less sense.
But of course I'm just guessing.
The journalist, Isaac Chotiner, thinks he's a lot smarter and in better command of history than John Mearsheimer. That's really annoying.
I agree - it was abundantly clear Isaac wanted to push the prevailing narrative, had no interest in alternative perspectives, and wanted to score some smartypants points in the process.
Mearsheimer sounded cogent and intelligent, and I think he made some very interesting points.
His article from 2014 seems like it could have been written this week with how prescient it is: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
Mearsheimer sounded cogent and intelligent, and I think he made some very interesting points.
His article from 2014 seems like it could have been written this week with how prescient it is: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
Woah. If you want to read one article to better understand what's going on, this is it.
It's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism. This article shows where and why.
It also shows how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints.
It's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism. This article shows where and why.
It also shows how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints.
It sure sounds edgy to say things like "how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints" and "it's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism". And certainly, people should seek to understand different perspectives that clash with their own assumptions.
But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects.
Coming from the Western world, this is called tyranny. And it's on proud display in the wanton destruction of civilian targets in Ukraine. The effects on the people don't matter - the subjugation of them is the priority. Is it any wonder that the further east you go in Europe, the more people suffered under the USSR, the stronger the support for Ukraine is? One generation later, and we have Ukrainians from all walks of life taking up arms in defense of their individual liberties - the young because they've known nothing else, and the old so that their children never have to know.
Despite using plenty of normative language, the only moral contribution of articles like this is illustrating that freedom is an aberration that needs defending. There are moral concepts worth fighting for, and Western liberalism is one of them. As my grandmother often said, "they don't know how good they have it in this country".
But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects.
Coming from the Western world, this is called tyranny. And it's on proud display in the wanton destruction of civilian targets in Ukraine. The effects on the people don't matter - the subjugation of them is the priority. Is it any wonder that the further east you go in Europe, the more people suffered under the USSR, the stronger the support for Ukraine is? One generation later, and we have Ukrainians from all walks of life taking up arms in defense of their individual liberties - the young because they've known nothing else, and the old so that their children never have to know.
Despite using plenty of normative language, the only moral contribution of articles like this is illustrating that freedom is an aberration that needs defending. There are moral concepts worth fighting for, and Western liberalism is one of them. As my grandmother often said, "they don't know how good they have it in this country".
>But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects.
That's not what Mearsheimer said in the article:
>One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.
That's not what Mearsheimer said in the article:
>One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.
How does that passage disagree with what I said? By my reading, he acknowledges it only to write it off.
The problem isn't the "realist" analysis itself. It's that such analysis is being held up as a one-sided normative description to affect the actions of the larger might-makes-might of US/NATO. Applying the same standard to both - either we judge the moral merits of Ukrainian self-determination vs Russian conquering or EU/NATO is right to expand simply because they have the might to.
The problem isn't the "realist" analysis itself. It's that such analysis is being held up as a one-sided normative description to affect the actions of the larger might-makes-might of US/NATO. Applying the same standard to both - either we judge the moral merits of Ukrainian self-determination vs Russian conquering or EU/NATO is right to expand simply because they have the might to.
I thought it was great because it ended up being a debate about the different positions, rather than simply presenting Mearsheimer’s viewpoint. In the end I disagreed with both of their stances, and I felt much more informed on the potential weakness in the mainstream interpretation of current events.
Agreed, I think Chotiner was simply not being politely deferential, as has become the custom for interviews in many US media outlets. It reads to me much more like the modern custom in UK/EU media where interviewers are expected to challenge, at least to some extent, the interviewee's salient arguments. This can come across as somewhat rude, but I much prefer it to the alternative, which is that interviews become carte blanche opportunities for influential people to push unfounded assertions directly into the news stream.
Not really. He lets Mearsheimer himself get into a knot where he rebrands imperialism into “great power politics”.
Mearsheimer and other geopolitical overthinkers are in a fantasy where small countries should have or have no will of their own and would never choose to reorient to liberal democracy without USA forcing it on them no matter how much more attractive EU is than being a Russian vassal
You mistake saying 'how something is' with approving of it. Pragmatism is an essential part of diplomacy, without it you quickly discover how essential it is. This is no fantasy, this is reality, as frustrating as that may be.
I don't know, every time I hear these realist pragmatists they seem to me to be ignoring the reality in favor of their theories. NATO's growth, if you believe Eastern Europeans, is because they didn't want to be pressured by Russia. But since it doesn't fit the framework, what they say is ignored and instead it's all an overstepping power play from the USA
I've seen a bit of twitter chatter from international relations people about this article. Most of them are fairly dismissive of Mearshiemer's position---I've seen the phrase "stuck in the 1815 world" of colonial powers used repeatedly.
One substantive issue that I have seen is that he discounts nationalism; it seems like Ukrainians are rather attached to their independence.
One that I haven't seen much about in the nuclear non-proliferation issue: if the existence of a country without nukes is predicated on the whims of one with them, every country is strongly incentivized to develop them.
As for me, a little bit of my heart belongs to his book, Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.
One substantive issue that I have seen is that he discounts nationalism; it seems like Ukrainians are rather attached to their independence.
One that I haven't seen much about in the nuclear non-proliferation issue: if the existence of a country without nukes is predicated on the whims of one with them, every country is strongly incentivized to develop them.
As for me, a little bit of my heart belongs to his book, Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.
>seems like Ukrainians are rather attached to their independence.
It's not only independence. They want to live in county that one day might aspire to western standard of life and freedom, and not to live in county where wrong word puts you inside prison for 15 years.
It's not only independence. They want to live in county that one day might aspire to western standard of life and freedom, and not to live in county where wrong word puts you inside prison for 15 years.
The field of international politics has been embarrassingly primitive to the degree that "The end of history" is a work of a serious scholar. Luckily we still have Mearsheimer, Walt and the old school of realpolitik.
I think Mearsheimer intentionally ignores the facts that "power corrupts, great power corrupts greatly", so that he doesn't need to address the annoying abnormalities that great powers fall eventually, and the incoming fall of USA sooner or later, even if the `blob` gets all the strategic decisions right. After all, the blackboxes of great powers would mess up from inside.
I think Mearsheimer intentionally ignores the facts that "power corrupts, great power corrupts greatly", so that he doesn't need to address the annoying abnormalities that great powers fall eventually, and the incoming fall of USA sooner or later, even if the `blob` gets all the strategic decisions right. After all, the blackboxes of great powers would mess up from inside.
Mearsheimer thinks that the United States would have benefited from allying themselves with Russia and the post-Soviet states (under Russian influence) against China.
I think that it's still Russia's fault for using a stick and not having a carrot. The United States, China, the European Union or even Saudi Arabia are influential because of their economy, and not because of their military or democracy.
I think that it's still Russia's fault for using a stick and not having a carrot. The United States, China, the European Union or even Saudi Arabia are influential because of their economy, and not because of their military or democracy.
> I think that it's still Russia's fault for using a stick and not having a carrot.
I agree. But saudi gets away with ironing Yemen just because it's an US ally not because it's influential by itself
I agree. But saudi gets away with ironing Yemen just because it's an US ally not because it's influential by itself
Yes they are influential. Even leaving aside torture the Saudi people have higher standards of living than Yemen.
>Mearsheimer thinks that the United States would have benefited from allying themselves with Russia
Why do we need Russia? Their GDP is smaller than Italy's.
Why do we need Russia? Their GDP is smaller than Italy's.
Mearsheimer has this annoying tendency to switch between two completely different claims: (a) that the west caused this crisis in a billiard balls sort of way, x leading to y leading to z, and (b) that the west is culpable for this crisis. Yes, obviously NATO expansion and EU overtures to Ukraine must've upset Putin and that may have played a role in all of this, but unless we think that it's reasonable for Russia to dictate to other countries which alliances to form and what kind of politics to pursue, then there's no moral responsibility for the outcome. So which is it then, did we not pay attention to Russia's "legitimate security concerns" or did we not pay attention to their illegitimate "great-power politics"?
> unless we think that it's reasonable for Russia to dictate to other countries which alliances to form and what kind of politics to pursue
If by "we" you mean the US, then absolutely, that's what "we" think—hence the crippling sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba in our own sphere of influence for exactly the same reasons.
All great powers do this—US, Russia, China today—and always have.
If by "we" you mean the US, then absolutely, that's what "we" think—hence the crippling sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba in our own sphere of influence for exactly the same reasons.
All great powers do this—US, Russia, China today—and always have.
People take the guilt question far too personal. Consider it this way: if you stick your finger into a nest of hornets, whom is to blame if you get hurt?
You can say the hornet (Russia) is always too blame. Or, you can acknowledge that hornets are dangerous and best not provoked. Willingly provoking them if there is the alternative of not doing that, can be considered irresponsible.
As to why Ukraine turning western is considered a provocation, there's a lot of simplistic "fatalistic madman" narratives. I found this video to be very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
It sums up a few very rational reasons that when combined, add up to a serious existential threat to Russia as a country, as a concept.
Mind you, I'm no Russia apologist, I'm just trying to understand the hornet. So far the video holds up. Putin openly expressing to Macron that he will flip Ukraine entirely. Remarks like "There is no world without Russia in it", emphasizing that this campaign is existential, not a random aggression.
You can say the hornet (Russia) is always too blame. Or, you can acknowledge that hornets are dangerous and best not provoked. Willingly provoking them if there is the alternative of not doing that, can be considered irresponsible.
As to why Ukraine turning western is considered a provocation, there's a lot of simplistic "fatalistic madman" narratives. I found this video to be very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
It sums up a few very rational reasons that when combined, add up to a serious existential threat to Russia as a country, as a concept.
Mind you, I'm no Russia apologist, I'm just trying to understand the hornet. So far the video holds up. Putin openly expressing to Macron that he will flip Ukraine entirely. Remarks like "There is no world without Russia in it", emphasizing that this campaign is existential, not a random aggression.
yes, you're Russia apologist.
I think Mearsheimer is ignoring the other aspect of the China equation, which is that China is now watching a concerted reaction of NATO and friendly powers against aggression in the Russian sphere of influence.
China would review the US/NATO response differently if the US played the old strategy of setting "red lines" and allowing them to be crossed with minimal reaction. We still have yet to see how this goes but Chinese officials who would have wanted to attack Taiwan are probably watching this play out now.
Russia has awoken a sleeping giant.
China would review the US/NATO response differently if the US played the old strategy of setting "red lines" and allowing them to be crossed with minimal reaction. We still have yet to see how this goes but Chinese officials who would have wanted to attack Taiwan are probably watching this play out now.
Russia has awoken a sleeping giant.
Whether John is right or wrong, I am personally interventioned-out. You'd think that after Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria (and any others I might have missed), people in the US would see the pattern by now. Butting into the middle of a fight between two nuclear powers doesn't seem advisable.
It's very clear that the professor thinks in terms of geopolitics, as if people didn't matter. The moment when he says that Putin won't invade the Baltics because they are in NATO but he doesn't consider it a good thing is the most telling. Well, everybody in the Baltics can tell you this is the single most important thing right now for them. This is the thin line that makes a difference between cities thriving or being bombed and the nation turned into poor vassals like Belarus.
Context:
Chatham House - Mathieu Boulègue clarifies Mearsheimer mythmaking https://youtu.be/4nZdP7eF9rM?t=2205
They do both talk past each other quite a bit, which is annoying as I do think Mearsheimer has some good input on the subject.
Is he just casually talking about toppling democracies and installing autocratic leaders in nations around the globe for the benefit of America? I thought the US was past that phase, and I suppose if this guy is angry that they're not following his advice and doing it, then maybe they are.
> Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014
"Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe," -- presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, 2012
> Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014
"Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe," -- presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, 2012
I think we are in danger of applying the wrong lesson from history.
People today say you cannot be a "Putin apologizer", or that looking for reasons for Putin's behavior was a form of "appeasement".
People who say these things believe they have learned from history. They look back at Hitler in 1938. Czechoslovakia. Austria. And, finally, Poland. They look back at England and France, who, not wanting to risk war, sought ways to "appease" Hitler. And by doing that, they lost valuable time and allowed Hitler to grow stronger, making the situation much worse for the world.
Now, people are drawing the conclusion: "You should never try to appease a dictator!"
But I'd argue that this is the wrong conclusion.
What backfired back then is not that England and France tried to appease Hitler. What backfired was that the leaders of England and France grotesquely misread Hitler and his goals.
Their mistake was not that they tried to understand Hitler's motives. Rather, their mistake was precisely that they failed to accurately understand his motives.
This is why the English public finally turned to Churchill. Because Churchill actually "got" Hitler. He had formed an accurate mental model of Hitler's motives.
Did that make Churchill into a "Hitler apologist"? Not at all. Instead, it allowed him to accurately predict Hitler's next moves. It allowed him to predict that making territorial concessions to this man would never help to guarantee peace long-term.
Churchill was actually one of the few European leaders who had troubled to read "Mein Kampf". He also read the books written by Sebastian Haffner, a German who had chronicled his life under Hitler from inside Germany.
When I see people today saying they cannot stand Putin, and therefore they don't want to hear what he says, because it's all lies and propaganda anyway, it worries me. Because even if Putin was a Hitler 2.0 (which is very doubtful, since History rarely repeats itself and reasoning by analogy often leads to spectacular failures) it would mean that we should pay even more careful attention to his motives, and not less. We should pay even more careful attention on the outside contingencies and the mental frameworks that drive Putin's actions, and not less.
Nietzsche has said, "If you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you."
And it almost seems that people are afraid of precisely that. They almost think that by not acknowledging a thing they don't like, it will go away. Those who have been warning about a war in Ukraine have correctly pointed out that this strategy will not only not work, but that it will backfire.
So the true lesson from 1938 is not that one should "never negotiate with dictators". The true lesson is that you have to make an effort to face the other party's viewpoint. To make an effort to understand the true motives, without any fear of what you might find.
That includes the fear of finding out that your own behavior might have contributed to the status quo. You need to let go of your comforting beliefs -- that things will "sort themselves out", that it's "just the other party's fault", that there's "nothing to learn or understand" because you already know exactly what the other party is really after, etc..
What made Churchill great, in my view, is that he was able to overcome all of those comforting beliefs. People respected him because he would tell them not what they would have liked to hear, but what they needed to know.
I think this is very, very different from what we're seeing today from our own leaders. They are posturing. They claim that the inconvenient truth is that "Putin is worse than we thought", and that the necessary sanctions will require "sacrifices from all of us". They try to sound like a Churchill. But they make no effort to be one. They imitate the outside posture, but they totally miss the inner essence.
Scholz said it best. He said to Putin during that recent press conference (and I'm paraphrasing), "What do you care about Ukraine and NATO? It's not going to happen anytime during our terms of office anyway".
That isn't Churchill. That's Chamberlain.
People today say you cannot be a "Putin apologizer", or that looking for reasons for Putin's behavior was a form of "appeasement".
People who say these things believe they have learned from history. They look back at Hitler in 1938. Czechoslovakia. Austria. And, finally, Poland. They look back at England and France, who, not wanting to risk war, sought ways to "appease" Hitler. And by doing that, they lost valuable time and allowed Hitler to grow stronger, making the situation much worse for the world.
Now, people are drawing the conclusion: "You should never try to appease a dictator!"
But I'd argue that this is the wrong conclusion.
What backfired back then is not that England and France tried to appease Hitler. What backfired was that the leaders of England and France grotesquely misread Hitler and his goals.
Their mistake was not that they tried to understand Hitler's motives. Rather, their mistake was precisely that they failed to accurately understand his motives.
This is why the English public finally turned to Churchill. Because Churchill actually "got" Hitler. He had formed an accurate mental model of Hitler's motives.
Did that make Churchill into a "Hitler apologist"? Not at all. Instead, it allowed him to accurately predict Hitler's next moves. It allowed him to predict that making territorial concessions to this man would never help to guarantee peace long-term.
Churchill was actually one of the few European leaders who had troubled to read "Mein Kampf". He also read the books written by Sebastian Haffner, a German who had chronicled his life under Hitler from inside Germany.
When I see people today saying they cannot stand Putin, and therefore they don't want to hear what he says, because it's all lies and propaganda anyway, it worries me. Because even if Putin was a Hitler 2.0 (which is very doubtful, since History rarely repeats itself and reasoning by analogy often leads to spectacular failures) it would mean that we should pay even more careful attention to his motives, and not less. We should pay even more careful attention on the outside contingencies and the mental frameworks that drive Putin's actions, and not less.
Nietzsche has said, "If you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you."
And it almost seems that people are afraid of precisely that. They almost think that by not acknowledging a thing they don't like, it will go away. Those who have been warning about a war in Ukraine have correctly pointed out that this strategy will not only not work, but that it will backfire.
So the true lesson from 1938 is not that one should "never negotiate with dictators". The true lesson is that you have to make an effort to face the other party's viewpoint. To make an effort to understand the true motives, without any fear of what you might find.
That includes the fear of finding out that your own behavior might have contributed to the status quo. You need to let go of your comforting beliefs -- that things will "sort themselves out", that it's "just the other party's fault", that there's "nothing to learn or understand" because you already know exactly what the other party is really after, etc..
What made Churchill great, in my view, is that he was able to overcome all of those comforting beliefs. People respected him because he would tell them not what they would have liked to hear, but what they needed to know.
I think this is very, very different from what we're seeing today from our own leaders. They are posturing. They claim that the inconvenient truth is that "Putin is worse than we thought", and that the necessary sanctions will require "sacrifices from all of us". They try to sound like a Churchill. But they make no effort to be one. They imitate the outside posture, but they totally miss the inner essence.
Scholz said it best. He said to Putin during that recent press conference (and I'm paraphrasing), "What do you care about Ukraine and NATO? It's not going to happen anytime during our terms of office anyway".
That isn't Churchill. That's Chamberlain.
propesh(4)
sonicggg(2)
[Removed]
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of what you're flaming. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We've had to ask you this kind of thing many times in the past.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> So America is at fault because they wanted to protect Ukraine from invasion by a foreign power?
Russia has just invaded, where is the US? Certainly not protecting Ukraine.
Pretty clear the US has no desired to protect Ukraine. They certainly could if they wanted to, right now.
What the US and her allies do have is a strong desire to hurt Russia, and they're doing a great job at that since the conflict began. But actually protecting Ukraine? No.
Russia has just invaded, where is the US? Certainly not protecting Ukraine.
Pretty clear the US has no desired to protect Ukraine. They certainly could if they wanted to, right now.
What the US and her allies do have is a strong desire to hurt Russia, and they're doing a great job at that since the conflict began. But actually protecting Ukraine? No.
Russia has declared NATO occupation of Ukraine (a natural result of defending it) an 'existential threat', which is a prelude to the use of nuclear weapons. This is a ticket it gets to punch once, at Ukraine's expense.
Notably absent from this article is any discussion of "why now?". Commenters in the thread are saying that his 2015 article on the subject could be written last week. That's precisely the issue. Why did Russia raise the stakes in December? Sure, NATO's eastward push has demonstrably increased tensions but the eastward push has been frozen since about 2014 since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts. If anything tensions should have been easing with a new, slightly more Russia friendly, German Chancellor, the nearing completion of NordStream2 and President Zelsynsky ran on a platform of improved relations with Moscow.
If you just look at the independent variables you inevitably are going to make conclusions from ideology rather than testing hypothesis. This type of article is the international relations equivalent off economists have predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions.
You can also see this weakness play out in Mearshimer's answers to journalists questions about the agency of Ukrainians in this article. He dodges the question and points to a speech from George W Bush in 2008, which was 15 years and 3 presidents ago, and prior to the current Ukrainian regime. In contrast he can't explain why the Baltics entering NATO did not trigger the same reaction. If we're going to look at history we can't ignore that these Eastern European Countries have endogenous reasons for joining NATO including the USSR and then Russia's long history of invading those countries.