3 ms·

Note that his view is far from marginal. Lots of experts share the the same analysis. Including Chomsky, or ex US ambassador to USSR [1] [1] https://www.democr

Note that his view is far from marginal. Lots of experts share the the same analysis. Including Chomsky, or ex US ambassador to USSR [1] [1] https://www.democracynow.org/2022/2/17/jack_matlock_ukraine_russia_nato_us https://www.democracynow.org/2022/2/17/jack_matlock_ukraine_... This is also quite consistent with Putin's revendications over time. It's a sensitive topic but to me Mearsheimer's explanation makes more sense than "Putin got crazy overnight and want to rule Europe", like we often hear in the medias.

coldtea 5y ago
Well, Chomsky could be dismissed as a "partisan" (activist, etc.). But Mearsheimer and other such experts are anything but. They just belong to the realist school, as in "no BS ideological sugarcoating international relations, saying like it is". Kissinger, for one, has written similar things. Putin might still have gotten it wrong (eg. miscalculating the success, etc), and he's war could fuck not just Ukraine, but also Russia considerably, but that's different to a "crazy unprovoked and without long term national interests in mind war".
- readonthegoapp 5y ago
  Curious who Chomsky is partisan for.
jacquesm 5y ago
"The medias"? -> it doesn't really matter how often this gets posted and how many people warned that this war was coming: in the end it is on those that invaded, not on the defenders and not on the rest of the world. "Look at what you made me do" is a bullshit excuse, you have agency.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  I'd argue it's useful to try to understand Putin's motivations if we want to stop this war ASAP. It's not about looking for excuses.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You can argue all you want but understanding Putin's motivations to start this war isn't going to help stopping it. The bigger question is how far Putin is willing to escalate it so he can pretend to claim victory, the West has zero agency in getting Putin to stop unless they are prepared to escalate themselves, but apparently we are willing to stand by watch thousands of people get murdered, using illegal weapons no less. Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place, it made the West look weak when in fact all they wanted was to avoid yet another war. But we're there now, and that changes everything, looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab. Mearsheimer may well have had a point, but it's easy to argue from the sidelines, the options before us at the time, to either allow Ukraine into NATO or to let them fend for themselves both had significant downsides. Dictators do what dictators do: throw people into the meatgrinder to make up for their own deficiencies, it doesn't need any high degree of intelligence to observe that, least of all about Russia.
    - yodsanklai 5y ago
      > Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place In what sense did the West try to appease Putin? Which of Putin's long standing revendications concerning Ukraine have been taken into account by the West? > looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab. Well, looking back, many voices told us what the world's response should have been, such as [1] [1] https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722e51 https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722... But in your opinion, what should the response have been?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        'Just asking questions'... such a great strategy. Sorry, not playing.
        yodsanklai 5y ago
        There's no strategy. You're the one claiming "Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place". Excuse me to ask for clarification, as this is pretty much the opposite of what Mearsheimer (and other experts) are saying. And I'm not only asking questions, I've also told you how I think this war could have been avoided (see the linked FT article). I also consider it may be stopped the exact same way it could have been avoided, by considering Putin's not crazy and accepting some of his revendications (but I'm just parroting Chomsky or Mearsheimer, for lack of better explanations).

coldtea 5y ago

Well, Chomsky could be dismissed as a "partisan" (activist, etc.). But Mearsheimer and other such experts are anything but. They just belong to the realist school, as in "no BS ideological sugarcoating international relations, saying like it is". Kissinger, for one, has written similar things. Putin might still have gotten it wrong (eg. miscalculating the success, etc), and he's war could fuck not just Ukraine, but also Russia considerably, but that's different to a "crazy unprovoked and without long term national interests in mind war".

readonthegoapp 5y ago
Curious who Chomsky is partisan for.

jacquesm 5y ago

"The medias"? -> it doesn't really matter how often this gets posted and how many people warned that this war was coming: in the end it is on those that invaded, not on the defenders and not on the rest of the world. "Look at what you made me do" is a bullshit excuse, you have agency.

yodsanklai 5y ago
I'd argue it's useful to try to understand Putin's motivations if we want to stop this war ASAP. It's not about looking for excuses.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You can argue all you want but understanding Putin's motivations to start this war isn't going to help stopping it. The bigger question is how far Putin is willing to escalate it so he can pretend to claim victory, the West has zero agency in getting Putin to stop unless they are prepared to escalate themselves, but apparently we are willing to stand by watch thousands of people get murdered, using illegal weapons no less. Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place, it made the West look weak when in fact all they wanted was to avoid yet another war. But we're there now, and that changes everything, looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab. Mearsheimer may well have had a point, but it's easy to argue from the sidelines, the options before us at the time, to either allow Ukraine into NATO or to let them fend for themselves both had significant downsides. Dictators do what dictators do: throw people into the meatgrinder to make up for their own deficiencies, it doesn't need any high degree of intelligence to observe that, least of all about Russia.
  - yodsanklai 5y ago
    > Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place In what sense did the West try to appease Putin? Which of Putin's long standing revendications concerning Ukraine have been taken into account by the West? > looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab. Well, looking back, many voices told us what the world's response should have been, such as [1] [1] https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722e51 https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722... But in your opinion, what should the response have been?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      'Just asking questions'... such a great strategy. Sorry, not playing.
      - yodsanklai 5y ago
        There's no strategy. You're the one claiming "Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place". Excuse me to ask for clarification, as this is pretty much the opposite of what Mearsheimer (and other experts) are saying. And I'm not only asking questions, I've also told you how I think this war could have been avoided (see the linked FT article). I also consider it may be stopped the exact same way it could have been avoided, by considering Putin's not crazy and accepting some of his revendications (but I'm just parroting Chomsky or Mearsheimer, for lack of better explanations).