4 ms·

While 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/

by vore 5y ago

While 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 ago
Imagine 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
  I don't really buy into this argument because NATO has done no such integration and has actually pretty much made a policy of leaving Ukraine out to dry, even with its extremely pro-West government right now (there is no way Putin doesn't know this as well): yet here we are, with an invasion into Ukraine by Russia.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jolux 5y ago
  > And then they now moved to integrate the new Mexico into their military alliance But this didn’t happen! Ukraine did not join NATO. As for the John McCain bits, you ask whether it would be in the US’s interests to invade Mexico if Putin went and gave a pro-authoritarian speech there? Of course not! We would be fucking insane to do that.
  - frrlpp 5y ago
    Well, you don't need to imagine something like that in Mexico. Look what happened and still happens to Cuba.

by vore 5y ago

somenameforme 5y ago

Imagine 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
I don't really buy into this argument because NATO has done no such integration and has actually pretty much made a policy of leaving Ukraine out to dry, even with its extremely pro-West government right now (there is no way Putin doesn't know this as well): yet here we are, with an invasion into Ukraine by Russia.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jolux 5y ago
> And then they now moved to integrate the new Mexico into their military alliance But this didn’t happen! Ukraine did not join NATO. As for the John McCain bits, you ask whether it would be in the US’s interests to invade Mexico if Putin went and gave a pro-authoritarian speech there? Of course not! We would be fucking insane to do that.
- frrlpp 5y ago
  Well, you don't need to imagine something like that in Mexico. Look what happened and still happens to Cuba.