8 ms·

It never ceases to amaze me how experts at something can't resist trying to be experts at everything. His examples from political science are just so off, but I

It never ceases to amaze me how experts at something can't resist trying to be experts at everything. His examples from political science are just so off, but I have to concentrate on his example of Mearsheimer. Far from being one step or two ahead of the crowd, Mearsheimer's problem has been that he's still standing back in the 1980s. His realpolitik approach was refreshing and appealing for the time whensomewhat phony Cold War ideology and its false equivalences and distinctions permeated our politics and academia. But in trying to fit world events to his great power nonsense, he deeply distorted what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and seems unable to see that Russia has never truly acted like a modern state but remains an internal empire that while spanning a continent has an economy the size of Brazil, and less institutional capacity than most Latin American nations. The idea that we could somehow make common cause with Russia to counter China's rise has always been an old joke. The 2022 war in Ukraine was expertly predicted by a political scientist, but it was in 1993, when my grad school professor Ilya Prizel pushed back against all the End of History BS and said Russia would eventually assert itself in the middle of Europe, if desperately. He was dead right.

hangonhn 4y ago
I had just started reading Mearsheimer's book (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics). It's quite depressing to say the least. My plan is to finish it and then read a critique or a competing viewpoint. What would you recommend as a follow-up as a critique of Mearsheimer? Thanks in advance!
- soledades 4y ago
  Timothy Snyder is a historian who has written on extensively on the history of Ukraine (Bloodlands) and Putin (The Road to Unfreedom). I'm not familiar with The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, but Dr. Snyder makes some strong counterpoints to the Mearsheimer way of thinking on Ukraine in this [1] podcast and others. He has also given a timely history on modern Ukraine [2], but I have not got around to listening to it. [1] https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/25/historian-timothy-snyder-on-how-the-russia-ukraine-war-will-end https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/25/historian-timothy-sn... [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz...
  - landoftheice 4y ago
    - lmm 4y ago
      We tried appeasement back in the '30s, it didn't go so well. There are cases where the right thing is to fight to the last man is appropriate. I certainly hope we don't reach the point of western nations having to draft the likes of me and send us to defend Ukraine, but if it comes to that then it beats letting Russia take what they want. Once you start doing that there's no end to it.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      So far it looks more like Russia is self-destructing in Ukraine, so why would Ukrainians yield?
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Yeah. Maybe, you know, Russia should yield.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Thus spoke Chamberlain.
nerdponx 4y ago
> It never ceases to amaze me how experts at something can't resist trying to be experts at everything. This is a great summary of something that annoys me a lot.
superduper2 4y ago
> but it was in 1993, when my grad school professor Ilya Prizel pushed back against all the End of History BS and said Russia would eventually assert itself in the middle of Europe, if desperately. He was dead right. I don’t know, it seems like great powers are prolonging the war in Ukraine’s favor right now. > less institutional capacity IR always bankrupts itself on trying to find gold in shithole countries.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  "prolonging the war in Ukraine’s favor" is a phrase that sounds _very_ loaded, politically. Would love to hear you explain a bit more what you mean by that.
  - qsort 4y ago
    Account is 2 hours old, 0 karma. What do you think it means?
  - toiletfuneral 4y ago
int_19h 4y ago
I don't think it was inevitable for Russia to end up so firmly in the anti-West camp. Back in 1993 - and, really, all the way until the end of 90s - it was very much at the crossroads. The mistake is claiming that the path it ended up choosing, it chose because of something the West did or didn't do. It was all about choices that people made - and back then, elections in Russia still meant something - in response to concerns at the time. Which were mostly domestic: economy, crime, terrorism (in Caucasian regions).
- labster 4y ago
  Nothing in history is truly inevitable, but it’s hard for me to see Russia — and particularly Muscovites — to abandon empire and corrupt oligarchy. Yeltsin let oligarchs emerge to help him consolidate power, but then was trapped in the system. He chose Putin as his successor so that he could retire safely. To keep stability, Russia plays to the idea of themselves as a great empire, despite the reality that many citizens of the “republics” have never seen indoor plumbing. If there was another choice, what was it? Not to be corrupt? Who would have made that choice?
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > despite the reality that many citizens of the “republics” have never seen indoor plumbing. Oh please, where do you even find these kind of myths? I've been living and traveling Russia for years - I just can't wrap my head where people get these kinds of idiotic narratives. I mean srsly "never seen indoor plumbing" - do you actually really believe this? Where did you even get an image like that? I'm just really puzzled how people seem to be so "expertly" sure of something, which is verifiably untrue - I've visited so many wilder parts of Russia, including visiting relatives in national republics and I'm super puzzled - like where did you even find this plumbing problem? I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere might have some specific case, but I am pretty sure I would have noticed at least one habitable house without plumbing if that was really a kind of a substantial massive problem you describe it to be. > Muscovites ...on the other hand, I seem to suspect what kind of bubble had formed your outlook...
    - 4y ago
seydor 4y ago
It s not just M. Russia's war for the past has brought forward an army of former soviet "experts" who have been dusted off to tell us that we are heading straight back to 1970s because that s all they know. alas history does not repeat
foverzar 4y ago
> that Russia has never truly acted like a modern state but remains an internal empire What does "modern state" mean in this context?
AzzieElbab 4y ago
“ Mearsheimer's problem has been that he's still standing back in the 1980s” - this is true. However, the Overton’s window in Russia also shifted back to the 80s making Mearsheimer correct, but in a weird - broken clock kind of way. The whole thing became a self fulfilling prophecy once US diplomats started sharing theories of great powers and spheres of influence with their counterparts
feet 4y ago
In that vein, I see people on HN who could be considered experts at programming or other tech work try to be experts on everything else. It usually doesn't end well

hangonhn 4y ago

I had just started reading Mearsheimer's book (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics). It's quite depressing to say the least. My plan is to finish it and then read a critique or a competing viewpoint. What would you recommend as a follow-up as a critique of Mearsheimer? Thanks in advance!

soledades 4y ago
Timothy Snyder is a historian who has written on extensively on the history of Ukraine (Bloodlands) and Putin (The Road to Unfreedom). I'm not familiar with The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, but Dr. Snyder makes some strong counterpoints to the Mearsheimer way of thinking on Ukraine in this [1] podcast and others. He has also given a timely history on modern Ukraine [2], but I have not got around to listening to it. [1] https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/25/historian-timothy-snyder-on-how-the-russia-ukraine-war-will-end https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/25/historian-timothy-sn... [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz...
- landoftheice 4y ago
  - lmm 4y ago
    We tried appeasement back in the '30s, it didn't go so well. There are cases where the right thing is to fight to the last man is appropriate. I certainly hope we don't reach the point of western nations having to draft the likes of me and send us to defend Ukraine, but if it comes to that then it beats letting Russia take what they want. Once you start doing that there's no end to it.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    So far it looks more like Russia is self-destructing in Ukraine, so why would Ukrainians yield?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Yeah. Maybe, you know, Russia should yield.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Thus spoke Chamberlain.

nerdponx 4y ago

> It never ceases to amaze me how experts at something can't resist trying to be experts at everything. This is a great summary of something that annoys me a lot.

superduper2 4y ago

> but it was in 1993, when my grad school professor Ilya Prizel pushed back against all the End of History BS and said Russia would eventually assert itself in the middle of Europe, if desperately. He was dead right. I don’t know, it seems like great powers are prolonging the war in Ukraine’s favor right now. > less institutional capacity IR always bankrupts itself on trying to find gold in shithole countries.

DanHulton 4y ago
"prolonging the war in Ukraine’s favor" is a phrase that sounds _very_ loaded, politically. Would love to hear you explain a bit more what you mean by that.
- qsort 4y ago
  Account is 2 hours old, 0 karma. What do you think it means?
- toiletfuneral 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

I don't think it was inevitable for Russia to end up so firmly in the anti-West camp. Back in 1993 - and, really, all the way until the end of 90s - it was very much at the crossroads. The mistake is claiming that the path it ended up choosing, it chose because of something the West did or didn't do. It was all about choices that people made - and back then, elections in Russia still meant something - in response to concerns at the time. Which were mostly domestic: economy, crime, terrorism (in Caucasian regions).

labster 4y ago
Nothing in history is truly inevitable, but it’s hard for me to see Russia — and particularly Muscovites — to abandon empire and corrupt oligarchy. Yeltsin let oligarchs emerge to help him consolidate power, but then was trapped in the system. He chose Putin as his successor so that he could retire safely. To keep stability, Russia plays to the idea of themselves as a great empire, despite the reality that many citizens of the “republics” have never seen indoor plumbing. If there was another choice, what was it? Not to be corrupt? Who would have made that choice?
- foverzar 4y ago
  > despite the reality that many citizens of the “republics” have never seen indoor plumbing. Oh please, where do you even find these kind of myths? I've been living and traveling Russia for years - I just can't wrap my head where people get these kinds of idiotic narratives. I mean srsly "never seen indoor plumbing" - do you actually really believe this? Where did you even get an image like that? I'm just really puzzled how people seem to be so "expertly" sure of something, which is verifiably untrue - I've visited so many wilder parts of Russia, including visiting relatives in national republics and I'm super puzzled - like where did you even find this plumbing problem? I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere might have some specific case, but I am pretty sure I would have noticed at least one habitable house without plumbing if that was really a kind of a substantial massive problem you describe it to be. > Muscovites ...on the other hand, I seem to suspect what kind of bubble had formed your outlook...
  - 4y ago

seydor 4y ago

It s not just M. Russia's war for the past has brought forward an army of former soviet "experts" who have been dusted off to tell us that we are heading straight back to 1970s because that s all they know. alas history does not repeat

foverzar 4y ago

> that Russia has never truly acted like a modern state but remains an internal empire What does "modern state" mean in this context?

AzzieElbab 4y ago

“ Mearsheimer's problem has been that he's still standing back in the 1980s” - this is true. However, the Overton’s window in Russia also shifted back to the 80s making Mearsheimer correct, but in a weird - broken clock kind of way. The whole thing became a self fulfilling prophecy once US diplomats started sharing theories of great powers and spheres of influence with their counterparts

feet 4y ago

In that vein, I see people on HN who could be considered experts at programming or other tech work try to be experts on everything else. It usually doesn't end well