Why Mearsheimer’s Realist Take Is So Exasperating(tompepinsky.com)
tompepinsky.com
Why Mearsheimer’s Realist Take Is So Exasperating
https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-realist-take-is-so-exasperating/
57 comments
Mearsheimer is not merely noting, he is criticizing and wants the West to join Russia against China with "laser focus"- that's directly from linked interview.
If that means throwing whole middle third of Europe plus Caucasus under the bus, he's apparently okay with that. Finland managed to develop under forced neutrality but that was an exception, life elsewhere between EU and Russia was pretty miserable and has led to wars before. So, western avoidance would not have won stability here either.
If that means throwing whole middle third of Europe plus Caucasus under the bus, he's apparently okay with that. Finland managed to develop under forced neutrality but that was an exception, life elsewhere between EU and Russia was pretty miserable and has led to wars before. So, western avoidance would not have won stability here either.
Life was/is pretty good in Austria as well.
> This is Mearsheimer's point; if we didn't want conflict in Europe, we should not have run toward it.
If the NATO did not expanded, Russia would had it easy to continue to expand to those theoretically non-NATO countries. There would be war - whether in Ukraine or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland. Expanded up to whatever border of NATO would be.
Mearsheimer is wrong, because he completely ignores Russian state ideology and leadership. He treats them as merely reactive, poor things without agency. Russia could have been democracy, it could have been country in which communist victims are rehabilitated or in which political opposition is not violently suppressed. That it is not so was due to choices of people who got power after 1990. And war in Ukraine is happening because of conscious choices of those exact same people.
> Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet.
You want to make it about two sides, because you want to ignore people and nations this is about. Ukraine has its own side. Eastern and Central European countries are different side then USA, although they really really want USA protection right now. And yes, existence of Ukraine as democratic independent nation was incompatible with Russian agenda of becoming USSR again. However, that is not expression of Western interests. That is expression of Ukrainian interests.
Framing them as Western interests is just weak attempt to delegitimatize them. Western countries don't care about Ukraine itself all that much, Ukrainians themselves do. Countries next to Russia and Ukraine worry about Russia expansion beyond Ukraine.
If the NATO did not expanded, Russia would had it easy to continue to expand to those theoretically non-NATO countries. There would be war - whether in Ukraine or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland. Expanded up to whatever border of NATO would be.
Mearsheimer is wrong, because he completely ignores Russian state ideology and leadership. He treats them as merely reactive, poor things without agency. Russia could have been democracy, it could have been country in which communist victims are rehabilitated or in which political opposition is not violently suppressed. That it is not so was due to choices of people who got power after 1990. And war in Ukraine is happening because of conscious choices of those exact same people.
> Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet.
You want to make it about two sides, because you want to ignore people and nations this is about. Ukraine has its own side. Eastern and Central European countries are different side then USA, although they really really want USA protection right now. And yes, existence of Ukraine as democratic independent nation was incompatible with Russian agenda of becoming USSR again. However, that is not expression of Western interests. That is expression of Ukrainian interests.
Framing them as Western interests is just weak attempt to delegitimatize them. Western countries don't care about Ukraine itself all that much, Ukrainians themselves do. Countries next to Russia and Ukraine worry about Russia expansion beyond Ukraine.
Its kind of fun he and many others have been pointing these things out for 15+ years.
And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.
And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.
Uhm, "the thing they predicted" is NATO expansion ("the heart of the strategy" in Mearsheimer's words), and the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Far from it.
CIA Director, William Burns wrote this in 2008.
Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Cart before the horse, cause before effect, really.
Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.
Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.
Of course nations should be free to choose their own path. No-one is arguing against that.
Mearsheimer argues that when the path that a country chooses comes into conflict with a great power's security interests, those interests become the overriding concern of both parties. He points out that Cuba was not allowed to ally itself with USSR with nuclear war being put on the table.
I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China to put a military base on its soil.
As a minor example consider the Solomon islands brouhaha[1].
[1]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824
Mearsheimer argues that when the path that a country chooses comes into conflict with a great power's security interests, those interests become the overriding concern of both parties. He points out that Cuba was not allowed to ally itself with USSR with nuclear war being put on the table.
I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China to put a military base on its soil.
As a minor example consider the Solomon islands brouhaha[1].
[1]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824
> I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China
The only interesting part is where this is the exact same BS talking point as from the most extreme of the pro-Russia/ "Maidan was a CIA coup" shills. e.g. (but not the only example) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756
The only interesting part is where this is the exact same BS talking point as from the most extreme of the pro-Russia/ "Maidan was a CIA coup" shills. e.g. (but not the only example) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756
And who is the "great power" in the current situation, and why do you deem them so?
>the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv.
Well no, because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. And I think that's the point of this war, from Russia's standpoint. If they wait until Ukraine is in NATO, then it's too late to prevent that from happening without WWIII.
Well no, because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. And I think that's the point of this war, from Russia's standpoint. If they wait until Ukraine is in NATO, then it's too late to prevent that from happening without WWIII.
By which I think you mean that the invasion is an effect of Ukraine's joining NATO. Even if they apply now that's very unlikely to happen before 2024, agreed? But in that case the effect comes ten years before the cause, and if the effect precedes the cause by ten years, you should consider whether another cause is more reasonable.
Well no, immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. Then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
The point of this war from Russia standpoint is that Ukraine should not exist as nation. The point is to take over Ukraine, change government to puppet one at best and then export their own autocracy there.
Then they may get ready for further expansion, as Russia has already done several times in their history. And Putin is in fact praising that history.
Then they may get ready for further expansion, as Russia has already done several times in their history. And Putin is in fact praising that history.
This is exactly why people like Mearsheimer are so important, to cut through emotional takes like this and present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions.
The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Why do you assume it is emotional rather then logical, because it does not feel as good as what Mearsheimer says?
Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years.
There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now.
You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO.
> The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in.
> present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions
Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are.
Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years.
There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now.
You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO.
> The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in.
> present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions
Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are.
Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
If that were the case, then Finland would be in trouble too. But they're not, because they have maintained neutrality and not threatened to bring US military to Russia's borders.
Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
The support for joining NATO in Finland is going up, because exactly as you say, they think they are in potential trouble.
Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.
Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.
If you would recall there has already been an election after 2014.
Sure, there was a coup in which a regime favorable to their biggest enemy was installed, and then the Constitution was changed to put NATO back on the menu, which if we're honest about it NATO = US Military (again, their biggest enemy). And then we expect Russia to trust the legitimacy of the new US-backed regime who just overthrew the government and made moves to bring the US/NATO to their doorstep, all because they later held "elections"?
If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine.
Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine.
Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
Are you saying that Russia is in Ukraine to defend Ukrainian democracy? Because that sounds like pretty novel theory, considering Russia itself is pretty oppressive state. And considering how Russian puppet states (Belarus, Chechenia) behave.
It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
> It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence
Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose.
it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.
Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose.
it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.
The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you. And expecting the rest of the world to wonder why the bear would respond to a poke, is silly. Bears do what bears do.
The contra argument is that bear can and will come at you whether you poke it or not. I fact, you can be hanging out in forrest, minding own business, actively avoiding bear and he/she will come at you to attack you.
Bears do what bears do. No reason to make up feel good rationales about how attacked people actually deserves it nor how the bear attack was actually caused by a Wolf over the next hill.
Bears do what bears do. No reason to make up feel good rationales about how attacked people actually deserves it nor how the bear attack was actually caused by a Wolf over the next hill.
> The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you.
Russia has poked the Ukrainian bear, and now the bear is coming after Russia. Bears do what bears do.
If an argument works, it works both ways. Anything else is propagandistic.
Russia has poked the Ukrainian bear, and now the bear is coming after Russia. Bears do what bears do.
If an argument works, it works both ways. Anything else is propagandistic.
NATO = US Military
I'm amazed that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around why Russia might see it as a threat.
Would the US see it as a threat if the Chinese military moved weapons, people and military training into Mexico? Or if the Soviets had tried the same with Cuba during the Cold War?
I think some people just see us as the good guys because of course we are. But everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys...
I'm amazed that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around why Russia might see it as a threat.
Would the US see it as a threat if the Chinese military moved weapons, people and military training into Mexico? Or if the Soviets had tried the same with Cuba during the Cold War?
I think some people just see us as the good guys because of course we are. But everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys...
>around why Russia might see it as a threat.
except that russia already has NATO neigbours.
Let us apply this logic to other countries. Maybe Poland or Lithuania are threatened but a Russian presence in Kaliningrad. So I guess maybe they too should stage a special operation to rid the area of Putin's Neo fascists?
The point is that this kind of thinking only considers Russia as an active agent, and everyone else is just some sort of NPC. It's extremely convenient that it aligns with Putin's propaganda of course
except that russia already has NATO neigbours.
Let us apply this logic to other countries. Maybe Poland or Lithuania are threatened but a Russian presence in Kaliningrad. So I guess maybe they too should stage a special operation to rid the area of Putin's Neo fascists?
The point is that this kind of thinking only considers Russia as an active agent, and everyone else is just some sort of NPC. It's extremely convenient that it aligns with Putin's propaganda of course
No, it speaks to what Mearsheaimer is saying which is essentially - don't be surprised if you threaten Mike Tyson and he punches you in the face. And if some 3rd party (ie the US) talked you into threatening Mike Tyson, understand that they also knew you were going to get punched in the face. Understanding that doesn't mean you support Mike Tyson, it just means you know how to understand consequences of messing with someone bigger and stronger than you.
No, he was wrong. Ukraine is not part of NATO and Russia is attacking them. Had Ukraine was part of NATO, chances are Russia would not be attacking them. Or at least, NATO would had duty to help them.
The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.
The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.
Go and actually listen to his talks. He predicts pretty accurately what has happened. And so have many people.
Sure. And people who were talking about Russia becoming imperial last dozen years were predicting the exact same thing. The people who warned about Russia turning back to USSR legacy were super correct.
Except that, they don't atribute Russian actions to America, as if Russian leadership could not have own ambitions.
If there was something about Russia that would suggest them staying peaceful absent NATO expansion, then maybe. But it is not and all he does is trying to make Russian politics all about USA.
Except that, they don't atribute Russian actions to America, as if Russian leadership could not have own ambitions.
If there was something about Russia that would suggest them staying peaceful absent NATO expansion, then maybe. But it is not and all he does is trying to make Russian politics all about USA.
“I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!”
Agree 100%. To ignore the realist framework makes the world less safe, more prone to war. More theories, more voices, makes us a safer world less prone to war. War is bad, so putting a lot of thought into avoiding it is good.
My sense is that many people have an inverted view because they haven’t studied history or international relations, and lack the meta cognitive capacity to consider what theories are and how to evaluate them. Criticism of defensive/offensive realism comes from this deficit. Learners think a theory is either right or wrong, and that a person is more or less synonymous with a single monolithic theory and so they too must be either right or wrong (eg Darwin, Freud).
The reality is that even “wrong” theories are useful. When nuclear war is a possible outcome, we do ourselves a favor by considering more voices and theories especially those with strong predictive power.
Agree 100%. To ignore the realist framework makes the world less safe, more prone to war. More theories, more voices, makes us a safer world less prone to war. War is bad, so putting a lot of thought into avoiding it is good.
My sense is that many people have an inverted view because they haven’t studied history or international relations, and lack the meta cognitive capacity to consider what theories are and how to evaluate them. Criticism of defensive/offensive realism comes from this deficit. Learners think a theory is either right or wrong, and that a person is more or less synonymous with a single monolithic theory and so they too must be either right or wrong (eg Darwin, Freud).
The reality is that even “wrong” theories are useful. When nuclear war is a possible outcome, we do ourselves a favor by considering more voices and theories especially those with strong predictive power.
I think most people who are making counterarguments to Mearsheimer et al are not ignoring or dismissing realism, they are pointing out the limitations and flaws with its predictive powers and usefulness for determining 'optimal' policies.
> People want realism to be a theory of how the world actually works, a theory of how the world should work, and a theory of what should we do given how the world works, all at the same time.
In terms of presenting an accurate model realism is only as good as the analysis you put into it, and unless you have a very advanced computer simulation of the world you can't test these models for what exactly will happen and when. Sometimes your prediction will be reasonably accurate and sometimes it won't, and hindsight bias will play tricks.
And as for its usefulness for deciding what we should do there seems to be little provision for the role of ideology, ethics, a sense of honour etc, i.e. what kind of world people would like to live in. Those factors are critical not just for making a model of current and future realities, but are of course essential for figuring out how we want to shape our world. A purely utilitarian view just aiming to minimise war and death might permit a more highly autocratic and repressive world, which could be at odds with many people's view of meaning and personal or collective destiny. An example of such a destiny would be the Ukrainian people's desire to live in a democractic Western-aligned state, and the West's desire to support them in this goal.
> People want realism to be a theory of how the world actually works, a theory of how the world should work, and a theory of what should we do given how the world works, all at the same time.
In terms of presenting an accurate model realism is only as good as the analysis you put into it, and unless you have a very advanced computer simulation of the world you can't test these models for what exactly will happen and when. Sometimes your prediction will be reasonably accurate and sometimes it won't, and hindsight bias will play tricks.
And as for its usefulness for deciding what we should do there seems to be little provision for the role of ideology, ethics, a sense of honour etc, i.e. what kind of world people would like to live in. Those factors are critical not just for making a model of current and future realities, but are of course essential for figuring out how we want to shape our world. A purely utilitarian view just aiming to minimise war and death might permit a more highly autocratic and repressive world, which could be at odds with many people's view of meaning and personal or collective destiny. An example of such a destiny would be the Ukrainian people's desire to live in a democractic Western-aligned state, and the West's desire to support them in this goal.
Sure, the neo-cons are right to criticize realist frameworks on those grounds; the importance of moral imperatives, importance of soft power and other cultural factors, etc…. The neo-cons sure to get us into a lot of foreign entanglements so they aren’t perfect either. It’s good to have more perspectives, more voices at the table was my point.
You don't have to be a neoconservative to criticise realism, just speaking for myself I wouldn't fit into the definition of one. Using expressions of particular opinions to demonstrate that people belong to a more general class is usually a bad idea.
I am not demonstrating anything. I am saying the argument you make is the distinguishing feature of neo-conservative foreign policy- viz the importance of value judgements about the sort of world we want to live in. I would add also that neo-cons generally do not self identify. They see themselves as defending liberalism and protecting people from tyranny. You may or may not fall into that camp, but you are carrying their water for them here in the rhetorical sphere, whether you understand that or not.
> The Soviet Union lost the Cold War decisively. Its empire fell into pieces, its regional alliance disappeared, and most of its former allies joined NATO. Russia lost, and the Western alliance won. Given this, it is not NATO’s responsibility to protect Russian state security interests. It is Russia’s responsibility to give wide berth to NATO, recognizing—as every realist should—that the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.
This is wrongheaded. The Soviet Union didn't lose the Cold War. In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was already over when Soviet Union collapsed.
Its only later that US propaganda machine got high on themselves proclaiming how they had destroyed the Soviet Union.
Its only later that US propaganda machine got high on themselves proclaiming how they had destroyed the Soviet Union.
The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition. Mikhail Gorbachev should always get great credit for attempting to make it honest and productive. Problem was, making it honest and open allowed all to see, and say out loud, how screwed up and repressive it really was, and it fell apart because it was held together by unwanted force.
> The Cold War ended when the USSR couldn’t fight it anymore. It was expensive for both sides, an expensive war of attrition.
That is just flat out false, as many people have pointed out. Yes it was expensive, but there is no inherent reason Soviet Union had to collapse based on that expense.
Gorbachev in order to do the reforms he wanted had to overcome the party opposition, and he did that by basically destroying the power of the party. This then allowed the republics to assert the power.
But those things were not exclusive. Gorbachev could have done a lot of his foreign policy without some of the domestic program that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet union.
That is just flat out false, as many people have pointed out. Yes it was expensive, but there is no inherent reason Soviet Union had to collapse based on that expense.
Gorbachev in order to do the reforms he wanted had to overcome the party opposition, and he did that by basically destroying the power of the party. This then allowed the republics to assert the power.
But those things were not exclusive. Gorbachev could have done a lot of his foreign policy without some of the domestic program that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet union.
But he did do the domestic program. Which did cause it to fall apart. You can lose a war through your own actions, without any activity on your enemy’s part.
And it’s not like the loser of the Cold War had to start paying tribute to, or got occupied by, the winner.
And it’s not like the loser of the Cold War had to start paying tribute to, or got occupied by, the winner.
But my point is that those are not linked. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because they ended the Cold War.
But they did, in fact, both lose the Cold War and collapse. Unless somehow either the West decided it wasn’t worth it anymore and called it a draw, but that would be highly revisionist.
It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable, would have collapsed eventually anyways.
But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
> In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union.
Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
> In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union.
Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
> It is true that Communism, being inherently unworkable
Not really. And 'Communism' is an abstract philosophy, the Soviet Union was an actually workable system. And if you can survive from 1917 to 1990 you can survive a lot of stuff.
> would have collapsed eventually anyways.
Anything collapses 'eventually' but there is no inherent reason the Soviet Union would have had to stop existing for 100s of years.
> But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
Sure the Soviet Union was not alone on a planet. And of course the Soviet leadership action were about problems in their country but it emphatically was not the inability fight the US military.
> Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
Please point out how they acknowledge that.
Not really. And 'Communism' is an abstract philosophy, the Soviet Union was an actually workable system. And if you can survive from 1917 to 1990 you can survive a lot of stuff.
> would have collapsed eventually anyways.
Anything collapses 'eventually' but there is no inherent reason the Soviet Union would have had to stop existing for 100s of years.
> But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
Sure the Soviet Union was not alone on a planet. And of course the Soviet leadership action were about problems in their country but it emphatically was not the inability fight the US military.
> Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
Please point out how they acknowledge that.
The issue is not that we don't understand Russias security concerns. Everyone understands that now. We just can't comply with Russias demand. Russia wants write the security policies of over 100 million people. No one is going to agree with that.
I'm skeptical of the idea that anything having to do with NATO is the true motive for Putin in this. It makes little sense to me given his actual statements about NATO with regard to the Russian invasion, and strategically makes little sense in terms of potential costs to their current endeavors. Why would you make 3/4 of your conventional military critically vulnerable to an adversary that you have publicly stated is unquestionably superior, by provoking that adversary, to increase security against said adversary?
I've always suspected this is about securing access to Crimea and natural resource rights in eastern Ukraine: water access was cut to Crimea following 2014, and natural resource deposits have been discovered in the east. I suspect NATO is just a rhetorical excuse, to justify it to the world and domestic audiences.
It also explains why the western campaign has been so ineffectual, and the Eastern one so relatively brutal. Yes, the east is easier to access by sea and less central to Ukraine, but I suspect a land bridge to Crimea, and securing natural resource rights, was the primary objective all along. Russia might have been accurate all along when they insisted they didn't want to occupy Ukraine per se or change the government, in the sense they just wanted to annex the east, and the west is just a diversionary tactic and/or secondary goal in service of the primary.
It's also why I suspect Russia will consider this a win if they extract a land bridge as a "compromise" to obtain peace.
All of this I'm saying as someone who'd rather see Russia out of everywhere that was undisputed Ukrainian territory in, say, 2000.
All this discussion of NATO expansion is just falling into Russia's rhetorical trap they set.
I've always suspected this is about securing access to Crimea and natural resource rights in eastern Ukraine: water access was cut to Crimea following 2014, and natural resource deposits have been discovered in the east. I suspect NATO is just a rhetorical excuse, to justify it to the world and domestic audiences.
It also explains why the western campaign has been so ineffectual, and the Eastern one so relatively brutal. Yes, the east is easier to access by sea and less central to Ukraine, but I suspect a land bridge to Crimea, and securing natural resource rights, was the primary objective all along. Russia might have been accurate all along when they insisted they didn't want to occupy Ukraine per se or change the government, in the sense they just wanted to annex the east, and the west is just a diversionary tactic and/or secondary goal in service of the primary.
It's also why I suspect Russia will consider this a win if they extract a land bridge as a "compromise" to obtain peace.
All of this I'm saying as someone who'd rather see Russia out of everywhere that was undisputed Ukrainian territory in, say, 2000.
All this discussion of NATO expansion is just falling into Russia's rhetorical trap they set.
Still haven’t seen a solid critique of Mearsheimer’s thesis and I’m starting to believe that maybe there won’t be one…
I think one of the confusing points is trying to approach these events from a moral or “who’s to blame” point of view which is maybe important when attributing war crimes, calculating reparations or even giving us someone to hate if the world should end.
But the key aspect should be outcomes. And his thesis is quite simple: if you push a major power, they will push back hard - just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So the solution’s also quite simple: if you don’t want the outcome, don’t take actions that lead to it. He’s said it right in the New Yorker article at the end - strategy trumps morality.
I think one of the confusing points is trying to approach these events from a moral or “who’s to blame” point of view which is maybe important when attributing war crimes, calculating reparations or even giving us someone to hate if the world should end.
But the key aspect should be outcomes. And his thesis is quite simple: if you push a major power, they will push back hard - just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So the solution’s also quite simple: if you don’t want the outcome, don’t take actions that lead to it. He’s said it right in the New Yorker article at the end - strategy trumps morality.
Ukraine is not in NATO nor close to it and the outcome is Russia thinking they are entitled to their own territory. NATO was not threat to Russia, that is merely excuse and attempt to blame someone else. And when Russia cant take their territory, they settled with trying to kill as much civilians as possible.
That is not consistent with defensive war. Ideologically, Russia was moving toward expansive colonialist theories for years now. They were not worried about NATO attacking them. They wanted to making Russia bigger again.
Ukrainians disagreeing with Russians plans is not fault of NATO. It should not be goal of American diplomacy to make Russian ambitions easier by intentionally weakening other nations.
That is not consistent with defensive war. Ideologically, Russia was moving toward expansive colonialist theories for years now. They were not worried about NATO attacking them. They wanted to making Russia bigger again.
Ukrainians disagreeing with Russians plans is not fault of NATO. It should not be goal of American diplomacy to make Russian ambitions easier by intentionally weakening other nations.
Ukraine’s holding yearly war games with NATO on its territory since 2014 - Rapid Trident. This was launched at the explicit request of Ukraine, which had a political change of direction that same year.
Russia is always worried about NATO. Courting Ukraine of all countries is a massive miscalculation, unless… the US made a bet they could sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia in the war and test military hardware.
So far so good: Russia is isolated, the EU is struggling with another wave of refugees and is at the mercy of whoever else can give them gas and more dependent on the US.
Russia is always worried about NATO. Courting Ukraine of all countries is a massive miscalculation, unless… the US made a bet they could sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia in the war and test military hardware.
So far so good: Russia is isolated, the EU is struggling with another wave of refugees and is at the mercy of whoever else can give them gas and more dependent on the US.
The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba. What you're talking about is a fantasy world that only exists in the mind of liberals. Down here in the real world, major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence.
> major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence.
How does that exclude Russia trying to annex Ukraine regardless of whether NATO expanded or not? Russia is power exerting dominance over their neighbors whenever it can. Nato expanding or not is just creating difference in terms of how far and where those wars will be - the countries no in NATO are more likely to be attacked by Russia.
The Russia as purely reactive state with no own ambitions is the fantasy. That is major fault in Mearsheimer’s nonsense theory.
This is nothing to do with liberals or right wing Russian fanboys. I dont know whether it is psychological need to have everything about you. Or whether it is psychological difficulty to imagine other countries (Russia, Ukraine) as real ones. But either way, attempt to explain last decades in Russia purely by other countries joining Nato is absurd.
How does that exclude Russia trying to annex Ukraine regardless of whether NATO expanded or not? Russia is power exerting dominance over their neighbors whenever it can. Nato expanding or not is just creating difference in terms of how far and where those wars will be - the countries no in NATO are more likely to be attacked by Russia.
The Russia as purely reactive state with no own ambitions is the fantasy. That is major fault in Mearsheimer’s nonsense theory.
This is nothing to do with liberals or right wing Russian fanboys. I dont know whether it is psychological need to have everything about you. Or whether it is psychological difficulty to imagine other countries (Russia, Ukraine) as real ones. But either way, attempt to explain last decades in Russia purely by other countries joining Nato is absurd.
The theory doesn’t claim that Russia is a purely reactive state, that’a a nonsense interpretation if I may use your own words. It claims that when certain things happen, they are forced to react. E.g. regime change in a neighbor that’s typically not NATO-friendly that suddenly starts training with NATO with the hope of joining someday.
> The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba
Uh, no. That was because the Soviet Union attempted to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, not simply because they formed an alliance.
Uh, no. That was because the Soviet Union attempted to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, not simply because they formed an alliance.
The US already had nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and launched a failed coup in Cuba, which then asked the USSR to deploy nuclear missiles in their country.
This is correct, and everything else is noise.
I think people struggle coming to terms with this due to relying too much on emotion, and not logic.
I think people struggle coming to terms with this due to relying too much on emotion, and not logic.
Further, I think you could do with giving Russia more credit than you do - Suggesting that they are a declining power because 'all they have is a large portion of the world's energy reserves, and one of the few nuclear arsenals that shapes the world's geopolitics' is more than a little stretched, even if I see what you're shooting for.
It's worth remembering the chaos they have successfully sown in US and European politics over the past 5 years, along with the effective interference they have run in the West's Middle East policy while assessing Russia's level of power in the world.
Nonetheless, I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!