9 ms·

You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him

You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?

hackandthink 3y ago
Mearsheimer saw it coming and got it basically right. He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  That is some pretzel logic right there.
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    Just plain and simple facts.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  I've been thinking about why Mearsheimer is so unpopular and why he loses every public debate (e.g., Munk Debate). My guess: Cognitive dissonance hurts. Injustice is not supposed to win, people don't want to compromise even if the alternative is much worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo
mecsred 3y ago
Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Here he is in February 2022 again saying they won't invade: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.
  - pydry 3y ago
    "That would probably involve the invasion of the eastern part of the country" - direct quote from your YouTube video. Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen. He did also say that Putin wouldnt try to occupy Ukraine (presumably beyond the eastern part/crimea) but would instead aim to wreck it. That part seems to be coming true as we speak. The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
    - dralley 3y ago
      He tried to invade and occupy the whole fucking country. Not just "the eastern part". He went for Kherson, he went for Odesa, he went for Kyiv. The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. JM was just wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s Putin gave his speech about wanting to be Peter the Great, how Ukrainians are just Russians who've been convinced otherwise by the evil West, and Russian state media went around praising Putin for "solving the Ukrainian question" (yikes, and yes that's a quote). None of that fits into JM's worldview. No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational, especially dictators. This ought to have been obvious after WWII.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. (not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty) >No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid. Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. >JM was just wrong. No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.

You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?

hackandthink 3y ago

Mearsheimer saw it coming and got it basically right. He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
That is some pretzel logic right there.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Just plain and simple facts.
hackandthink 3y ago
I've been thinking about why Mearsheimer is so unpopular and why he loses every public debate (e.g., Munk Debate). My guess: Cognitive dissonance hurts. Injustice is not supposed to win, people don't want to compromise even if the alternative is much worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo

mecsred 3y ago

Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Here he is in February 2022 again saying they won't invade: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.
- pydry 3y ago
  "That would probably involve the invasion of the eastern part of the country" - direct quote from your YouTube video. Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen. He did also say that Putin wouldnt try to occupy Ukraine (presumably beyond the eastern part/crimea) but would instead aim to wreck it. That part seems to be coming true as we speak. The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
  - dralley 3y ago
    He tried to invade and occupy the whole fucking country. Not just "the eastern part". He went for Kherson, he went for Odesa, he went for Kyiv. The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. JM was just wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s Putin gave his speech about wanting to be Peter the Great, how Ukrainians are just Russians who've been convinced otherwise by the evil West, and Russian state media went around praising Putin for "solving the Ukrainian question" (yikes, and yes that's a quote). None of that fits into JM's worldview. No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational, especially dictators. This ought to have been obvious after WWII.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried. The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. (not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty) >No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid. Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. >JM was just wrong. No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.