5 ms·

The Great Delusion (2020) by prof. John Mearsheimer: https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU That if someone really wants to understand where

The Great Delusion (2020) by prof. John Mearsheimer: https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine. And how and when this one really started: https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc As of Francis Fukuyama predictions... I am Ukrainian by myself. With family spread over West Ukraine and Russia East. Note: Russia is the second country after Ukraine where Ukrainians leave. There is a concept of "for the Motherland" and there are many as Russians as Ukrainians who still consider joined Russia and Ukraine as a common motherland and those predictions are completely out of touch in this respect.

jonahbenton 5y ago
[flagged]
- c-smile 5y ago
  Probably. But the fact that we've transitioned from BiPolar (US<->USSR) to UniPolar(US) and now to MultiPolar world is correct as we see.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Dismissing Mearsheimer as a "right wing thinker" that is "blinded by ideology". Oh the irony. Mearsheimer may be blinded by silly IR theories, but he is a realist (i.e. not ideologue) through and through.
  - jonahbenton 5y ago
    Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. His will to power is generally worshipped on the right, and mistaken for strategic brilliance, but it is not. For instance the endemic corruption in the regime is virtually absent from Mearsheimer analyses, but is critically important from a realist assessment. Putin also sees everything in individual people terms, not structures and systems- unlike, for instance, China. This is also misunderstood on the right- the individual will to power takes precedence over structures and systems. Russia- as a system- has been weakening, not strengthening, acting only in asymmetric contexts like a jackal, a guerrilla terrorist. Mearsheimer has missed this. Cheers.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      "Realist" IR theory in general misses the importance of self-sustaining structures, systems and institutions. The peaceful international order itself is a cooperatively self-sustaining institution, and this handily explains why a huge amount of countries which benefit from a workable international order are reacting so quickly to Russia's actions.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        How do you rationalize 'the West just loves peace' (paraphrasing) with our current policy of funneling huge amounts of weapons to back an Ukrainian insurgency, and the resolute opposition to Ukraine surrendering and saving thousands of lives on any terms?
        zozbot234 5y ago
        The West has tried working with Russia before the operation. The other side was actively uncooperative (they told everyone they would retreat from the Ukrainian border, but then didn't); it's not surprising at all that mutual trust and communication would break down as a result. Even so it is basically the Ukrainians who are refusing to back down now, not necessarily the West. They hold all the cards.
        pphysch 5y ago
        > The West has tried working with Russia before the operation. What is your basis for this wild claim? Washington has actively opposed the implementation of the Minsk agreements since 2014, despite Moscow's enthusiasm for them.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Moscow was far from enthusiastic about the Minsk agreements. Their position has always been that they were only acting as a "mediator" not as a party, thus - conveniently enough for them - they could not be blamed if the agreements broke down. More recently, they've stated outright that the Minsk agreements are dead.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"right wing thinker blinded by ideology" Except maybe "right" it feels that you are what you say he is.
- throwaway_1928 5y ago
  Mearsheimer is deeply informed, objective and honest. Dangerous traits to have when your opinions don't mirror those of any given establishment.
pbourke 5y ago
A counterpoint to Mearsheimer from historian Stephen Kotkin in conversation with David Remnick: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-...
- blub 5y ago
  Interesting article overall, but the counter-point is not that strong IMO. I don’t think that those which are arguing that NATO over-extended and that they’re not innocent bystanders harbour the illusion that failing such expansion Russia would be a more democratic country. The argument is that they wouldn’t be so aggressive because they wouldn’t feel threatened. There was a great argument that I read on HN explaining why Ukraine being NATO-friendly was causing massive problems for Russia - the gist of it was that they could project significant more power right at their doorstep. In a recent interview Mearsheimer said that even if Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO wants them to join, in reality Russia has a kind of veto power, no matter if that may seem immoral and unfair.
it_does_follow 5y ago
> That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine. I appreciate Mearsheimer's perspective, but for a self professed "realist", I find it strange that he talks a lot about "ideology" and very little about "oil". At the end of the day all of those conflicts are conflicts over the control of fossil fuels. I have a hard time taking any analysis seriously that doesn't focus on this primary issue.
gumby 5y ago
Mearsheimer's getting a lot of airplay right now, but his analysis is straight out of the 19th century "great game" -- Ukraine is hardly even mentioned. His reasoning is all about the territorial conflicts of the "great powers". In reality Russia is a small, poor, and mostly irrelevant state, mainly getting airtime because it has nukes. Without the nukes it would be taken as seriously as other countries of its economic clout, like Australia. Which is to say, not taken seriously at all.
- _dps 5y ago
  Russia provides something like 20% of global wheat supply, something like 15% of global agricultural supplement input, and something like 12.5% of global oil/gas. They also have an enormous intellectual human capital history — the soviet era physicists and mathematicians were definitely peers to their western counterparts, which is to say nothing of their literature. And finally, they have top-tier homegrown armaments in nuclear, submarines, ICBMs, fighter aircraft, and so on. I think any metric (e.g. GDP) that reduces this multidimensional situation to "mostly irrelevant" is probably saying more about the metric than about the reality on the ground.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    By that metric greece should be a superpower. They have the world's 1st navy too. It doesnt work that way. Russia is not irrelevant, but almost-irrelevant. It can be cut off from the global economy without disastrous results
  - gumby 5y ago
    They are far far from an imperial power though, and haven’t really been one since the mid sixties, perhaps earlier. They should just face the music as onetime apex predator Britain has. Italians are proud of their Roman forebears but have no pretensions of contemporary imperial greatness. Likewise Turkey.
- jdrc 5y ago
  it s basically the points that Putin made in his speech before the invasion. He s pretty clear about what he wants and people should read that speech

jonahbenton 5y ago

[flagged]

c-smile 5y ago
Probably. But the fact that we've transitioned from BiPolar (US<->USSR) to UniPolar(US) and now to MultiPolar world is correct as we see.
pphysch 5y ago
Dismissing Mearsheimer as a "right wing thinker" that is "blinded by ideology". Oh the irony. Mearsheimer may be blinded by silly IR theories, but he is a realist (i.e. not ideologue) through and through.
- jonahbenton 5y ago
  Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. His will to power is generally worshipped on the right, and mistaken for strategic brilliance, but it is not. For instance the endemic corruption in the regime is virtually absent from Mearsheimer analyses, but is critically important from a realist assessment. Putin also sees everything in individual people terms, not structures and systems- unlike, for instance, China. This is also misunderstood on the right- the individual will to power takes precedence over structures and systems. Russia- as a system- has been weakening, not strengthening, acting only in asymmetric contexts like a jackal, a guerrilla terrorist. Mearsheimer has missed this. Cheers.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    "Realist" IR theory in general misses the importance of self-sustaining structures, systems and institutions. The peaceful international order itself is a cooperatively self-sustaining institution, and this handily explains why a huge amount of countries which benefit from a workable international order are reacting so quickly to Russia's actions.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      How do you rationalize 'the West just loves peace' (paraphrasing) with our current policy of funneling huge amounts of weapons to back an Ukrainian insurgency, and the resolute opposition to Ukraine surrendering and saving thousands of lives on any terms?
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        The West has tried working with Russia before the operation. The other side was actively uncooperative (they told everyone they would retreat from the Ukrainian border, but then didn't); it's not surprising at all that mutual trust and communication would break down as a result. Even so it is basically the Ukrainians who are refusing to back down now, not necessarily the West. They hold all the cards.
        pphysch 5y ago
        > The West has tried working with Russia before the operation. What is your basis for this wild claim? Washington has actively opposed the implementation of the Minsk agreements since 2014, despite Moscow's enthusiasm for them.
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Moscow was far from enthusiastic about the Minsk agreements. Their position has always been that they were only acting as a "mediator" not as a party, thus - conveniently enough for them - they could not be blamed if the agreements broke down. More recently, they've stated outright that the Minsk agreements are dead.
FpUser 5y ago
>"right wing thinker blinded by ideology" Except maybe "right" it feels that you are what you say he is.
throwaway_1928 5y ago
Mearsheimer is deeply informed, objective and honest. Dangerous traits to have when your opinions don't mirror those of any given establishment.

pbourke 5y ago

A counterpoint to Mearsheimer from historian Stephen Kotkin in conversation with David Remnick: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-...

blub 5y ago
Interesting article overall, but the counter-point is not that strong IMO. I don’t think that those which are arguing that NATO over-extended and that they’re not innocent bystanders harbour the illusion that failing such expansion Russia would be a more democratic country. The argument is that they wouldn’t be so aggressive because they wouldn’t feel threatened. There was a great argument that I read on HN explaining why Ukraine being NATO-friendly was causing massive problems for Russia - the gist of it was that they could project significant more power right at their doorstep. In a recent interview Mearsheimer said that even if Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO wants them to join, in reality Russia has a kind of veto power, no matter if that may seem immoral and unfair.

it_does_follow 5y ago

> That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine. I appreciate Mearsheimer's perspective, but for a self professed "realist", I find it strange that he talks a lot about "ideology" and very little about "oil". At the end of the day all of those conflicts are conflicts over the control of fossil fuels. I have a hard time taking any analysis seriously that doesn't focus on this primary issue.

gumby 5y ago

Mearsheimer's getting a lot of airplay right now, but his analysis is straight out of the 19th century "great game" -- Ukraine is hardly even mentioned. His reasoning is all about the territorial conflicts of the "great powers". In reality Russia is a small, poor, and mostly irrelevant state, mainly getting airtime because it has nukes. Without the nukes it would be taken as seriously as other countries of its economic clout, like Australia. Which is to say, not taken seriously at all.

_dps 5y ago
Russia provides something like 20% of global wheat supply, something like 15% of global agricultural supplement input, and something like 12.5% of global oil/gas. They also have an enormous intellectual human capital history — the soviet era physicists and mathematicians were definitely peers to their western counterparts, which is to say nothing of their literature. And finally, they have top-tier homegrown armaments in nuclear, submarines, ICBMs, fighter aircraft, and so on. I think any metric (e.g. GDP) that reduces this multidimensional situation to "mostly irrelevant" is probably saying more about the metric than about the reality on the ground.
- jdrc 5y ago
  By that metric greece should be a superpower. They have the world's 1st navy too. It doesnt work that way. Russia is not irrelevant, but almost-irrelevant. It can be cut off from the global economy without disastrous results
- gumby 5y ago
  They are far far from an imperial power though, and haven’t really been one since the mid sixties, perhaps earlier. They should just face the music as onetime apex predator Britain has. Italians are proud of their Roman forebears but have no pretensions of contemporary imperial greatness. Likewise Turkey.
jdrc 5y ago
it s basically the points that Putin made in his speech before the invasion. He s pretty clear about what he wants and people should read that speech