4 ms·

I suggest you watch this John Mearsheimer talk (2015) as I think it will help clear a lot of misconceptions you seem to have and also tighten your thinking abou

I suggest you watch this John Mearsheimer talk (2015) as I think it will help clear a lot of misconceptions you seem to have and also tighten your thinking about the matter. If there's gonna be a WW3, it'll be because the West wants a WW3. [2015] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

starwind 5y ago
I've never found Mearsheimer's arguments on Ukraine all that convincing. I really liked Adam Roberts succinct take down in the Economist a couple weeks ago. I know Roberts doesn't address all Mearsheimer's points, but he hits the main ones https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-roberts-rebuffs-the-view-that-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-...
- armitron 5y ago
  I'm being super generous when I say he's splitting hairs. Take this part: "These factors suggest that the 2008 proposal to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine is just one among many developments that have made the current crisis so acute. It is arguable, indeed likely, that the NATO expansion proposal made matters worse, as may some other Western actions, but to assert that “the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis” goes too far." Or this gem: "It’s questionable whether Mr Putin was right to say NATO posed a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence. From the start in 2008 there were different interpretations of what was meant by “will become members”. " Putin made it very very clear where he stood, and yet you still see armchair psychoanalysis being done. It's all pretty shoddy. There is certainly nothing of substance here that even begins to address Mearsheimer's iron-clad arguments.
  - starwind 5y ago
    I wouldn't say Roberts's arguments are splitting hairs, I'd say he's turning the whole thing around and saying Putin interpreted every Western action in the worst light possible, Russia decided that Ukraine was its domain, and the West and Ukraine had the right to define their own relations. Mearsheimer's argument boils down to: Russia thinks it has the right to do what it wants in Eastern Europe, and the West caused this problem by not saying "ok." Putin violated the Bucharest Memorandum by moving into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russia created this mess.
    - leobg 5y ago
      You are arguing like the man whose wife wants to divorce him, and who concludes that the only way to stop the divorce would be to give in to every demand his wife ever makes, which is clearly unacceptable. Every marriage counselor will tell you: What escalates conflict is not so much “not giving in“, but “not listening“. Mearsheimer’s argument, in other words, is not that West needs to do everything Putin ever says. Instead, his argument is that the West is provoking Putin by treating him as if he is not to be taken serious, and as if Russia as a country is not to be taken serious.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    Putin wasn't even scared of NATO coming to the defence of a sovereign country, Ukraine. It's damn sure not he was never scared of NATO actually threatening Russian territory. I see too many people these days being reflexively contrarian, like they're on a next level of understanding, simply by being opposite of the "current thing." Mearsheimer's arguments are widely known, it's not an "aha" moment to name drop him, stick to the arguments. Personally, I prefer info from people that actually predicted the invasion months ago.
- LichenStone 5y ago
  Also see this - https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-realist-take-is-so-exasperating/ https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-re...
empiricus 5y ago
The west just played some superficial games. But in the end the west is not serious, and they won't seriously protect Ukraine. Ukraine would not join NATO, it was not real, the west does not have to balls. It was just a pretext for Putin to invade it.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It wasn't a superficial game, it had very real stakes for the Ukrainians, and the Russians as well. Thing may turn out quite nice indeed for the west, but only time will tell.
kstenerud 5y ago
OK, having transcribed and read the whole talk, I fail to see what misconceptions I have. Mearsheimer is mostly correct in that NATO expansion and Western misunderstanding of the Russian psyche precipitated the conflict in Ukraine, but this didn't change Putin's ambitions, which were always the same. Even Clinton is perplexed at Russian reactions: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clint... Mearsheimer is absolutely wrong in suggesting that Russia is not interested in absorbing Ukraine and the other satellite states. But then again he's framing it in some sort of Afghanistan-like invasion and ensuing quagmire, which of course Putin would never (knowingly) do. Here's a nice quote from 23:41: "In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that."
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >"In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that." I think there is still a ton of time for these intentions to play out, and I think they the quote is still accurate. Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so. If they invasion went better than their wildest dreams, they might have taken what is east of the Dnieper, but would be unlikely to hold on to that. The invasion did and still lines up with the intentions of regime change, and taking some boarder regions.
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    "Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so." Russia did absolutely attempt to do exactly that. This invasion was modelled after Operation Danube, intended to: - Cut off all major airstrips by landing planes in friendship and then unloading paratroopers to capture them. - Quickly enter the major cities and capture the "illegitimate" government. - Crush the pockets of resistance among the mostly pro-Russian populace. - Install a Russia-friendly government. - Execute the old government as a warning against other countries. Of course, none of it went according to plan. The upper government was misinformed about their own military strength and preparedness, the supposedly already "pro-Russian" Ukrainians who would just stand by and let this happen, and the world response. Also, the Ukrainian military was forewarned, so the airstrip captures ... didn't exactly go according to plan :P And since this was expected to take half a week tops, nobody bothered to set up proper supply lines or airforce + ground + artillery coordination. After all, why bother with all of that on a milk run?

starwind 5y ago

I've never found Mearsheimer's arguments on Ukraine all that convincing. I really liked Adam Roberts succinct take down in the Economist a couple weeks ago. I know Roberts doesn't address all Mearsheimer's points, but he hits the main ones https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-roberts-rebuffs-the-view-that-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-...

armitron 5y ago
I'm being super generous when I say he's splitting hairs. Take this part: "These factors suggest that the 2008 proposal to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine is just one among many developments that have made the current crisis so acute. It is arguable, indeed likely, that the NATO expansion proposal made matters worse, as may some other Western actions, but to assert that “the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis” goes too far." Or this gem: "It’s questionable whether Mr Putin was right to say NATO posed a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence. From the start in 2008 there were different interpretations of what was meant by “will become members”. " Putin made it very very clear where he stood, and yet you still see armchair psychoanalysis being done. It's all pretty shoddy. There is certainly nothing of substance here that even begins to address Mearsheimer's iron-clad arguments.
- starwind 5y ago
  I wouldn't say Roberts's arguments are splitting hairs, I'd say he's turning the whole thing around and saying Putin interpreted every Western action in the worst light possible, Russia decided that Ukraine was its domain, and the West and Ukraine had the right to define their own relations. Mearsheimer's argument boils down to: Russia thinks it has the right to do what it wants in Eastern Europe, and the West caused this problem by not saying "ok." Putin violated the Bucharest Memorandum by moving into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russia created this mess.
  - leobg 5y ago
    You are arguing like the man whose wife wants to divorce him, and who concludes that the only way to stop the divorce would be to give in to every demand his wife ever makes, which is clearly unacceptable. Every marriage counselor will tell you: What escalates conflict is not so much “not giving in“, but “not listening“. Mearsheimer’s argument, in other words, is not that West needs to do everything Putin ever says. Instead, his argument is that the West is provoking Putin by treating him as if he is not to be taken serious, and as if Russia as a country is not to be taken serious.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Putin wasn't even scared of NATO coming to the defence of a sovereign country, Ukraine. It's damn sure not he was never scared of NATO actually threatening Russian territory. I see too many people these days being reflexively contrarian, like they're on a next level of understanding, simply by being opposite of the "current thing." Mearsheimer's arguments are widely known, it's not an "aha" moment to name drop him, stick to the arguments. Personally, I prefer info from people that actually predicted the invasion months ago.
LichenStone 5y ago
Also see this - https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-realist-take-is-so-exasperating/ https://tompepinsky.com/2022/03/03/heres-why-mearsheimers-re...

empiricus 5y ago

The west just played some superficial games. But in the end the west is not serious, and they won't seriously protect Ukraine. Ukraine would not join NATO, it was not real, the west does not have to balls. It was just a pretext for Putin to invade it.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It wasn't a superficial game, it had very real stakes for the Ukrainians, and the Russians as well. Thing may turn out quite nice indeed for the west, but only time will tell.

kstenerud 5y ago

OK, having transcribed and read the whole talk, I fail to see what misconceptions I have. Mearsheimer is mostly correct in that NATO expansion and Western misunderstanding of the Russian psyche precipitated the conflict in Ukraine, but this didn't change Putin's ambitions, which were always the same. Even Clinton is perplexed at Russian reactions: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clint... Mearsheimer is absolutely wrong in suggesting that Russia is not interested in absorbing Ukraine and the other satellite states. But then again he's framing it in some sort of Afghanistan-like invasion and ensuing quagmire, which of course Putin would never (knowingly) do. Here's a nice quote from 23:41: "In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that."

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>"In fact if you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer Ukraine. Putin again is much too smart to do that." I think there is still a ton of time for these intentions to play out, and I think they the quote is still accurate. Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so. If they invasion went better than their wildest dreams, they might have taken what is east of the Dnieper, but would be unlikely to hold on to that. The invasion did and still lines up with the intentions of regime change, and taking some boarder regions.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  "Russia can not conquer all of Ukraine, and never attempted to do so." Russia did absolutely attempt to do exactly that. This invasion was modelled after Operation Danube, intended to: - Cut off all major airstrips by landing planes in friendship and then unloading paratroopers to capture them. - Quickly enter the major cities and capture the "illegitimate" government. - Crush the pockets of resistance among the mostly pro-Russian populace. - Install a Russia-friendly government. - Execute the old government as a warning against other countries. Of course, none of it went according to plan. The upper government was misinformed about their own military strength and preparedness, the supposedly already "pro-Russian" Ukrainians who would just stand by and let this happen, and the world response. Also, the Ukrainian military was forewarned, so the airstrip captures ... didn't exactly go according to plan :P And since this was expected to take half a week tops, nobody bothered to set up proper supply lines or airforce + ground + artillery coordination. After all, why bother with all of that on a milk run?