5 ms·

The journalist, Isaac Chotiner, thinks he's a lot smarter and in better command of history than John Mearsheimer. That's really annoying.

thawaya3113 5y ago
Not really. He lets Mearsheimer himself get into a knot where he rebrands imperialism into “great power politics”.
- sidibe 5y ago
  Mearsheimer and other geopolitical overthinkers are in a fantasy where small countries should have or have no will of their own and would never choose to reorient to liberal democracy without USA forcing it on them no matter how much more attractive EU is than being a Russian vassal
  - empressplay 5y ago
    You mistake saying 'how something is' with approving of it. Pragmatism is an essential part of diplomacy, without it you quickly discover how essential it is. This is no fantasy, this is reality, as frustrating as that may be.
    - sidibe 5y ago
      I don't know, every time I hear these realist pragmatists they seem to me to be ignoring the reality in favor of their theories. NATO's growth, if you believe Eastern Europeans, is because they didn't want to be pressured by Russia. But since it doesn't fit the framework, what they say is ignored and instead it's all an overstepping power play from the USA
eric_b 5y ago
I agree - it was abundantly clear Isaac wanted to push the prevailing narrative, had no interest in alternative perspectives, and wanted to score some smartypants points in the process. Mearsheimer sounded cogent and intelligent, and I think he made some very interesting points. His article from 2014 seems like it could have been written this week with how prescient it is: 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...
- rubidium 5y ago
  Woah. If you want to read one article to better understand what's going on, this is it. It's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism. This article shows where and why. It also shows how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    It sure sounds edgy to say things like "how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints" and "it's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism". And certainly, people should seek to understand different perspectives that clash with their own assumptions. But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects. Coming from the Western world, this is called tyranny. And it's on proud display in the wanton destruction of civilian targets in Ukraine. The effects on the people don't matter - the subjugation of them is the priority. Is it any wonder that the further east you go in Europe, the more people suffered under the USSR, the stronger the support for Ukraine is? One generation later, and we have Ukrainians from all walks of life taking up arms in defense of their individual liberties - the young because they've known nothing else, and the old so that their children never have to know. Despite using plenty of normative language, the only moral contribution of articles like this is illustrating that freedom is an aberration that needs defending. There are moral concepts worth fighting for, and Western liberalism is one of them. As my grandmother often said, "they don't know how good they have it in this country".
    - imbnwa 5y ago
      >But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects. That's not what Mearsheimer said in the article: >One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.
teucris 5y ago
I thought it was great because it ended up being a debate about the different positions, rather than simply presenting Mearsheimer’s viewpoint. In the end I disagreed with both of their stances, and I felt much more informed on the potential weakness in the mainstream interpretation of current events.
- mesofile 5y ago
  Agreed, I think Chotiner was simply not being politely deferential, as has become the custom for interviews in many US media outlets. It reads to me much more like the modern custom in UK/EU media where interviewers are expected to challenge, at least to some extent, the interviewee's salient arguments. This can come across as somewhat rude, but I much prefer it to the alternative, which is that interviews become carte blanche opportunities for influential people to push unfounded assertions directly into the news stream.

thawaya3113 5y ago

Not really. He lets Mearsheimer himself get into a knot where he rebrands imperialism into “great power politics”.

sidibe 5y ago
Mearsheimer and other geopolitical overthinkers are in a fantasy where small countries should have or have no will of their own and would never choose to reorient to liberal democracy without USA forcing it on them no matter how much more attractive EU is than being a Russian vassal
- empressplay 5y ago
  You mistake saying 'how something is' with approving of it. Pragmatism is an essential part of diplomacy, without it you quickly discover how essential it is. This is no fantasy, this is reality, as frustrating as that may be.
  - sidibe 5y ago
    I don't know, every time I hear these realist pragmatists they seem to me to be ignoring the reality in favor of their theories. NATO's growth, if you believe Eastern Europeans, is because they didn't want to be pressured by Russia. But since it doesn't fit the framework, what they say is ignored and instead it's all an overstepping power play from the USA

eric_b 5y ago

I agree - it was abundantly clear Isaac wanted to push the prevailing narrative, had no interest in alternative perspectives, and wanted to score some smartypants points in the process. Mearsheimer sounded cogent and intelligent, and I think he made some very interesting points. His article from 2014 seems like it could have been written this week with how prescient it is: 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...

rubidium 5y ago
Woah. If you want to read one article to better understand what's going on, this is it. It's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism. This article shows where and why. It also shows how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints.
- mindslight 5y ago
  It sure sounds edgy to say things like "how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints" and "it's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism". And certainly, people should seek to understand different perspectives that clash with their own assumptions. But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects. Coming from the Western world, this is called tyranny. And it's on proud display in the wanton destruction of civilian targets in Ukraine. The effects on the people don't matter - the subjugation of them is the priority. Is it any wonder that the further east you go in Europe, the more people suffered under the USSR, the stronger the support for Ukraine is? One generation later, and we have Ukrainians from all walks of life taking up arms in defense of their individual liberties - the young because they've known nothing else, and the old so that their children never have to know. Despite using plenty of normative language, the only moral contribution of articles like this is illustrating that freedom is an aberration that needs defending. There are moral concepts worth fighting for, and Western liberalism is one of them. As my grandmother often said, "they don't know how good they have it in this country".
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    >But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects. That's not what Mearsheimer said in the article: >One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.

teucris 5y ago

I thought it was great because it ended up being a debate about the different positions, rather than simply presenting Mearsheimer’s viewpoint. In the end I disagreed with both of their stances, and I felt much more informed on the potential weakness in the mainstream interpretation of current events.

mesofile 5y ago
Agreed, I think Chotiner was simply not being politely deferential, as has become the custom for interviews in many US media outlets. It reads to me much more like the modern custom in UK/EU media where interviewers are expected to challenge, at least to some extent, the interviewee's salient arguments. This can come across as somewhat rude, but I much prefer it to the alternative, which is that interviews become carte blanche opportunities for influential people to push unfounded assertions directly into the news stream.