9 ms·

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 woul

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.
      - dralley 3y ago
        >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. Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy? The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy. All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war. >Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. What? It's not the sole piece of evidence... You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did). https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-Russo-Ukrainian-War-web-final.pdf.pdf https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-... https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pdf https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pd...
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    > Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen. In the east, not around Kyiv. Less than a month before it happened – i.e. long after everyone else had predicted it would. And after, as shown above, he himself had spent his career claiming it wouldn't. Weak sauce, utterly weak. Mearshimer's claim to any current fame stems almost entirely from spouting the same tired old anti-USA and anti-NATO propaganda we've heard from Russia since the Soviet era. > 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). Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium would show up on HN too. How naïve of me.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive. Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive. > Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative. The Russian state media accidentally uploaded an article celebrating their occupation of Ukraine after about 3 days. The plan was always 3 days to occupy Ukraine and cut off the seat of power. They admitted this themselves. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

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.
    - dralley 3y ago
      >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. Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy? The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy. All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war. >Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow. What? It's not the sole piece of evidence... You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did). https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-Russo-Ukrainian-War-web-final.pdf.pdf https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-... https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pdf https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pd...
- CRConrad 3y ago
  > Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen. In the east, not around Kyiv. Less than a month before it happened – i.e. long after everyone else had predicted it would. And after, as shown above, he himself had spent his career claiming it wouldn't. Weak sauce, utterly weak. Mearshimer's claim to any current fame stems almost entirely from spouting the same tired old anti-USA and anti-NATO propaganda we've heard from Russia since the Soviet era. > 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). Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium would show up on HN too. How naïve of me.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive. Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive. > Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative. The Russian state media accidentally uploaded an article celebrating their occupation of Ukraine after about 3 days. The plan was always 3 days to occupy Ukraine and cut off the seat of power. They admitted this themselves. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240