5 ms·

>This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America. He seems to be saying that Russia/the US reaction is probably morally wrong,

>This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America. He seems to be saying that Russia/the US reaction is probably morally wrong, but completely expected behavior. And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration. Yeah, it'd be great if great power politics ended. Ukraine trying to change to the US's side isn't going to end them.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration If you are trying to decide how to exert influence on how your country should react, rather than being a passive observer, the moral aspect is worth considering. If you are merely a passive observer, you aren't worth considering.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 5y ago
"Blame"/"responsibility"/"at fault" all seem like questions with a certain natural moral slant to them. He's putting moral fault onto the US for failing to properly respect the likely immoral acts of Putin? That's ludicrous.
- erichocean 5y ago
  "Many Ukrainians may die in order that NATO expands, but that's a cost we, the United States of America, are prepared to pay." /sarc
  - mcphage 5y ago
    I wonder if Ukraine should possibly get any say in the matter.
    - erichocean 5y ago
      Of course, Ukraine can talk all they want (and they are). At some point, though, boots on the ground matter more than words. The Russians have evidently reached that point. As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements[0], voted on unanimously by the UN (including Ukraine and Russia). Why Ukraine chose not to live up to their written agreements is anyone's guess. In hindsight, it looks pretty stupid. It's almost like—when you don't live up to your word—people stop caring what you have to say. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
      - mcphage 5y ago
        > As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements Those were the agreements that said Russia wasn't allowed to pump money and weapons into the separatist regions of Ukraine, yeah? Huh. Well then, too bad Russia's fucking the invasion up so utterly. Whatever replaces them will be a whole lot worse for it.
      - epakai 5y ago
        Weird classification of Ukraine not living up to the agreement therefore mainly responsible. There were accusations of cease-fire violation from both sides. This is also the conflict that brings us the phrase "Little Green Men", and later the destruction of flight MH-17. Russia has continually played a major part in escalating this conflict just has been done recently where they have gone to full-scale invasion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
steveylang 5y ago
Both aspects exist, that's my only real disagreement with Mearsheimer (the significance of each is another issue.) You just laid it out in a way that he seems to refuse to in the interview, so unfortunately half the interview was the 2 guys talking past each other.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I don't think he denies both aspects exist, he spent much of the interview discussing various examples where a great power clearly acted immorally. He just knows that if he says "Russia is acting immorally" that becomes the headline and thousands of other stories will be printed saying "Mearsheimer reverses former position, denounces Russia." That's what the two people talking past each other felt like to me. A journalist trying to force him into a sound byte that ignores his entire position.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> And the moral aspect isn't worth considering as history has shown that great powers usually act out of strategic interest not moral consideration If you are trying to decide how to exert influence on how your country should react, rather than being a passive observer, the moral aspect is worth considering. If you are merely a passive observer, you aren't worth considering.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 5y ago

"Blame"/"responsibility"/"at fault" all seem like questions with a certain natural moral slant to them. He's putting moral fault onto the US for failing to properly respect the likely immoral acts of Putin? That's ludicrous.

erichocean 5y ago
"Many Ukrainians may die in order that NATO expands, but that's a cost we, the United States of America, are prepared to pay." /sarc
- mcphage 5y ago
  I wonder if Ukraine should possibly get any say in the matter.
  - erichocean 5y ago
    Of course, Ukraine can talk all they want (and they are). At some point, though, boots on the ground matter more than words. The Russians have evidently reached that point. As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements[0], voted on unanimously by the UN (including Ukraine and Russia). Why Ukraine chose not to live up to their written agreements is anyone's guess. In hindsight, it looks pretty stupid. It's almost like—when you don't live up to your word—people stop caring what you have to say. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > As best I can tell, this conflict was entirely, completely, utterly avoidable simply by Ukraine following the terms of the Minsk agreements Those were the agreements that said Russia wasn't allowed to pump money and weapons into the separatist regions of Ukraine, yeah? Huh. Well then, too bad Russia's fucking the invasion up so utterly. Whatever replaces them will be a whole lot worse for it.
    - epakai 5y ago
      Weird classification of Ukraine not living up to the agreement therefore mainly responsible. There were accusations of cease-fire violation from both sides. This is also the conflict that brings us the phrase "Little Green Men", and later the destruction of flight MH-17. Russia has continually played a major part in escalating this conflict just has been done recently where they have gone to full-scale invasion.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

steveylang 5y ago

Both aspects exist, that's my only real disagreement with Mearsheimer (the significance of each is another issue.) You just laid it out in a way that he seems to refuse to in the interview, so unfortunately half the interview was the 2 guys talking past each other.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
I don't think he denies both aspects exist, he spent much of the interview discussing various examples where a great power clearly acted immorally. He just knows that if he says "Russia is acting immorally" that becomes the headline and thousands of other stories will be printed saying "Mearsheimer reverses former position, denounces Russia." That's what the two people talking past each other felt like to me. A journalist trying to force him into a sound byte that ignores his entire position.