9 ms·

The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism' John Mearsheimer made the analogy

The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism' John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers.

sgjohnson 5y ago
> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Definitely not by invading Canada.
watwut 5y ago
There is nothing difficult about it. It is not provocation, full stop. For that matter, Russia claimed Ukrainians talking about Russia atrocities are provocation too and that was nonsense too. ------------------- > Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. Sure. And Russia has army, millitary bases, does troop exercises and have both defensive and offensive missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. > From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers. No, it is actual step towards safer world. Finland does not have to wait till Russia tries to invade them.
neverartful 5y ago
Good points! It makes me wonder if we never learned anything from the Cuban Missile Crisis.
mopsi 5y ago
> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Stupid analogy from a stupid man. For this analogy to have any merit, the US would have to be a dictatoriship that has committed genocide against Canadians, is currently committing in occupied territories, and has declared destruction of Canada and Canadian nation as its goal. But the US is not an existential threat to Canada, hence no need for an alliance with China.
izacus 5y ago
What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about lying. The result is that their promises about not attacking someone if "they stay out of NATO" are worthless crap and the only way for smaller European countries to stop them is with force of arms and help of a big military alliance. Sure, in essence of fairness, US would probably be pissed if China would make Canada allies, but in all fairness, you also need to see that there's no US missiles butchering children in Mexican train stations.
- cryo28 5y ago
  - watwut 5y ago
    - tonguez 5y ago
      - watwut 5y ago
        That particular claim was refuted multiple times already. It is just a pure lie.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        Because it's like having to provide evidence that the earth is round. That level of disinformation is only available to orc news channels. > A Russian Tochka-U missile struck a civilian evacuation point at the Kramatorsk rail station on April 8, killing at least 50 and wounding around a hundred evacuees.[11] Russian attempts to deny the strike are completely false. Pro-Russian Telegram channels and the Russian Ministry of Defense initially claimed Russian forces conducted precision strikes on railway stations in Donbas before deleting the claims once heavy civilian casualties emerged.[12] Russian and DNR sources claimed both that the strike did not occur and that Ukrainian forces launched the strike as a false flag, ludicrously claiming that Russian forces do not use the Tochka-U missile—despite the fact Russia designed the Tochka, has demonstrably used it in previous strikes, and confirmed reports that Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army (operating in Donbas) is equipped with the missile.[13] -- https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-8 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens... Other war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian...
antattack 5y ago
Why reach for what-if scenario. Finland and Sweden already have an example of a country that did not join NATO and see the consequences of it.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  They also have an example of...themselves - that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor
  - macintux 5y ago
    Ukraine was bellicose by objecting to Russia’s multiple invasions of its territories?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    I think you forgot to add 'so far...' that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor so far. and either way, there is nothing at all that Ukraine did that justifies the murder and rape of thousands of civilians including children. Russia has forfeit their place on the stage to be treated as a rational actor. At this point its like saying all you need to do is not purchase a firearm to provoke your serial killer neighbor.
  - klawcode 5y ago
    Like how invaded Finland, stole a bunch of land, and then interfered with Finland's internal politics so much they came up with the term "Finlandization" for it? Not a great example dude. Everyone eventually hits the "Poland" moment, where you can't keep appeasing a dictator.
Narretz 5y ago
From Russia's perspective, almost everything is a provocation and a threat. Not rationally, but because Russia's official viewpoint is about as irrational as it gets. There isn't anything to appease them with, because they've chosen to ignore the facts. And from an outside perspective it's not hard to see why two states, one with a border to Russia, would join a military alliance after Russia invaded a sovereign neighbor.
stefan_ 5y ago
You know what seems like a terrifying step towards nuclear warfare? Removing one countries nuclear weapons by promising not to invade, then invading. What a boon for nuclear proliferation.
kspacewalk2 5y ago
>John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Most likely by reflecting on what went so horribly wrong in the relationship with Canada that a formerly closest ally of them all has decided to turn to a different power from across the ocean for help. Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border. He has no interest in fixing any relationships. This is a war of genocide. Things are only getting started, and the sooner the world realizes we are already at war, the better.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    Yes, I'm aware. Here we are discussing the absurd parallels that some people are attempting to draw with North America, and a hypothetical Canada that has turned to China. As a Ukrainian Canadian, I am fully aware of the absurdity of this scenario and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"...and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist." This is what is actually happening. It is a crime and I wish Putin, his close circle and other directly responsible would end their days rotting in jail. As for Canada turning into China and hosting their nukes. Of course this will never happen and is absurd. But in pure hypothetical world I am pretty sure the situation like this will turn into invasion if all negotiations fail. As a mini example see what happened when Noriega had started switching his allegiances from the US to a Soviet block.
Decabytes 5y ago
> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" I think we have an clear example of how this _could_ play out. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  It's completely stupid to compare the Cuban Missile Crisis with NATO expansion. You need to completely ignore history to do that. And the only motivation would be to justify the motives of a dictator, mass murder and war criminal....
  - Decabytes 5y ago
    My reply is based on the sentence which I quoted in my original comment. It was about the U.S and how it would respond to missiles near its borders. Please don't take my comment out of context
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  The USSR's alliance with Cuba is a good analogy. The US viewed deploying nuclear weapons to Cuba as provocation, but did nothing to prevent the alliance itself, which continued for decades after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Merely joining a defensive alliance is not provocation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dgellow 5y ago
Mearsheimer and the entire school of "neo realists" have absolutely zero credibility. It's really a shame that his youtube videos started to spread so much on youtube following Russian invasion given the amount of bullshit he's spreading. > 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility That's not true in any meaningful way. It's a massive process to convert a silo made for anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) into one for ICMBs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) or other type of offensive missiles. It's not an easy or fast thing to do and would definitely be visible from the outside.
- wackro 5y ago
  I don't know who this Mearsheimer is, but your comment is essentially ad hominem because you haven't addressed the point. If it helps you, the same thing has been said by others e.g. Chomsky. Could South Africa join NATO? Thailand? Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Do Chomsky has much credibility on the topic of Finland, Russia, NATO and Ukraine? Mearsheimer was litigated and relitigated on HN lately a lot. OP used Mearsheimer as argument from authority. It is ok to respond to it with "nah, that man does not have authority".
  - bluejekyll 5y ago
    > Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected. "In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia's long-term aim was to join NATO." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=In%201991%2C%20as%20the%20Soviet,aim%20was%20to%20join%20NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#.... A lot has happened since then.
  - andrewnicolalde 5y ago
    > Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected. https://euobserver.com/news/27890 https://euobserver.com/news/27890 “‘Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power’, the Russian ambassador stressed."
rich_sasha 5y ago
Russia had no issue deploying such weaponry on NATO's doorstep (Kaliningrad teaming with weaponry, including short-range ballistic missiles that Russia claimed to no longer hold, long-range AA missiles, constantly flying bombers into NATO airspace, etc.). So for the analogy of Canada-China alliance, you'd need, hmm, East China Sea to be already teaming with US or NATO weaponry. Not just an aircraft carrier here and there, but sizeable army ready to attack. (clearly doesn't work so very well with a maritime border, but that's where China's fragile bits are. US troops in Kyrgyzstan clearly stir far less emotions. Indeed Americans were in Afghanistan which borders China and they didn't seem to mind).
spamizbad 5y ago
Well, we had this happen in the 1960s with the Cuban missile crisis. No need for a thought experiment. But more broadly: We have excellent relations with Canada. If we step back, what would we be doing to Canada that would make them think "Holy crap, we need to join a defensive alliance with China to prevent a possible US attack!"? Is the US entitled to treat its neighbors so poorly they seek defensive alliances elsewhere?
timeon 5y ago
I do not get this. Why you need to create unreal analogies just to state some point? Especially now, when non-NATO neighbour of Russia was attacked by Russia? What if USA invaded Mexico and Canada became close allies with China? I do not know this is hardly going to happen like ever. Between my country and Russia is one country: Ukraine. If Ukraine was in NATO there would be peace today. I'm so glad that my country is in NATO. And what you are trying to say seems to me like you do not consider us as sovereign nation. Side note: it is not "whatabboutism" more appropriate term is "Putinversteher"
jkhloiujlknmk 5y ago
tinus_hn 5y ago
The alternative is the doormat strategy that failed before. Putin will not stop until he is stopped. There is no way to do that without incurring the risks so the logical choice is to not let him take strategic positions before incurring the risks.
crateless 5y ago
Following the Kremlin's logic, the advent of hypersonic missiles and the neoconservative bent of US/EU politics, it is seemingly inevitable that war is here.
TheGigaChad 5y ago
mzs 5y ago
I've asked experts repeatedly and have yet to hear back one example of where the Mearsheimer realism school predicted any international relations occurrence correctly in the past 30 years. It seems to have no predictive power as a theory. I think it only gets the traction it does for it's catchy misleading name.
dunkelheit 5y ago
The amount of ad-hominems in replies to your comment is simply staggering.
Xylakant 5y ago
> Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no NATO military presence in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Norway, the only defensive missile base was in Romania, with another under construction in Poland and both Finnland and Sweden already extensively train and cooperate with NATO troops. Troop deployments were token-sized in the order of low five digits in total. (1) All troop presence in the Baltic states is at the explicit request of those states - it ensures that if any of those states is invaded, other NATO members are immediately directly involved: Attacking any of those states means attacking US, British, French, German soldiers. Unsurprisingly, countries on the eastern border have requested and received more troop deployments, for example German air defense batteries have moved to Slovakia as part of a new NATO battle group. (1)Pre-Invasion Situation, early February https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europe/nato-troops-eastern-europe-map-intl-cmd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europe/nato-troops-easter...
Delk 5y ago
> The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism' I don't know what you mean with whataboutism in this context, but traditionally non-allied European countries considering their defensive options when Russia has invaded a sovereign nation is certainly not a provocation. > Joining NATO means millitary bases Not automatically. Not all NATO member countries have e.g. American military bases [1]. The Baltic countries have a small NATO military presence, but not a large enough one that it could pose any offensive threat towards Russia. It's entirely possible for a NATO member country to say "no thanks" to foreign military bases. That might even be likely at least in case of Finland which has maintained its own credible defensive capability. If Sweden or Finland consider joining NATO, it's because they'd like to have someone's back in case of a crisis, not because they'd want to host someone else's offensive capability. > troop exercises All military forces conduct exercises. > and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility Again, that's up to the individual member countries. Also, I'm not an expert on missile tech, but I don't think e.g. anti-air missiles can be easily turned into cruise missiles or other kinds of offensive weapons. -- Russia would likely consider Sweden or Finland joining NATO as a provocation. But it's not really possible in good faith to believe it would actually be one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...
glogla 5y ago
> John Mearsheimer is a well known supporter of Russia and China and of their whole imperial way of thinking. Unless you want wherever you live to look more like China or Russia do, I would recommend not listening to him, and definitely not spreading his disgusting ideas.

sgjohnson 5y ago

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Definitely not by invading Canada.

watwut 5y ago

There is nothing difficult about it. It is not provocation, full stop. For that matter, Russia claimed Ukrainians talking about Russia atrocities are provocation too and that was nonsense too. ------------------- > Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. Sure. And Russia has army, millitary bases, does troop exercises and have both defensive and offensive missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. > From that perspective, avoiding the issue of morality and legality, it seems like a terrifying step towards war between nuclear-armed powers. No, it is actual step towards safer world. Finland does not have to wait till Russia tries to invade them.

neverartful 5y ago

Good points! It makes me wonder if we never learned anything from the Cuban Missile Crisis.

mopsi 5y ago

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Stupid analogy from a stupid man. For this analogy to have any merit, the US would have to be a dictatoriship that has committed genocide against Canadians, is currently committing in occupied territories, and has declared destruction of Canada and Canadian nation as its goal. But the US is not an existential threat to Canada, hence no need for an alliance with China.

izacus 5y ago

What we learned in this "special operation" is that NATO expansion is just a convenient excuse for Russia and that they constantly lie and lie and lie about lying. The result is that their promises about not attacking someone if "they stay out of NATO" are worthless crap and the only way for smaller European countries to stop them is with force of arms and help of a big military alliance. Sure, in essence of fairness, US would probably be pissed if China would make Canada allies, but in all fairness, you also need to see that there's no US missiles butchering children in Mexican train stations.

cryo28 5y ago
- watwut 5y ago
  - tonguez 5y ago
    - watwut 5y ago
      That particular claim was refuted multiple times already. It is just a pure lie.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      Because it's like having to provide evidence that the earth is round. That level of disinformation is only available to orc news channels. > A Russian Tochka-U missile struck a civilian evacuation point at the Kramatorsk rail station on April 8, killing at least 50 and wounding around a hundred evacuees.[11] Russian attempts to deny the strike are completely false. Pro-Russian Telegram channels and the Russian Ministry of Defense initially claimed Russian forces conducted precision strikes on railway stations in Donbas before deleting the claims once heavy civilian casualties emerged.[12] Russian and DNR sources claimed both that the strike did not occur and that Ukrainian forces launched the strike as a false flag, ludicrously claiming that Russian forces do not use the Tochka-U missile—despite the fact Russia designed the Tochka, has demonstrably used it in previous strikes, and confirmed reports that Russia’s 8th Combined Arms Army (operating in Donbas) is equipped with the missile.[13] -- https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-8 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens... Other war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian...

antattack 5y ago

Why reach for what-if scenario. Finland and Sweden already have an example of a country that did not join NATO and see the consequences of it.

thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
They also have an example of...themselves - that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor
- macintux 5y ago
  Ukraine was bellicose by objecting to Russia’s multiple invasions of its territories?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  I think you forgot to add 'so far...' that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor so far. and either way, there is nothing at all that Ukraine did that justifies the murder and rape of thousands of civilians including children. Russia has forfeit their place on the stage to be treated as a rational actor. At this point its like saying all you need to do is not purchase a firearm to provoke your serial killer neighbor.
- klawcode 5y ago
  Like how invaded Finland, stole a bunch of land, and then interfered with Finland's internal politics so much they came up with the term "Finlandization" for it? Not a great example dude. Everyone eventually hits the "Poland" moment, where you can't keep appeasing a dictator.

Narretz 5y ago

From Russia's perspective, almost everything is a provocation and a threat. Not rationally, but because Russia's official viewpoint is about as irrational as it gets. There isn't anything to appease them with, because they've chosen to ignore the facts. And from an outside perspective it's not hard to see why two states, one with a border to Russia, would join a military alliance after Russia invaded a sovereign neighbor.

stefan_ 5y ago

You know what seems like a terrifying step towards nuclear warfare? Removing one countries nuclear weapons by promising not to invade, then invading. What a boon for nuclear proliferation.

kspacewalk2 5y ago

>John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" Most likely by reflecting on what went so horribly wrong in the relationship with Canada that a formerly closest ally of them all has decided to turn to a different power from across the ocean for help. Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border.

ramesh31 5y ago
>Then, by attempting to fix said relationship without starting a futile and criminal war of aggression that will cement multi-generational hatred of all things American north of the border. He has no interest in fixing any relationships. This is a war of genocide. Things are only getting started, and the sooner the world realizes we are already at war, the better.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  Yes, I'm aware. Here we are discussing the absurd parallels that some people are attempting to draw with North America, and a hypothetical Canada that has turned to China. As a Ukrainian Canadian, I am fully aware of the absurdity of this scenario and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"...and of the fact that Ukrainians are being denied their right to exist." This is what is actually happening. It is a crime and I wish Putin, his close circle and other directly responsible would end their days rotting in jail. As for Canada turning into China and hosting their nukes. Of course this will never happen and is absurd. But in pure hypothetical world I am pretty sure the situation like this will turn into invasion if all negotiations fail. As a mini example see what happened when Noriega had started switching his allegiances from the US to a Soviet block.

Decabytes 5y ago

> John Mearsheimer made the analogy "What if China became close allies with Canada and stationed troops and missiles north of the border, how would the USA react?" I think we have an clear example of how this _could_ play out. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962

bayesian_horse 5y ago
It's completely stupid to compare the Cuban Missile Crisis with NATO expansion. You need to completely ignore history to do that. And the only motivation would be to justify the motives of a dictator, mass murder and war criminal....
- Decabytes 5y ago
  My reply is based on the sentence which I quoted in my original comment. It was about the U.S and how it would respond to missiles near its borders. Please don't take my comment out of context
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
The USSR's alliance with Cuba is a good analogy. The US viewed deploying nuclear weapons to Cuba as provocation, but did nothing to prevent the alliance itself, which continued for decades after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Merely joining a defensive alliance is not provocation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dgellow 5y ago

Mearsheimer and the entire school of "neo realists" have absolutely zero credibility. It's really a shame that his youtube videos started to spread so much on youtube following Russian invasion given the amount of bullshit he's spreading. > 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility That's not true in any meaningful way. It's a massive process to convert a silo made for anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) into one for ICMBs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) or other type of offensive missiles. It's not an easy or fast thing to do and would definitely be visible from the outside.

wackro 5y ago
I don't know who this Mearsheimer is, but your comment is essentially ad hominem because you haven't addressed the point. If it helps you, the same thing has been said by others e.g. Chomsky. Could South Africa join NATO? Thailand? Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected.
- watwut 5y ago
  Do Chomsky has much credibility on the topic of Finland, Russia, NATO and Ukraine? Mearsheimer was litigated and relitigated on HN lately a lot. OP used Mearsheimer as argument from authority. It is ok to respond to it with "nah, that man does not have authority".
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  > Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected. "In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia's long-term aim was to join NATO." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=In%201991%2C%20as%20the%20Soviet,aim%20was%20to%20join%20NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#.... A lot has happened since then.
- andrewnicolalde 5y ago
  > Russia themselves asked to join but were rejected. https://euobserver.com/news/27890 https://euobserver.com/news/27890 “‘Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power’, the Russian ambassador stressed."

rich_sasha 5y ago

Russia had no issue deploying such weaponry on NATO's doorstep (Kaliningrad teaming with weaponry, including short-range ballistic missiles that Russia claimed to no longer hold, long-range AA missiles, constantly flying bombers into NATO airspace, etc.). So for the analogy of Canada-China alliance, you'd need, hmm, East China Sea to be already teaming with US or NATO weaponry. Not just an aircraft carrier here and there, but sizeable army ready to attack. (clearly doesn't work so very well with a maritime border, but that's where China's fragile bits are. US troops in Kyrgyzstan clearly stir far less emotions. Indeed Americans were in Afghanistan which borders China and they didn't seem to mind).

spamizbad 5y ago

Well, we had this happen in the 1960s with the Cuban missile crisis. No need for a thought experiment. But more broadly: We have excellent relations with Canada. If we step back, what would we be doing to Canada that would make them think "Holy crap, we need to join a defensive alliance with China to prevent a possible US attack!"? Is the US entitled to treat its neighbors so poorly they seek defensive alliances elsewhere?

timeon 5y ago

I do not get this. Why you need to create unreal analogies just to state some point? Especially now, when non-NATO neighbour of Russia was attacked by Russia? What if USA invaded Mexico and Canada became close allies with China? I do not know this is hardly going to happen like ever. Between my country and Russia is one country: Ukraine. If Ukraine was in NATO there would be peace today. I'm so glad that my country is in NATO. And what you are trying to say seems to me like you do not consider us as sovereign nation. Side note: it is not "whatabboutism" more appropriate term is "Putinversteher"

jkhloiujlknmk 5y ago

tinus_hn 5y ago

The alternative is the doormat strategy that failed before. Putin will not stop until he is stopped. There is no way to do that without incurring the risks so the logical choice is to not let him take strategic positions before incurring the risks.

crateless 5y ago

Following the Kremlin's logic, the advent of hypersonic missiles and the neoconservative bent of US/EU politics, it is seemingly inevitable that war is here.

TheGigaChad 5y ago

mzs 5y ago

I've asked experts repeatedly and have yet to hear back one example of where the Mearsheimer realism school predicted any international relations occurrence correctly in the past 30 years. It seems to have no predictive power as a theory. I think it only gets the traction it does for it's catchy misleading name.

dunkelheit 5y ago

The amount of ad-hominems in replies to your comment is simply staggering.

Xylakant 5y ago

> Joining NATO means millitary bases, troop exercises, and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no NATO military presence in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Norway, the only defensive missile base was in Romania, with another under construction in Poland and both Finnland and Sweden already extensively train and cooperate with NATO troops. Troop deployments were token-sized in the order of low five digits in total. (1) All troop presence in the Baltic states is at the explicit request of those states - it ensures that if any of those states is invaded, other NATO members are immediately directly involved: Attacking any of those states means attacking US, British, French, German soldiers. Unsurprisingly, countries on the eastern border have requested and received more troop deployments, for example German air defense batteries have moved to Slovakia as part of a new NATO battle group. (1)Pre-Invasion Situation, early February https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europe/nato-troops-eastern-europe-map-intl-cmd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europe/nato-troops-easter...

Delk 5y ago

> The interesting and difficult thing to process here is whether this is a provocation without turning it into 'whatabboutism' I don't know what you mean with whataboutism in this context, but traditionally non-allied European countries considering their defensive options when Russia has invaded a sovereign nation is certainly not a provocation. > Joining NATO means millitary bases Not automatically. Not all NATO member countries have e.g. American military bases [1]. The Baltic countries have a small NATO military presence, but not a large enough one that it could pose any offensive threat towards Russia. It's entirely possible for a NATO member country to say "no thanks" to foreign military bases. That might even be likely at least in case of Finland which has maintained its own credible defensive capability. If Sweden or Finland consider joining NATO, it's because they'd like to have someone's back in case of a crisis, not because they'd want to host someone else's offensive capability. > troop exercises All military forces conduct exercises. > and 'defensive' missile installations that can be easily converted to offensive missiles without any visibility Again, that's up to the individual member countries. Also, I'm not an expert on missile tech, but I don't think e.g. anti-air missiles can be easily turned into cruise missiles or other kinds of offensive weapons. -- Russia would likely consider Sweden or Finland joining NATO as a provocation. But it's not really possible in good faith to believe it would actually be one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...

glogla 5y ago

> John Mearsheimer is a well known supporter of Russia and China and of their whole imperial way of thinking. Unless you want wherever you live to look more like China or Russia do, I would recommend not listening to him, and definitely not spreading his disgusting ideas.