5 ms·

>Russian friendly views such as Mearsheimer I don't know that I would refer to Professor Mearsheimer's view as pro-Russian, he has plenty of criticism of Putin

by yucky 5y ago

>Russian friendly views such as Mearsheimer I don't know that I would refer to Professor Mearsheimer's view as pro-Russian, he has plenty of criticism of Putin and the Russian political system in general. But the fact that he has been railing on the likely consequences of our approach for dealing with the Russia/Ukraine situation for years, and been proved right, should make his writing and interviews required for anybody seeking to better understand who we got here.

agumonkey 5y ago
That's why I said russian friendly.. it's a subtle topic.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Mearsheimer has been trotted out by so many people that likely never heard of him three weeks ago that it's getting a bit tiring.
  - yucky 5y ago
    That tends to happen when someone turns out to have accurately predicted the future.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      No, it's just that he happens to allow you and others to do what you like about it: trumpet all over that 'the West' caused Russia's invasion into Ukraine. When in fact if you follow that line of thought it was Hitlers mom who caused World War II. The only person responsible for the invasion into Ukraine is Putin, it was entirely optional, no matter who predicted that it would happen. Also: there is a substantial number of HN accounts in recent times whose only purpose seems to be to plant Russian talking points and I wonder if those are mostly by useful idiots or by hostile parties, so be careful whose water you carry. I'm sure you will find a way to tie each and every man, woman and child murdered by Russian soldiers to 'the West' but it isn't very believable, even if you have to find the need to quote a professor (your appeal to authority was noted).
      - yucky 5y ago
        It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. The US would very aggressively put that to an end, one way or another. This is essentially the same. Of course if we continue to coax the expansion of NATO (ie the international arm of the US military) onto the Russian border it will cause problems. Why would we ever pretend otherwise?
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. Shall we stick to the world as it is? Also, that's a pretty bad analogy, and no, it is not 'essentially the same'.
        yucky 5y ago
        Perhaps some historical context would help? Going back 25 years there has been universal acknowledgement that the further expansion of NATO to Russian borders was guaranteed to trigger conflict and potentially WWIII - https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, we should blame mothers milk. Every dictator that was ever born drank it, therefore mothers milk is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. Again, can you please stop with the dumb propaganda pieces trying to West-Wash the Russian invasion into Ukraine? It is beyond boring. If it is your goal to drive people away from HN by rehashing the same inane arguments over and over again that is of course your freedom but since you, as a new entrant are not gaining anything and we lose something it would seem that this is a non-zero sum game where in the end we're looking at a net loss. The only party responsible for the invasion of Ukraine is one V. Putin and by extension the Russian state. Attempts to drag the past in by the ears or otherwise are counterproductive. If anything NATO should have accepted Ukraine because we already know the result of not accepting them. See also several treaties that Russia just decided to wipe its arse with.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    Many of us are binge reading history in all directions. But yeah the authority-flooding is exhausting. I mostly mentioned him to balance my comment. I have no idea which is true or not here.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      What he states is historically true, and if you oversimplify it you might come to the conclusion that Russia simply had to invade Ukraine. But that's bullshit, nothing good ever came of it. The dumb part is that the West financed this war, not that they caused it.
      - agumonkey 5y ago
        What can I say.. in this era we keep watching back to find who did what.. and international relationships history is a dumpster of vague talks, mild backstabbing, potential manipulations.. and kilotons of paranoia. I can never find any clarity in this. I kinda agree that the putin logic is far fetched..
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Even Putin agrees, he's been wandering from one pretext to another hoping that something will stick. Let's see if any 'Ukranian' planes bomb Belarus or there is some ridiculously farfetched dirty bomb plot that will allow yet one more country to not only be bullied to accept Russian troops (though I don't think Lukashenko needed much bullying) but to actually incur casualties for what isn't their war at all. Obviously, when Putin draws in other countries it is fine, but when Ukraine asks for help that's cause for WWIII.
dillondoyle 5y ago
What would the better approach be? Sorry Ukraine, the Maidan was cute but no, you can not join 'the west'
- yucky 5y ago
  Well it's at least telling that we're not allowed to refer to that as a coup, isn't it? I mean, what else would we call a revolution where a democratically elected government is removed from power and replaced with one backed by an adversary, which then immediately rewrites the Constitution to put that country in an adversarial foreign policy position to their powerful neighbor? Is that not a coup? Is that not a recipe for war?
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    No. 1: Democratically elected stretches reality towards the end. The end was not a free and fair democracy nor free and fair elections. Yanukovych was an autocrat and stooge. copying many of the same tactics as his protector Putin to stay in power beyond public support: suppressing opposition, faking votes with international orgs deemed un true/not valid election, using his private military to intimidate and suppress. The people of Ukraine WANT to join the EU and be a part of European trade. Perhaps not all but a vast majority. That's the crux of Maidan. Yanukovych said he would sign the economic agreement which had broad support across the country. But did a 180 and ran to Putin (literally and figuratively, he physically fled). If any country was holding a gun it was Russia. 2: It was not a coup. This was not a military take over, decapitation by a 3rd party nation, or middle of the night execution. He was removed through an act of parliament after IMENSE popular opposition via democratic sentiment/uprising among the people. Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution, what came next were legitimate free and fair elections which is indisputable. People and countries should be free to chart their own future. To remove themselves from the foot of authoritarianism and to rewrite and reimagine their government towards Democracy, European trade, & freedom. A bully autocrat & former controlling country shouldn't be allowed to shut down the will and future of tens of millions just because they have a larger army and threaten nuclear war.

by yucky 5y ago

agumonkey 5y ago

That's why I said russian friendly.. it's a subtle topic.

jacquesm 5y ago
Mearsheimer has been trotted out by so many people that likely never heard of him three weeks ago that it's getting a bit tiring.
- yucky 5y ago
  That tends to happen when someone turns out to have accurately predicted the future.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, it's just that he happens to allow you and others to do what you like about it: trumpet all over that 'the West' caused Russia's invasion into Ukraine. When in fact if you follow that line of thought it was Hitlers mom who caused World War II. The only person responsible for the invasion into Ukraine is Putin, it was entirely optional, no matter who predicted that it would happen. Also: there is a substantial number of HN accounts in recent times whose only purpose seems to be to plant Russian talking points and I wonder if those are mostly by useful idiots or by hostile parties, so be careful whose water you carry. I'm sure you will find a way to tie each and every man, woman and child murdered by Russian soldiers to 'the West' but it isn't very believable, even if you have to find the need to quote a professor (your appeal to authority was noted).
    - yucky 5y ago
      It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. The US would very aggressively put that to an end, one way or another. This is essentially the same. Of course if we continue to coax the expansion of NATO (ie the international arm of the US military) onto the Russian border it will cause problems. Why would we ever pretend otherwise?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. Shall we stick to the world as it is? Also, that's a pretty bad analogy, and no, it is not 'essentially the same'.
        yucky 5y ago
        Perhaps some historical context would help? Going back 25 years there has been universal acknowledgement that the further expansion of NATO to Russian borders was guaranteed to trigger conflict and potentially WWIII - https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, we should blame mothers milk. Every dictator that was ever born drank it, therefore mothers milk is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. Again, can you please stop with the dumb propaganda pieces trying to West-Wash the Russian invasion into Ukraine? It is beyond boring. If it is your goal to drive people away from HN by rehashing the same inane arguments over and over again that is of course your freedom but since you, as a new entrant are not gaining anything and we lose something it would seem that this is a non-zero sum game where in the end we're looking at a net loss. The only party responsible for the invasion of Ukraine is one V. Putin and by extension the Russian state. Attempts to drag the past in by the ears or otherwise are counterproductive. If anything NATO should have accepted Ukraine because we already know the result of not accepting them. See also several treaties that Russia just decided to wipe its arse with.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Many of us are binge reading history in all directions. But yeah the authority-flooding is exhausting. I mostly mentioned him to balance my comment. I have no idea which is true or not here.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    What he states is historically true, and if you oversimplify it you might come to the conclusion that Russia simply had to invade Ukraine. But that's bullshit, nothing good ever came of it. The dumb part is that the West financed this war, not that they caused it.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      What can I say.. in this era we keep watching back to find who did what.. and international relationships history is a dumpster of vague talks, mild backstabbing, potential manipulations.. and kilotons of paranoia. I can never find any clarity in this. I kinda agree that the putin logic is far fetched..
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Even Putin agrees, he's been wandering from one pretext to another hoping that something will stick. Let's see if any 'Ukranian' planes bomb Belarus or there is some ridiculously farfetched dirty bomb plot that will allow yet one more country to not only be bullied to accept Russian troops (though I don't think Lukashenko needed much bullying) but to actually incur casualties for what isn't their war at all. Obviously, when Putin draws in other countries it is fine, but when Ukraine asks for help that's cause for WWIII.

dillondoyle 5y ago

What would the better approach be? Sorry Ukraine, the Maidan was cute but no, you can not join 'the west'

yucky 5y ago
Well it's at least telling that we're not allowed to refer to that as a coup, isn't it? I mean, what else would we call a revolution where a democratically elected government is removed from power and replaced with one backed by an adversary, which then immediately rewrites the Constitution to put that country in an adversarial foreign policy position to their powerful neighbor? Is that not a coup? Is that not a recipe for war?
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  No. 1: Democratically elected stretches reality towards the end. The end was not a free and fair democracy nor free and fair elections. Yanukovych was an autocrat and stooge. copying many of the same tactics as his protector Putin to stay in power beyond public support: suppressing opposition, faking votes with international orgs deemed un true/not valid election, using his private military to intimidate and suppress. The people of Ukraine WANT to join the EU and be a part of European trade. Perhaps not all but a vast majority. That's the crux of Maidan. Yanukovych said he would sign the economic agreement which had broad support across the country. But did a 180 and ran to Putin (literally and figuratively, he physically fled). If any country was holding a gun it was Russia. 2: It was not a coup. This was not a military take over, decapitation by a 3rd party nation, or middle of the night execution. He was removed through an act of parliament after IMENSE popular opposition via democratic sentiment/uprising among the people. Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution, what came next were legitimate free and fair elections which is indisputable. People and countries should be free to chart their own future. To remove themselves from the foot of authoritarianism and to rewrite and reimagine their government towards Democracy, European trade, & freedom. A bully autocrat & former controlling country shouldn't be allowed to shut down the will and future of tens of millions just because they have a larger army and threaten nuclear war.