7 ms·

You are deeply misinterpreting Mearsheimer's conclusion in your piece. He's not saying that NATO has a responsibility to not upset Russia - He's merely (accurat

You are deeply misinterpreting Mearsheimer's conclusion in your piece. He's not saying that NATO has a responsibility to not upset Russia - He's merely (accurately) noting that expanding the West's sphere of militaristic and social influence right up to Russia's borders has led to a clash between conflicting interests. Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet. This is Mearsheimer's point; if we didn't want conflict in Europe, we should not have run toward it. Further, I think you could do with giving Russia more credit than you do - Suggesting that they are a declining power because 'all they have is a large portion of the world's energy reserves, and one of the few nuclear arsenals that shapes the world's geopolitics' is more than a little stretched, even if I see what you're shooting for. It's worth remembering the chaos they have successfully sown in US and European politics over the past 5 years, along with the effective interference they have run in the West's Middle East policy while assessing Russia's level of power in the world. Nonetheless, I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!

panick21_ 5y ago
Its kind of fun he and many others have been pointing these things out for 15+ years. And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.
- Arnt 5y ago
  Uhm, "the thing they predicted" is NATO expansion ("the heart of the strategy" in Mearsheimer's words), and the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Far from it.
  - crateless 5y ago
    CIA Director, William Burns wrote this in 2008. Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Cart before the horse, cause before effect, really. Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.
      - crateless 5y ago
        Of course nations should be free to choose their own path. No-one is arguing against that. Mearsheimer argues that when the path that a country chooses comes into conflict with a great power's security interests, those interests become the overriding concern of both parties. He points out that Cuba was not allowed to ally itself with USSR with nuclear war being put on the table. I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China to put a military base on its soil. As a minor example consider the Solomon islands brouhaha[1]. [1]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        And who is the "great power" in the current situation, and why do you deem them so?
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China The only interesting part is where this is the exact same BS talking point as from the most extreme of the pro-Russia/ "Maidan was a CIA coup" shills. e.g. (but not the only example) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756
  - yucky 5y ago
    >the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Well no, because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. And I think that's the point of this war, from Russia's standpoint. If they wait until Ukraine is in NATO, then it's too late to prevent that from happening without WWIII.
    - watwut 5y ago
      The point of this war from Russia standpoint is that Ukraine should not exist as nation. The point is to take over Ukraine, change government to puppet one at best and then export their own autocracy there. Then they may get ready for further expansion, as Russia has already done several times in their history. And Putin is in fact praising that history.
      - yucky 5y ago
        This is exactly why people like Mearsheimer are so important, to cut through emotional takes like this and present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions. The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
        watwut 5y ago
        Why do you assume it is emotional rather then logical, because it does not feel as good as what Mearsheimer says? Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years. There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now. You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO. > The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical. Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in. > present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are. Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
- watwut 5y ago
  No, he was wrong. Ukraine is not part of NATO and Russia is attacking them. Had Ukraine was part of NATO, chances are Russia would not be attacking them. Or at least, NATO would had duty to help them. The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Go and actually listen to his talks. He predicts pretty accurately what has happened. And so have many people.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Sure. And people who were talking about Russia becoming imperial last dozen years were predicting the exact same thing. The people who warned about Russia turning back to USSR legacy were super correct. Except that, they don't atribute Russian actions to America, as if Russian leadership could not have own ambitions. If there was something about Russia that would suggest them staying peaceful absent NATO expansion, then maybe. But it is not and all he does is trying to make Russian politics all about USA.
rini17 5y ago
Mearsheimer is not merely noting, he is criticizing and wants the West to join Russia against China with "laser focus"- that's directly from linked interview. If that means throwing whole middle third of Europe plus Caucasus under the bus, he's apparently okay with that. Finland managed to develop under forced neutrality but that was an exception, life elsewhere between EU and Russia was pretty miserable and has led to wars before. So, western avoidance would not have won stability here either.
- NonEUCitizen 5y ago
  Life was/is pretty good in Austria as well.
watwut 5y ago
> This is Mearsheimer's point; if we didn't want conflict in Europe, we should not have run toward it. If the NATO did not expanded, Russia would had it easy to continue to expand to those theoretically non-NATO countries. There would be war - whether in Ukraine or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland. Expanded up to whatever border of NATO would be. Mearsheimer is wrong, because he completely ignores Russian state ideology and leadership. He treats them as merely reactive, poor things without agency. Russia could have been democracy, it could have been country in which communist victims are rehabilitated or in which political opposition is not violently suppressed. That it is not so was due to choices of people who got power after 1990. And war in Ukraine is happening because of conscious choices of those exact same people. > Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet. You want to make it about two sides, because you want to ignore people and nations this is about. Ukraine has its own side. Eastern and Central European countries are different side then USA, although they really really want USA protection right now. And yes, existence of Ukraine as democratic independent nation was incompatible with Russian agenda of becoming USSR again. However, that is not expression of Western interests. That is expression of Ukrainian interests. Framing them as Western interests is just weak attempt to delegitimatize them. Western countries don't care about Ukraine itself all that much, Ukrainians themselves do. Countries next to Russia and Ukraine worry about Russia expansion beyond Ukraine.
newbamboo 5y ago
“I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!” Agree 100%. To ignore the realist framework makes the world less safe, more prone to war. More theories, more voices, makes us a safer world less prone to war. War is bad, so putting a lot of thought into avoiding it is good. My sense is that many people have an inverted view because they haven’t studied history or international relations, and lack the meta cognitive capacity to consider what theories are and how to evaluate them. Criticism of defensive/offensive realism comes from this deficit. Learners think a theory is either right or wrong, and that a person is more or less synonymous with a single monolithic theory and so they too must be either right or wrong (eg Darwin, Freud). The reality is that even “wrong” theories are useful. When nuclear war is a possible outcome, we do ourselves a favor by considering more voices and theories especially those with strong predictive power.
- LichenStone 5y ago
  I think most people who are making counterarguments to Mearsheimer et al are not ignoring or dismissing realism, they are pointing out the limitations and flaws with its predictive powers and usefulness for determining 'optimal' policies. > People want realism to be a theory of how the world actually works, a theory of how the world should work, and a theory of what should we do given how the world works, all at the same time. In terms of presenting an accurate model realism is only as good as the analysis you put into it, and unless you have a very advanced computer simulation of the world you can't test these models for what exactly will happen and when. Sometimes your prediction will be reasonably accurate and sometimes it won't, and hindsight bias will play tricks. And as for its usefulness for deciding what we should do there seems to be little provision for the role of ideology, ethics, a sense of honour etc, i.e. what kind of world people would like to live in. Those factors are critical not just for making a model of current and future realities, but are of course essential for figuring out how we want to shape our world. A purely utilitarian view just aiming to minimise war and death might permit a more highly autocratic and repressive world, which could be at odds with many people's view of meaning and personal or collective destiny. An example of such a destiny would be the Ukrainian people's desire to live in a democractic Western-aligned state, and the West's desire to support them in this goal.

panick21_ 5y ago

Its kind of fun he and many others have been pointing these things out for 15+ years. And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.

Arnt 5y ago
Uhm, "the thing they predicted" is NATO expansion ("the heart of the strategy" in Mearsheimer's words), and the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Far from it.
- crateless 5y ago
  CIA Director, William Burns wrote this in 2008. Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Cart before the horse, cause before effect, really. Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.
    - crateless 5y ago
      Of course nations should be free to choose their own path. No-one is arguing against that. Mearsheimer argues that when the path that a country chooses comes into conflict with a great power's security interests, those interests become the overriding concern of both parties. He points out that Cuba was not allowed to ally itself with USSR with nuclear war being put on the table. I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China to put a military base on its soil. As a minor example consider the Solomon islands brouhaha[1]. [1]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        And who is the "great power" in the current situation, and why do you deem them so?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China The only interesting part is where this is the exact same BS talking point as from the most extreme of the pro-Russia/ "Maidan was a CIA coup" shills. e.g. (but not the only example) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756
- yucky 5y ago
  >the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Well no, because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. And I think that's the point of this war, from Russia's standpoint. If they wait until Ukraine is in NATO, then it's too late to prevent that from happening without WWIII.
  - watwut 5y ago
    The point of this war from Russia standpoint is that Ukraine should not exist as nation. The point is to take over Ukraine, change government to puppet one at best and then export their own autocracy there. Then they may get ready for further expansion, as Russia has already done several times in their history. And Putin is in fact praising that history.
    - yucky 5y ago
      This is exactly why people like Mearsheimer are so important, to cut through emotional takes like this and present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions. The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
      - watwut 5y ago
        Why do you assume it is emotional rather then logical, because it does not feel as good as what Mearsheimer says? Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years. There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now. You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO. > The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical. Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in. > present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are. Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
watwut 5y ago
No, he was wrong. Ukraine is not part of NATO and Russia is attacking them. Had Ukraine was part of NATO, chances are Russia would not be attacking them. Or at least, NATO would had duty to help them. The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Go and actually listen to his talks. He predicts pretty accurately what has happened. And so have many people.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Sure. And people who were talking about Russia becoming imperial last dozen years were predicting the exact same thing. The people who warned about Russia turning back to USSR legacy were super correct. Except that, they don't atribute Russian actions to America, as if Russian leadership could not have own ambitions. If there was something about Russia that would suggest them staying peaceful absent NATO expansion, then maybe. But it is not and all he does is trying to make Russian politics all about USA.

rini17 5y ago

Mearsheimer is not merely noting, he is criticizing and wants the West to join Russia against China with "laser focus"- that's directly from linked interview. If that means throwing whole middle third of Europe plus Caucasus under the bus, he's apparently okay with that. Finland managed to develop under forced neutrality but that was an exception, life elsewhere between EU and Russia was pretty miserable and has led to wars before. So, western avoidance would not have won stability here either.

NonEUCitizen 5y ago
Life was/is pretty good in Austria as well.

watwut 5y ago

> This is Mearsheimer's point; if we didn't want conflict in Europe, we should not have run toward it. If the NATO did not expanded, Russia would had it easy to continue to expand to those theoretically non-NATO countries. There would be war - whether in Ukraine or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland. Expanded up to whatever border of NATO would be. Mearsheimer is wrong, because he completely ignores Russian state ideology and leadership. He treats them as merely reactive, poor things without agency. Russia could have been democracy, it could have been country in which communist victims are rehabilitated or in which political opposition is not violently suppressed. That it is not so was due to choices of people who got power after 1990. And war in Ukraine is happening because of conscious choices of those exact same people. > Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet. You want to make it about two sides, because you want to ignore people and nations this is about. Ukraine has its own side. Eastern and Central European countries are different side then USA, although they really really want USA protection right now. And yes, existence of Ukraine as democratic independent nation was incompatible with Russian agenda of becoming USSR again. However, that is not expression of Western interests. That is expression of Ukrainian interests. Framing them as Western interests is just weak attempt to delegitimatize them. Western countries don't care about Ukraine itself all that much, Ukrainians themselves do. Countries next to Russia and Ukraine worry about Russia expansion beyond Ukraine.

newbamboo 5y ago

“I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!” Agree 100%. To ignore the realist framework makes the world less safe, more prone to war. More theories, more voices, makes us a safer world less prone to war. War is bad, so putting a lot of thought into avoiding it is good. My sense is that many people have an inverted view because they haven’t studied history or international relations, and lack the meta cognitive capacity to consider what theories are and how to evaluate them. Criticism of defensive/offensive realism comes from this deficit. Learners think a theory is either right or wrong, and that a person is more or less synonymous with a single monolithic theory and so they too must be either right or wrong (eg Darwin, Freud). The reality is that even “wrong” theories are useful. When nuclear war is a possible outcome, we do ourselves a favor by considering more voices and theories especially those with strong predictive power.

LichenStone 5y ago
I think most people who are making counterarguments to Mearsheimer et al are not ignoring or dismissing realism, they are pointing out the limitations and flaws with its predictive powers and usefulness for determining 'optimal' policies. > People want realism to be a theory of how the world actually works, a theory of how the world should work, and a theory of what should we do given how the world works, all at the same time. In terms of presenting an accurate model realism is only as good as the analysis you put into it, and unless you have a very advanced computer simulation of the world you can't test these models for what exactly will happen and when. Sometimes your prediction will be reasonably accurate and sometimes it won't, and hindsight bias will play tricks. And as for its usefulness for deciding what we should do there seems to be little provision for the role of ideology, ethics, a sense of honour etc, i.e. what kind of world people would like to live in. Those factors are critical not just for making a model of current and future realities, but are of course essential for figuring out how we want to shape our world. A purely utilitarian view just aiming to minimise war and death might permit a more highly autocratic and repressive world, which could be at odds with many people's view of meaning and personal or collective destiny. An example of such a destiny would be the Ukrainian people's desire to live in a democractic Western-aligned state, and the West's desire to support them in this goal.