4 ms·

> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's han

by atmosx 4y ago

> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time. Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?

mcguire 4y ago
I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy). One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
- atmosx 4y ago
  > I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...] I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours. Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
  - mcguire 4y ago
    I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously. I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too. I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    ROTMetro was making a moral statement about Russian aggression. Henry Kissinger can be as omniscient as God himself and that still wouldn't be a counter to a moral claim. Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet. Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.
    - atmosx 4y ago
      Are you personally involved in this war somehow?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

by atmosx 4y ago

mcguire 4y ago

I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy). One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.

atmosx 4y ago
> I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...] I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours. Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
- mcguire 4y ago
  I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously. I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too. I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  ROTMetro was making a moral statement about Russian aggression. Henry Kissinger can be as omniscient as God himself and that still wouldn't be a counter to a moral claim. Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet. Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.
  - atmosx 4y ago
    Are you personally involved in this war somehow?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]