6 ms·

Moscow mearsheimer.. Another Putin propaganda distributor pretending to be an academic. He has been totally wrong so far, including predicting there would be no

Moscow mearsheimer.. Another Putin propaganda distributor pretending to be an academic. He has been totally wrong so far, including predicting there would be no war. So why give him more credit at the bank of public debate? It's just another troll..

avgcorrection 3y ago
He was correct about where things were headed in his 2015 lecture.[1] He’s also as pro-America as you would expect any American in that academic field to be. He’s just coming at it from a Realist perspective. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- mellow-lake-day 3y ago
  He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych He also treats the fake referendum conducted by Russia after Russia seized Crimea as matter of fact despite it being completely fake and made up He has an extremely biased view which is 100% inline with Russian propaganda and not shared by anybody in the West
  - ailef 3y ago
    > He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source). There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those. I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 [2] https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those. Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising. If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims. http://maidan.situplatform.com http://maidan.situplatform.com
      - ailef 3y ago
        > If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Why not quote the full sentence? > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." I'd like to particularly emphasize: > the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome > there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself. BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this: > He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself. He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda. Theres a difference.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > He was correct about where things were headed in his 2015 lecture.[1] Doesn't that lecture also say that he doesn't think Putin would try and capture all of Ukraine?, thats exactly what he's trying to do right now.
  - ailef 3y ago
    > thats exactly what he's trying to do right now. And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why. Because Russian media (RIA Novosti, which is the Russian government owned domestic news agency). literally posted a article congratulating Putin on capturing Ukraine?. They outed their own intentions from the start. You can read it here yourself if you want. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
      - ailef 3y ago
        So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.

avgcorrection 3y ago

He was correct about where things were headed in his 2015 lecture.[1] He’s also as pro-America as you would expect any American in that academic field to be. He’s just coming at it from a Realist perspective. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

mellow-lake-day 3y ago
He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych He also treats the fake referendum conducted by Russia after Russia seized Crimea as matter of fact despite it being completely fake and made up He has an extremely biased view which is 100% inline with Russian propaganda and not shared by anybody in the West
- ailef 3y ago
  > He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source). There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those. I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 [2] https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those. Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising. If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims. http://maidan.situplatform.com http://maidan.situplatform.com
    - ailef 3y ago
      > If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Why not quote the full sentence? > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." I'd like to particularly emphasize: > the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome > there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself. BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this: > He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself. He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda. Theres a difference.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> He was correct about where things were headed in his 2015 lecture.[1] Doesn't that lecture also say that he doesn't think Putin would try and capture all of Ukraine?, thats exactly what he's trying to do right now.
- ailef 3y ago
  > thats exactly what he's trying to do right now. And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why. Because Russian media (RIA Novosti, which is the Russian government owned domestic news agency). literally posted a article congratulating Putin on capturing Ukraine?. They outed their own intentions from the start. You can read it here yourself if you want. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
    - ailef 3y ago
      So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.