26 ms·
I've read a bunch of articles on this conflict and this video by Prof Mearsheimer from University of Chicago explained it the best to me: https://www.youtube.c
by Jerry2 5y ago
I've read a bunch of articles on this conflict and this video by Prof Mearsheimer from University of Chicago explained it the best to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- jacquesm 5y agohttps://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-spread-dangerous-message-20150129-130snb.html https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-sp...
- propagandist 5y ago[Before downvoting, please consider whether you prefer debate or an echo chamber] Let us please not be so passive aggressive and dismissive. Serious diplomats have been warning about this for decades. Just because what's happening is evil and revisionist does not mean we should sweep all of that under the rug and buy into the mainstream a la the 2003 WMD hysteria. Pointing at one person and yelling "he's a bad man" has not been helpful and yet we can't help but do the same thing every single time.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y agoThe situation is not that complicated. Ukraine is an independent country and can decide what alliances to join or not. It’s not Russia’s business and it surely does not give it the permission to invade it. Anything else is highly irrelevant. Russia is a repressive dictatorship and has a combination of a brainwashed and scared population. We don’t need unnecessary nuance there.
- propagandist 5y agoGreat to know. Thank you for sanitizing this discussion and shutting out trolls and apologists (like myself). I'm sure that if Cuba or Venezuela entered a pact with Moscow that placed ICBMs on their territory, we would respect their sovereignty the same way. There are a few things I'd like to respond to below but the rate-limit hammer has dropped. What I will ask is that we refrain from calling the brave people who stood against the grain apologists or naive. They warned of the dangers decades ago. We owe them better than that; they were prescient.
- torstenvl 5y agoI have been following this closely and I have not seen anything in news reports or other OSINT that show U.S. ICBMs in Ukraine. Can you provide a source to support your comparison?
- propagandist 5y agoI did not claim that was the case. It was a hypothetical to point out that sovereignty is wielded in an argument when it's convenient. We don't care about sovereignty when we're violating it.
- lalaland1125 5y agoI don't know about you, but I think most Americans are opposed to invading Cuba or Venezuela (especially without any immediate ICBM threat). You are trying to imply a hypocrisy that simply isn't there.
- torstenvl 5y agoSo are you now saying "a pact with Moscow that placed ICBMs" on the U.S. border is an inapt comparison? The distinction isn't meaningless. You can't reach the conclusion that "we don't care about sovereignty" if we only violate it in the face of perceived imminent threats.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y agoYou do realize that the issue in both cases is Russia right? Russia is not a democracy. If an insane dictator puts up nukes near you it’s a very different situation. Not at all the same thing.
- pySSK 5y agoHate Putin and what he's doing in Ukraine right now, but, - How is Ukraine joining NATO different from Cuba or Mexico joining a military alliance with Russia? - Dictatorship argument is moot since US actively supports many evil dictator and provides them with financial and military support. - Any country is right to be scared of the US as it has invaded/destabilized many countries in the last two decades including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago> The situation is not that complicated. Ukraine is an independent country and can decide what alliances to join or not. It’s not Russia’s business and it surely does not give it the permission to invade it. It's funny how many people here constantly repeat that it's a crime to attach and split an independent country, but I could not hear such voices anywhere in any western country when NATO bombed civilian targets in Serbia for months to support Kosovo independence. As a remainder, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Mali, Yemen ... all independent countries attacked by NATO and its allies. Sorry if I added a few extra or missed a few, the number is just too big to remember correctly, since the number of independent countries worldwide attacked by NATO and its allies is bigger than list of countries attacked by Nazi Germany in WW2.
- bluGill 5y agoThe sins of NATO (some might debate them, but for discussion inline accept all you raised) do not excuse anyone else's sins.
- tut-urut-utut 5y agoThat's true. Behaviour of one side doesn't excuse anyone else's sins, but it also doesn't give a moral right to criticize the others for the same thing they did and are still doing themselves. It's a hypocrisy all the way down, on both sides.
- moate 5y agoI have never once voted on a NATO action, despite living in a NATO country. I have never once fought a NATO war, despite living in a NATO country. There is no NATO blood on my hands, can I condemn Russian action without you scolding me with "whataboutism"?
- aszen 5y agoYou may not have voted but did u condemn those actions just like as you are doing now or were u silent because the people killed were not White European people
- env123 5y agoThis is ignorance at it's best. There were antiprotesters in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The nuance here is if the US could invade other faraway sovereign countries, why Russia couldn't against a neighbour, over what it sees as security concern? US is a misinformed bipartisan country and has a combination of brainwashed and scared population
- drran 5y agoThis is ignorance at it's best. The nuance here is if the US could nuke other faraway sovereign countries, why Ukraine couldn't against a neighbour, over what it sees as security concern?
- danielrpa 5y agoYou have your heart in the right place regarding Ukraine's "rights", however it's a shallow analysis of the historical complexities of this situation. In a free country (pick your favorite), there is a system in place, hopefully mutually agreed by its citizens, and its rules are enforced by a government. In the world sphere, there is no de facto government. The UN is an attempt to create some sort of world governance, but as we know it's quite imperfect and it doesn't have the stick (i.e., the equivalent of a police force) to enforce its resolutions. Thus, the world works in a fragile equilibrium of military and economic power, with multiple countries forging alliances and pacts to try to put in place some form of civility. So, while Ukraine "can decide" what alliances to join, there is nobody to ensure that it "can decide". Ukraine was relying on the West/US/Nato to get some say in its future, but we are seeing how that's unfolding. Ukraine unfortunately has to "earn" this right by forging alliances or building a stick big enough to ensure that others respect it. Ukraine doesn't have a stick (it gave it up after the fall of the Soviet Union) but Russia does. Thus, Russia gets away with enforcing its own view of the world. Unless other countries use their own sticks to enforce their point of view about what should happen with Ukraine, Russia will simply get away with it. "Rights" have very little to do with will happen. I cannot think of a time in human history when things didn't work like this.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y agoYou don't need to analyzer a situation to see that Russia is just wrong about this. More importantly Russia is a dysfunctional country where you cannot even make the point that anything is remotely "mutually agreed by its citizens". Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion. Quite frankly your comment adds nothing of value.
- danielrpa 5y agoI'm sorry it didn't add anything to you, and your statement "Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion" suggests that we might not have much to gain from each other as our points of view are too far apart. Nonetheless, I'll try again to not leave you empty handed... What I'm saying is that "right" and "wrong" have little to do with the situation. I suggest you read Wikipedia on Realpolitik: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
- EGreg 5y agoIt reaches far beyond that. Whether we have a dictatorship or a democracy, there is an apparatus that IGNORES the legitimate concerns of others, and for whom it is a net positive for their country to impose its will on others through violence. Eisenhower gave it a name in the US: the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. And we can add the mainstream Media to that as well. To put it in perspective, what Russia was doing supporting the Donbass separatists against the Ukrainian government is what the US has been doing in Syria… What is currently being done by Russia is analogous to the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO forces despite UN opposition, combined with a recognition of Kosovo’s independence, something that shocked Russians at the time… If Russia continues with a full scale invasion, occupation and regime change in Ukraine, that would be analogous to what USA did in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last few years. So the US has done it all, and other things too: propped up friendly rulers against rebels in Yemen, leading huge humanitarian crises trained guerillas against the government in Nicaragua and elsewhere trained dictators like Manuel Norriega in the School of the Americas installing friendly regimes around the world carved off and annexed large parts of Mexico in the Spanish American war Russia at least does it in its own back yard and to protect its interests. USA goes all around the world and for some reason sees fit to be a “world police”. But both are incredibly imperialistic. And of course, Russia’s freedom of speech internally is far worse than in USA. But when USA does it, it never gets any sanctions. So there is no threat of escalation to nuclear mutually assured destruction. When Russia does it, the same actions are criticized badly by the world, but everyone is afraid to escalate further because of the nuclear consequences.
- propagandist 5y agoAnd the same frequencies that were dominant in 2003 are now shutting out the other voices. The Bill Kristols and David Frums are going to awaken from their hibernation. It's pointless to argue really--there's 0 hope that we'll do anything differently. To be clear, there are limited options now wrt to Ukraine. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia. But being hardline and not pragmatic means we'll set ourselves up for similar issues in the next few years and decades. We strung Ukraine along knowing we wouldn't come to their six when it counted. Honesty has to be the preferable approach.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoOf course. First, we should not underestimate a terrible financial situation, and a feeling of injustice after losing the war and being forced to pay enormous retributions that were draining the economy. So it was natural than a new strong leader was needed that would unite the nation against a common enemy and finally launch a military operation.
- DyslexicAtheist 5y agonot gonna downvote but ... the moment somebody attacks Europe with missiles diplomacy is over. I think we should call out all the Putin apologists in our own ranks and make sure they recuse themselves. Next we need to hit them where it hurts. Not with "a strongly worded letter" or "a frown" as we usually do in the EU but right in their money. Let's make it impossible for Russians to visit their money in Cyprus, Malta or London. Make it impossible for Russian oligarchs to strut around European capitals flashing their dirty money, anchor their yachts in the Mediterranean, or spend winters in the Swiss Alps. Also anyone calling for diplomacy, while Russia is bombing civilian infrastructure in Europe, should have their ass handed to them and be called out for what they are: at best useful idiots, at worst propagandists. This includes whataboutist statements like: > a la the 2003 WMD hysteria What we see right now is exactly the opposite. It's the effect of that fallout when we listened to the IC too much and realized the damage it caused to our credibility & foreign affairs. What we _actually_ have now is the effect of what happens when we ignore the warnings of the IC for a whole year, a bit like the late 98/99 when we should have known that 9/11 was coming. None of this is a surprise for anyone who has half-assedly been following Russian politics in the past 2 years, the murdering of journalists, the disappearance of an opposition media, the attempted murder and imprisonment of Navalny, the assassination attempts on people in UK and Europe. In fact if you're Russian and not waiving an UA flag and a sign opposing these actions outside a RU embassy right now you should also be considered sus.
- bigcat123 5y agoLet's assume Mearsheimer is a putin sympathizer (that's even a stronger speculative assessment than apologist); does that render the information the professor stated less true? I value the diversity on HN. I mostly value when my view are reputed by facts and reasoning.
- rnmwfQ3f 5y agoThis was a great video.
- jolux 5y agoI respect the difference of opinion but it's hard not to think Mearsheimer has been proven wrong about Putin's motivations by this invasion. It's basically inconceivable that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine is really in Russia's best interests. At this point it's liable to destroy their economy and encourage the remaining non-NATO states that border them to join NATO. It has solidified and reinvigorated opposition to Russian interests in the West. As of now it looks like a blunder. edit: to say nothing as well of the anti-war protests that are happening in the streets of Moscow and across Russia. If they continue and grow they will pose a risk to regime stability.
- pydry 5y agoPutin is unlikely to be trying to occupy all of Ukraine. The sheer cost of getting bogged down in an insurgency he couldnt possibly win suggests he's going to take an option which plays to his strengths instead. More likely he will try to cleave off strategically important territory with Russian majorities (forming a land bridge to crimea, maybe all the way to transnistria) and leave Kyiv having extracted a promise to remain unarmed, "neutral" and providing no aid to insurgencies or face another bloody assault.
- throwrqX 5y agoI'm not sure why you would think they would leave Kyiv alone when they're fighting there right at this very moment. It's pretty clear Putin aims to replace the government in Ukraine with his own puppet regime and then go along his way similar to how Belarus is, it remains unclear what will happen with western Ukraine, whether they invade "pacify" it and or just split Ukraine into two.
- nickpp 5y agoNo. Mearsheimer is a Putin apologist and people like him are a large part the reason for the mess we are in right now. The West should've stopped Putin (and other madmen like him) a long time ago instead of appeasing him.
- mercy_dude 5y agoI have always wondered- how exactly getting rid of Putin help us? More specifically, what is the guarantee that thwart they will be replacing with will not be ISIS or Taliban? Frankly after Iraq US has lost all credibility, the track record of replacing the status quo with “western style democracy” for all intents and purposes have proven disastrous for the local people and the US.
- avmich 5y agoIt's not a guarantee that the new one will be better - it's the guarantee that the new one will be not the old one :) . As an example, Boris Yeltsin was a different kind of a leader. Of course, the idea is to prevent people from the same circle - with similar or worse ideas - to have the power. Robustly that's to be solved by the people of the country - who apparently suffer from lack of learning on the previous mistakes. Also, getting best solution takes longer time... to the initial results.
- dvt 5y ago> for all intents and purposes have proven disastrous for the local people and the US Except for the generation of Afghan girls that got to attend school for the ~20-years that the US was in charge.
- paulsmal 5y agoIt's a video from 2015, Ukraine has been in a war since then. I would say it's not relevant that much now. A lot of people reconsidered their relation to Russia. I'm Ukrainian. I lived in Kiev, Dnipro, Odessa and Kharkiv.
- ComradePhil 5y agoI have a hard-time believing you habe watched the video to be saying that it is not relevant.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoUkraine has no chance of joining NATO, yet Russia invaded. After recent events, we can safely conclude that Mearsheimer was wrong.
- rnmwfQ3f 5y agoAccording to who? Apparently Zelenskyy thought Ukraine had a chance of joining NATO, and was actively partnering with NATO. I don't see any reason why Ukraine couldn't join us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrain...: On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO." On 24 March 2021, Zelenskyy signed the Decree No. 117/2021 approving the "strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol."
- throwrqX 5y agoZelenskyy can think a lot of things, doesn't have to be true. Most recent example was him thinking that diplomacy would prevail and Russian wouldn't invade, and we all see how that turned out. As for reasons why it wouldn't happen, Ukraine joining NATO goes against German energy interests, and joining NATO requires you to not be in any conflicts, which Ukraine has been in with Russia since 2014 on the eastern border.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sofixa 5y agoUkraine couldn't join because there's territorial disputes and NATO doesn't allow that.
- ComradePhil 5y agoThis whole thing stated as a result of talks of NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, when the US military industry was looking to find ways to start new wars.
- vore 5y agoWhile I haven't watched the video, I did read the article posted earlier which I assume covers the same details: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... I think it lays too much of the blame on the US and the West and ignores the fact that Ukraine itself is an entity with its own autonomy and not as simple as just being a US pawn. Mearsheimer's analysis seems to dismiss it completely and assume that basically everything that occurs in Ukraine are just machinations of the US political machine, but very reasonably, since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, it is rational for Ukraine to seek closer ties with NATO. That said, I do appreciate his perspective on why Putin might act like he does, but "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault" is... interesting framing.
- somenameforme 5y agoImagine this [1] scene playing out during one of the various protest come riot movements in the US over the past years. That is John McCain giving a speech to the protesters in the capitol of Ukraine, telling them that America is with them and that Europe will make Ukraine better. And to be clear he was doing this while the democratically elected [pro-Russian] president was still securely in office and would be for months to come. I feel like we largely lack any perspective because so many of things that are happening are something so completely foreign to us that it's difficult to even realistically imagine it. Imagine if Russia formed a 'defensive' military alliance whose primary mission was to contain the US. And they then gave speeches, such as McCain's, in Mexico City shortly before a pro-US Mexican government was overthrown by an insurrection and replaced with a pro-Russian one. And then they now moved to integrate the new Mexico into their military alliance which would undoubtedly result in 'defensive' weapons, arms, soldiers, etc being placed right along the US border - possibly to the point of imperiling our credible nuclear deterrent. I would certainly agree that Ukraine is not just a US pawn and wants to decide it's own fate, and deserves that. But there's also no doubt that it's political present and future is instead repeatedly decided by outside actors. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
- vore 5y ago
- dvt 5y agoNATO expansion was not driven by NATO's 21st century power aspirations, but rather driven by Baltic nations that suffered tremendously under Soviet rule. No one in Eastern Europe seriously believes Russia is only aggressive and bellicose due to Putin. It has a long and sordid history of abuse dating back at least a century. So it makes sense that Poland is terrified, along with Romania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. It's a very "US-centric" video, and the comparison to the Monroe Doctine is imo a false equivalency. Russia is not even the Soviet Union, let alone the US. Russia isn't a match militarily to NATO, and it's not even a match economically to the EU. It has nukes and oil, so it's a thug and a bully. If it was any other nation, it would be wiped off the face of the planet.
- mhitza 5y agoRomania isn't terrified of Russia. The 90s born generation like myself, mostly see Russia as neutral, from the neutral-positive way we saw them in the 90s, when we were still relying heavily on their bootleg electronics. Romania joined NATO way back as it saw it as a way to get closer to the west and ultimately into EU. Not because of Russia but because the bad state of the local economy (and associated poverty) lead by incompetent, post revolution, ex-communist party, people. That couldn't be improved without outside investment, guidance, and trade partners.
- dvt 5y ago> Romania isn't terrified of Russia. Russophobia is a relatively recent fear in the general population caused by years of media propaganda. Absolutely not true[1]. Soviet Russian-Romanian friction dates as back as early as the 70s, and let's not even talk about WW2. Soviets raping and pillaging Transylvania is well documented. [1] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-soviet-romanian-clash-over-history-identity-and-dominion https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-soviet-romanian...
- mhitza 5y agoRomania had friction with many states for many reasons. I'm sure there was raping and pillaging during war in Romania, by the Russian army, just like I hear about rape happening in all wars. My grandparents stories around WW2 depicted Russia in a good light, thus experience might vary. Where we were taught to have beef with Russia, was on the large amount of gold/valuables we shipped there during WW2 for "safe keeping" and which were never returned back to us. The 90s romanian propaganda was against the west in general, and Hungary in particular. You see, even if Hungarians were the first to bring large convoys of humanitarian help in our country after our revolution, the politicians made sure to make Hungary a boogeyman that is trying to steal Transylvania from us and support separatist movement in majority ethnic hungarian regions. It's not a black and white kind of thing, and it seems that trade relationships also shape up the perception of those trading partners. Don't get me wrong, people's perception of Putin and his actions are mostly negative (we have our fair share of people that cling to the extremes).
- lalaland1125 5y agoProfessor Mearsheimer's arguments here don't make any sense once you put an ounce of thought into them. The idea that Putin is invading to counter a possible extension of NATO into Ukraine is beyond silly. NATO members have been directly bordering Russia through the Baltics for almost two decades at this point. And any observer can see that there is zero interest in any sort of NATO aggression against Russia. The only threat to Putin is internally, either too many Russians thinking he is weak (causing Putin to invade other countries to maintain a mirage of strength) or too many Russians seeing successful neighboring democracies.
- kavalg 5y agoI wouldn't easily assume that Russians had been too happy bordering NATO. Maybe they just didn't have the means to respond until now.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 5y agoThis is exactly it. Putin and most Russians consider Ukrainians to be Russians (and in particular, lower class Russians they can step on). If Ukraine is allowed to increase trade with the EU, which will lead to lessening corruption and potentially eventually joining the EU, its economy will develop quickly, and Russians will start to ask why the same can't happen for them. This is bad for Putin, who relies on corruption. Putin will keep them in poverty to make Russia the best place for Russians by comparison. Mearsheimer is kidding himself if he believes an unaligned Ukraine (remember, Ukraine is unaligned right now, and several NATO member states are on the record unambiguously opposing Ukrainian membership, which requires unanimous approval) would be allowed to prosper. Any NATO justification for Putin's actions holds no water. Pretetending that the goal is to demilitarize Ukraine as Putin is doing now is also nonsense because Ukraine's military was never threatening Russia. Putin doesn't care if his puppet government lasts or not as long as Ukraine remains poor.
- hbarka 5y ago“Moscow’s tried-and-tested Georgia strategy now tailored for Ukraine” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/moscow-s-tried-and-tested-georgia-strategy-now-tailored-for-ukraine-1.4810319 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/moscow-s-tried-...
- throwaway72533 5y agoWhat surprised me about this video, was that it popped up as a youtube-recommendation, on an unrelated video, – and I hadn't viewed / showed any kind of interest in the Ukraine at all there.
- aembleton 5y agoBut others have shown an interest recently and thats probably enough for it be recommended.
- ceceron 5y agoI'm terrified of such simplistic narratives (in any domain, not only politics) and I believe they are very dangerous, especially in the modern societies which are very prone to accept easy explanations... Mearsheimer's narrative is internally consistent and seemingly explains the reality in a simple manner. It will definitely seduce many readers into a false feeling of understanding. In my humble opinion, his story lacks lots of context, both cultural and historical. Russia has never belonged to the Western culture, not even in the XIX century. Its mindset is radically different and not reducible to analysis based on the assumptions common in the Western societies. Treating it as a "partner one can civilize" has been a mistake made repeatedly in Europe and resulted in many tragedies in the last ages. I hope the current conflict will open eyes of many naive idealists looking for the rational outlook on the modern world.
- bigcat123 5y ago
- Paradigma11 5y agoThe problem with this argument is that the NATO does not accepts members that do have territorial conflicts. How long would it have taken to resolve the krimea and donbas conflicts against the background of an antagonistic russia. 1 decade? A few more are more likely if history is any guide. It is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that russia would invade ukraine because ukraine might join NATO decades after putin leaves power. Especially since putin has explained himself that he does not see ukraine as a souvereign nation on historical grounds and wants to correct that mistake. The problem seems to me that there is a real breakdown in competency and responsibility in the russian regime. Just take a look at: https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628 https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628 This might be far more serious and dangerous than it might look.
- aszen 5y agoNATO can change the rules anytime, from the russian perspective you can't trust them. That is why russia wanted an official stance of not admitting them. If they were not going to admit them then why not say so out loud. Clearly their was a way to solve this matter peacefully but the west choose to ignore any demands for neutrality
- Paradigma11 5y agoNATO has always had an open door policy since its inception 1949. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm This is never going to change. Memberstates might be amenable to vow to block certain admissions, or maybe not. There is zero chance of an unanimous vote to admit a country that has open territorial conflicts with russia. Its not within the power or responsibility of NATO to decide about ukraines neutrality. The charter of Paris, Budapest memorandum, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm .. (russia signed all those) all guarantee ukraine a free choice of military alliance.