6 ms·

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 es

by 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.

by 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.