5 ms·

Professor John Mearsheimer (a distinguished professor of political science) gave an inciteful talk regarding these events after Russia first invaded Ukraine in

• enkid 5y ago
  The US did not make Putin invade Ukraine. That's like saying Iran made the US invade Iraq, because Saddam didn't give up WMDs because he was scared about Iran. The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. The US and West are not the ones that are upping the confrontation. Putin has invaded his neighbors multiple times, is interfering in internal political processes of democracies, and is threatening nuclear weapon use constantly. You can't look at this from one side and say it's the "West's" fault without looking that the Russian actions that were just as, or more escalatory. Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.
  • sinyug 5y ago
    • egman_ekki 5y ago
      > The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the US intention to encircle Russia very clear. Perhaps that was the evil plan of NATO. Why I feel it's different, though, is that those Eastern European countries tried to enter NATO as quickly as possible, as they still remembered Russia/USSR saving them from democracy in the 60s/70s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
    • gruturo 5y ago
      > Russia asked for a buffer against NATO. The US took advantage of Russia's weakness post collapse of the USSR and didn't give them that buffer. Putin decided that he will create one by himself. That is the story. Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. Also - he's a murderous, aggressive tyrant and a proven liar, so let's please stop giving him the benefit of doubt.
      • Yoofie 5y ago
        > Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that. It's not bullshit. The entire point is to reduce the direct number on Russia's borders. Just because you have a few already on your border does not mean you allow even more directly line up on your border. What he is doing completely rational from a military/geopolitical perspective.
    • denis1 5y ago
      The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the fact the Russia is a shitty neighbor very clear. It's not that the US/NATO want to extend, it's that the countries of Eastern Europe seek protection from the mad neighbor to the east.
    • mstipetic 5y ago
      Nobody gives a shit about Russia. Not a single, however crazy, politician is talking about invading or attacking Russia.
    • ledauphin 5y ago
      A buffer is _nobody's_ right. Not Russia's, not the US, _nobody_. Ukraine, Vietnam, you name it - those people aren't anybody's buffer, and no one has any right to speak of them that way. It's not up to Russia _or_ the US to decide these things. It's up to the citizens of Ukraine. This is what Russia fundamentally doesn't respect, but Europe and the West fundamentally does. Yes, the US has done some horrible things in the past (see: Vietnam, somewhat less so Iraq), but Russia believes in "buffers" regardless of the desire of the inhabitants of those buffers, whereas the West believes (however imperfectly in practice) that countries should be self-determining. In a way, the best proof of this is Europe's response to this invasion: at first, nobody was willing to get involved. When it became clear that Ukrainians themselves were fully committed to remaining sovereign, then the influx of cash and materiel began.
    • taylodl 5y ago
      Saying the U.S. was wrong in the past doesn't make Russia any less wrong now. Also, the optics of Russia invading a neighboring state looks a lot different than the U.S. invading Iraq for aiding and abetting the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.
    • MrMan 5y ago
      wow that Salon article is a bit frightening.
  • eezurr 5y ago
    In addition to the other response you've received, NATO is the US, for all intents and purposes. If you watch the video I linked, you'll see that most (all?) countries Russia has invaded in the past was because of NATO involvement, e.g. dangling NATO membership over their heads.
    • enkid 5y ago
      NATO is not the US. This is such an absurd statement considering the measures all of the other members have been taking over the last few days, often well before the US. Saying something like that totally discounts the rest of your argument in my mind.
      • eezurr 5y ago
        Well, I 've already sourced my comments. I encourage you watch the talk given by the professor.
      • Yoofie 5y ago
        Lets be real - NATO is effectively the US with a few European "puppet" states. Without the leadership or the military of the US military, NATO is dramatically and significantly weaker.
  • Beltalowda 5y ago
    > The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.
• hraedon 5y ago
  Ukraine has more reason than most countries to want to be a part of NATO, given that Russia invaded it in 2014 and seized territory. This war, to the extent it was provoked by anything other than Putin's hubris, was because Ukraine wants to join the EU, not because it was going to try and join NATO. Ukraine wanting its fortunes to look more like Poland's and less like Russia's is not a crime punishable by invasion, no matter what apologists blaming NATO expansion think. In any case, Russia has existed for decades with NATO countries on its borders and not suffered an invasion. These countries have a lot of reason to fear that Russia does indeed seek to "reintegrate" them into an imperial state, given that Putin just confirmed that he seeks to do exactly that to Ukraine. The best way Russia can discourage its neighbors from joining NATO is by not giving them huge, existential reasons for doing so.
  • eezurr 5y ago
    All of your points are refuted in the video. Instead of you getting secondhand information from me, I encourage you to watch it.
• albertopv 5y ago
  This time Europe is scared as fuck, Putin already threatened Finland, Sweden and baltic states, if he succed against Ukraine then maybe other will follow. This time he shall not pass.
• taylodl 5y ago
  All of this past week's events show that John Mearsheimer was wrong - way wrong. In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire. His reasoning was Putin was too smart for that - Putin had seen how the invasion of Afghanistan didn't go well for the Soviets, or for the Americans for that matter. Granted, I say John Mearsheimer was wrong in 2015 with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. Now we know that Putin fully intended to invade the Ukraine and institute regime change, not just "free" Donbas and Luhansk. Putin has also indicated he wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union as much as possible. I'm not attacking John Mearsheimer. I too thought Putin was way smarter than this. Frankly I'm shocked by what's happening, but most of all I'm shocked and surprised by Putin's short-sightedness and stupidity. I'm sure John Mearsheimer did his analysis believing he was dealing with a rational actor. Now we know otherwise.
  • eezurr 5y ago
    John Mearsheimer was working with the facts he had available at the time, clearly. You even hint at that yourself. Seven years is a long time for change in a dynamic environment. One thing I am aware of: - Ukraine sealed the canal that delivered 85% of Crimea's fresh water supply, so it's been more costly to keep Crimea with each passing year. >I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. It's been five days, hardly enough time to gather information on the environment and put together a research paper on it. Also, a wrong conclusion does not mean the underlying research or thesis is wrong.
  • Beltalowda 5y ago
    > In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire. Note that could have been true in 2015; what Putin wants can change over time. At any rate, I watched that video some months ago, but from I recall Mearsheimer's point was that this kind of response is rational when reasoned from Putin's interests and worldview. I don't recall he said there would never be a war, and IIRC actually warned against a possible war (which we now have, albeit in a different shape than Mearsheimer thought in 2015).
• mcphage 5y ago
  > I am deeply concerned that the West keeps upping the confrontation instead of backing down. > Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak Remind me again who keeps upping the confrontation?
• mancerayder 5y ago
  It's a fair point but it's contradicted by Putin's rambling speech where he seemed to talk of a sort of Russian-version of Manifest Destiny. He expressed regret at Lenin having created some of the countries as separate states, and gave the viewer a history lesson. That's in contradiction with the "he had no choice, he was encircled" theory. Also the claims of neo-Nazism is wildly exaggerated, even if you have Russian sympathies. It's hard not to see that as wild propaganda.