5 ms·

Still haven’t seen a solid critique of Mearsheimer’s thesis and I’m starting to believe that maybe there won’t be one… I think one of the confusing points is t

by blub 5y ago

Still haven’t seen a solid critique of Mearsheimer’s thesis and I’m starting to believe that maybe there won’t be one… I think one of the confusing points is trying to approach these events from a moral or “who’s to blame” point of view which is maybe important when attributing war crimes, calculating reparations or even giving us someone to hate if the world should end. But the key aspect should be outcomes. And his thesis is quite simple: if you push a major power, they will push back hard - just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So the solution’s also quite simple: if you don’t want the outcome, don’t take actions that lead to it. He’s said it right in the New Yorker article at the end - strategy trumps morality.

yucky 5y ago
This is correct, and everything else is noise. I think people struggle coming to terms with this due to relying too much on emotion, and not logic.
watwut 5y ago
Ukraine is not in NATO nor close to it and the outcome is Russia thinking they are entitled to their own territory. NATO was not threat to Russia, that is merely excuse and attempt to blame someone else. And when Russia cant take their territory, they settled with trying to kill as much civilians as possible. That is not consistent with defensive war. Ideologically, Russia was moving toward expansive colonialist theories for years now. They were not worried about NATO attacking them. They wanted to making Russia bigger again. Ukrainians disagreeing with Russians plans is not fault of NATO. It should not be goal of American diplomacy to make Russian ambitions easier by intentionally weakening other nations.
- typon 5y ago
  The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba. What you're talking about is a fantasy world that only exists in the mind of liberals. Down here in the real world, major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence. How does that exclude Russia trying to annex Ukraine regardless of whether NATO expanded or not? Russia is power exerting dominance over their neighbors whenever it can. Nato expanding or not is just creating difference in terms of how far and where those wars will be - the countries no in NATO are more likely to be attacked by Russia. The Russia as purely reactive state with no own ambitions is the fantasy. That is major fault in Mearsheimer’s nonsense theory. This is nothing to do with liberals or right wing Russian fanboys. I dont know whether it is psychological need to have everything about you. Or whether it is psychological difficulty to imagine other countries (Russia, Ukraine) as real ones. But either way, attempt to explain last decades in Russia purely by other countries joining Nato is absurd.
    - blub 5y ago
      The theory doesn’t claim that Russia is a purely reactive state, that’a a nonsense interpretation if I may use your own words. It claims that when certain things happen, they are forced to react. E.g. regime change in a neighbor that’s typically not NATO-friendly that suddenly starts training with NATO with the hope of joining someday.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    > The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba Uh, no. That was because the Soviet Union attempted to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, not simply because they formed an alliance.
    - blub 5y ago
      The US already had nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and launched a failed coup in Cuba, which then asked the USSR to deploy nuclear missiles in their country.
- blub 5y ago
  Ukraine’s holding yearly war games with NATO on its territory since 2014 - Rapid Trident. This was launched at the explicit request of Ukraine, which had a political change of direction that same year. Russia is always worried about NATO. Courting Ukraine of all countries is a massive miscalculation, unless… the US made a bet they could sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia in the war and test military hardware. So far so good: Russia is isolated, the EU is struggling with another wave of refugees and is at the mercy of whoever else can give them gas and more dependent on the US.

by blub 5y ago

yucky 5y ago

This is correct, and everything else is noise. I think people struggle coming to terms with this due to relying too much on emotion, and not logic.

watwut 5y ago

Ukraine is not in NATO nor close to it and the outcome is Russia thinking they are entitled to their own territory. NATO was not threat to Russia, that is merely excuse and attempt to blame someone else. And when Russia cant take their territory, they settled with trying to kill as much civilians as possible. That is not consistent with defensive war. Ideologically, Russia was moving toward expansive colonialist theories for years now. They were not worried about NATO attacking them. They wanted to making Russia bigger again. Ukrainians disagreeing with Russians plans is not fault of NATO. It should not be goal of American diplomacy to make Russian ambitions easier by intentionally weakening other nations.

typon 5y ago
The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba. What you're talking about is a fantasy world that only exists in the mind of liberals. Down here in the real world, major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence.
- watwut 5y ago
  > major powers exert dominance over their neighbours and want to protect their sphere of influence. How does that exclude Russia trying to annex Ukraine regardless of whether NATO expanded or not? Russia is power exerting dominance over their neighbors whenever it can. Nato expanding or not is just creating difference in terms of how far and where those wars will be - the countries no in NATO are more likely to be attacked by Russia. The Russia as purely reactive state with no own ambitions is the fantasy. That is major fault in Mearsheimer’s nonsense theory. This is nothing to do with liberals or right wing Russian fanboys. I dont know whether it is psychological need to have everything about you. Or whether it is psychological difficulty to imagine other countries (Russia, Ukraine) as real ones. But either way, attempt to explain last decades in Russia purely by other countries joining Nato is absurd.
  - blub 5y ago
    The theory doesn’t claim that Russia is a purely reactive state, that’a a nonsense interpretation if I may use your own words. It claims that when certain things happen, they are forced to react. E.g. regime change in a neighbor that’s typically not NATO-friendly that suddenly starts training with NATO with the hope of joining someday.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  > The US almost started global thermonuclear war because the Soviet Union allied itself with Cuba Uh, no. That was because the Soviet Union attempted to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, not simply because they formed an alliance.
  - blub 5y ago
    The US already had nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and launched a failed coup in Cuba, which then asked the USSR to deploy nuclear missiles in their country.
blub 5y ago
Ukraine’s holding yearly war games with NATO on its territory since 2014 - Rapid Trident. This was launched at the explicit request of Ukraine, which had a political change of direction that same year. Russia is always worried about NATO. Courting Ukraine of all countries is a massive miscalculation, unless… the US made a bet they could sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia in the war and test military hardware. So far so good: Russia is isolated, the EU is struggling with another wave of refugees and is at the mercy of whoever else can give them gas and more dependent on the US.