3 ms·

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 ac

by 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.
- yucky 5y ago
  If that were the case, then Finland would be in trouble too. But they're not, because they have maintained neutrality and not threatened to bring US military to Russia's borders. Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
  - watwut 5y ago
    The support for joining NATO in Finland is going up, because exactly as you say, they think they are in potential trouble. Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.
cuteboy19 5y ago
If you would recall there has already been an election after 2014.
- yucky 5y ago
  Sure, there was a coup in which a regime favorable to their biggest enemy was installed, and then the Constitution was changed to put NATO back on the menu, which if we're honest about it NATO = US Military (again, their biggest enemy). And then we expect Russia to trust the legitimacy of the new US-backed regime who just overthrew the government and made moves to bring the US/NATO to their doorstep, all because they later held "elections"? If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine. Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
  - watwut 5y ago
    Are you saying that Russia is in Ukraine to defend Ukrainian democracy? Because that sounds like pretty novel theory, considering Russia itself is pretty oppressive state. And considering how Russian puppet states (Belarus, Chechenia) behave. It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose. it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.

by yucky 5y ago

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.

yucky 5y ago
If that were the case, then Finland would be in trouble too. But they're not, because they have maintained neutrality and not threatened to bring US military to Russia's borders. Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
- watwut 5y ago
  The support for joining NATO in Finland is going up, because exactly as you say, they think they are in potential trouble. Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.

cuteboy19 5y ago

If you would recall there has already been an election after 2014.

yucky 5y ago
Sure, there was a coup in which a regime favorable to their biggest enemy was installed, and then the Constitution was changed to put NATO back on the menu, which if we're honest about it NATO = US Military (again, their biggest enemy). And then we expect Russia to trust the legitimacy of the new US-backed regime who just overthrew the government and made moves to bring the US/NATO to their doorstep, all because they later held "elections"? If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine. Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
- watwut 5y ago
  Are you saying that Russia is in Ukraine to defend Ukrainian democracy? Because that sounds like pretty novel theory, considering Russia itself is pretty oppressive state. And considering how Russian puppet states (Belarus, Chechenia) behave. It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose. it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.