3 ms·

I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I

by eezurr 5y ago

I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased. >While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation) >Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019 Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia. > but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

astine 5y ago
I watched the Mearsheimer lecture. The first point is that he gave it in 2015, so it's pretty old. Second point is that his main idea about Putin's motives are largely falsified by the recent invasion. Mearsheimer says that Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine, then Putin invades and from his rhetoric it's clear he plans to annex it. So Mearsheimer is probably wrong. Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate. Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics. But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.
- eezurr 5y ago
  I agree the situation has changed. I think it’s fair to say his summary of the situation was correct in 2015+, and that the underlying facts and desires of all countries involved have not notably changed in 8 years, other than Russia invading (as I guessed earlier, they are forced to play the worst hand). I’m not sure the most recent election map is important. The competition was an independent, and the current president passed a bill that removed minority rights in 2014 to limit Russian influence. Regarding Donbas, I have no comment because I think the order of events is very important there but I’m not an expert. As for your last paragraph, you’ve lost me. Mearsheimers video is not a conspiracy to explain away current events. You realize Putin is capable of saying one thing and doing another? Or making up an irrelevant excuse to appease his citizens? I don’t think you understand that empires don’t care about other countries’ rights when they feel threatened. It is the US and Russias right to determine the fate of Ukraine because they have the power and motivation to make that decision, despite it not being the moral or fair. The world isn’t a fair place.

by eezurr 5y ago

astine 5y ago

I watched the Mearsheimer lecture. The first point is that he gave it in 2015, so it's pretty old. Second point is that his main idea about Putin's motives are largely falsified by the recent invasion. Mearsheimer says that Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine, then Putin invades and from his rhetoric it's clear he plans to annex it. So Mearsheimer is probably wrong. Also, his explanation of the divisions in Ukraine are out of date. Look at the map of the most recent elections. It doesn't follow the usual east-west divide the Mearsheimer suggested. The current government is genuinely popular amongst a wide swath of the population. That was a pro-EU candidate. Another issue with Mearsheimer's analysis is that Putin's policies in the Donbas doesn't align with the idea that Putin wants a neutral Ukraine (or just wants to "reck" it.) His demands were that Ukraine give the rebel areas autonomy which would give him direct influence in Ukrainian politics. But all of that is sort of irrelevant because the only reason to discuss Mearsheimer's theory now is to give Russia cover for its current invasion. An invasion which clearly had different motives based on Putin's own justifications ("de-nazification" among others). And, of course, none of this great power politics discussion takes into account what the Ukrainians themselves want. It's not the US's right to tell Ukraine to be a neutral border state and they can't make them a neutral border state if they want. Ukraine has a long history of being a border state--the word "Ukraine" literally means borderland--but that history is one of repeated subjugation by more powerful neighbors. The idea that Russia has more right to security than Ukraine is wild to me and the idea that we even can make Ukraine act according to Mearsheimer's neat little scheme is wrong.

eezurr 5y ago
I agree the situation has changed. I think it’s fair to say his summary of the situation was correct in 2015+, and that the underlying facts and desires of all countries involved have not notably changed in 8 years, other than Russia invading (as I guessed earlier, they are forced to play the worst hand). I’m not sure the most recent election map is important. The competition was an independent, and the current president passed a bill that removed minority rights in 2014 to limit Russian influence. Regarding Donbas, I have no comment because I think the order of events is very important there but I’m not an expert. As for your last paragraph, you’ve lost me. Mearsheimers video is not a conspiracy to explain away current events. You realize Putin is capable of saying one thing and doing another? Or making up an irrelevant excuse to appease his citizens? I don’t think you understand that empires don’t care about other countries’ rights when they feel threatened. It is the US and Russias right to determine the fate of Ukraine because they have the power and motivation to make that decision, despite it not being the moral or fair. The world isn’t a fair place.