• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's a good video: Russia Ukraine Conflit | Explained by John J Mearsheimer|

Schism

Destroyer of Propaganda
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
14,242
Reaction score
7,597
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a great video to watch from a policy expert. It's different from the other video.



Lot's of good points all throughout the video.
 
You didn't watch this one either.
 
Enjoy my thread from 2/26 - 'Ukraine is the Wests Fault': Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014

I'm a Mearsheimer fan. I've watched many of his lectures.
2014, Obama and the West should have taken a tougher stance. He didn't. What does that have to do with Putin lying through his teeth about:
- denazification as rationalization
- Donbas as rationalization
- fear of NATO forcing him to attack to defend himself NONSENSE

Putin simply wants the territory and the assets and thought he would be greeting like some sort of liberator just for walking into Ukraine. Boy was Putin wrong!!!!

Now he is neck deep in atrocities and war crimes and still does not have what he wants.
 
Like what?
Your the guy pointing to a piece claiming that Ukraine is the west's fault and pointing to 2014. Answer your own question.
 
See -- this is where I feel the Russia Collusion Hoax Against Trump ties in. During his presidential campaign, Trump made some off-hand remarks about how NATO countries should pay their fair share, according to NATO's stipulated spending requirements. The moment he did that, I noticed a huge frenzy of angry activity from NATO supporters. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright under the Clinton Whitehouse, immediately showed upon TV the same evening, calling Trump "crazy" in a very alarmed voice. I knew right then that Trump had just painted a big bullseye on his back, and that he was going to come under an avalanche of hellish fury from the NATO lobby. Within days, there were suddenly accusations that Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had worked for Russia (various Democrats had also done this, and plus he had also worked for Ukraine too.) Then quickly after that, there were allegations that Trump himself was in bed with Putin. The Russia Collusion Hoax then spun into high gear.

NATO has become a fountainhead for powerful lobbies practicing political corruption. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is now a godsend for them -- and they can once again move into high gear. It's boom times again.
 
cn9opobm5vl81.jpg
 
Putin is making a tactical move by moving his border to NATO instead of waiting for it to come to him. Looks like he plans to fight
 
Your the guy pointing to a piece claiming that Ukraine is the west's fault and pointing to 2014. Answer your own question.

You brought it up. What is this tougher stance that Obama should have taken?
 
Putin is making a tactical move by moving his border to NATO instead of waiting for it to come to him.

I'm guessing the same.
Looks like he plans to fight

He's not looking very capable at the moment. His mechanized clown car assault is being shot down, broken down, and out gas, food, and water.
 
Here's a great video to watch from a policy expert. It's different from the other video.



Lot's of good points all throughout the video.


I've already slogged through most of sanman's 1 hour and 40 minute video of Mearsheimer, McGovern, and some minor contributors so I think I will pass on this one.

As I have said, the problem with Mearsheimer is that he has an axe to grind, and he announces it at the beginning of the video I viewed. For M. someone, specifically some "side", must carry most of the blame and he has decided which side that will be.

A serious scholar that looks at an event never assumes that must be one cause, one side to blame, and then sets out to find facts to support it. The don't even assume that some "side" knowingly caused, or should have known it would cause, an event 8 or 15 years hence. Such upfront judgementalism and his mission to prove a fault of one side stains his credibility.

And it shows in his prior video. Many important events are left out of his analysis, he finds meaning in small events, ignores large counterfactual events, and is boxed in by his own paradigm's assumptions. His constant claim of what Russia feels, fears, believes, etc. isn't useful, because in spite of theories of "great power" needs and motivations, it is not "160,000,000" million in a group" that make choices, but individual actors influenced by political traditions as well as economic. and ideological forces.

To that end, it is obvious that Putin and his world view, his deeply imbedded history as a KGB agent for a totalitarian system, his indoctrination on the nature of the west strongly distorts reality. The problem wasn't Yeltsin, Medvedev, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Biden...it was and is Putin.

Consider, after Putin's invasion of Georgia, his term expired, and Medvedev (2009 to Jan 2012) became President. And guess what, Obama and Medvedev had an era of cooperation. They signed and ratified a new START treaty, voted to support the most comprehensive set of sanctions against Iran, Obama convinced him to keep an American base open to supply routes to American military action in Afghanistan, got Russia in the WTO, and established far more liberal visa regime. And that era also included the re affirmation of the US, UK, and Russia memorandum persevering Ukraine's sovereignty in 2010. That doesn't sound like "Russia" who is deeply offended and driven to extremes because of NATO being an "existential threat" to Russia. (

Yet, when Putin regained the Presidency in 2012 it again fell apart. NATO was an extensional threat to his worldview, and he worked overtime promoting that delusion.

So I suggest you broaden your readings and note the shortcomings of your go to source. He's telling a highly cherry-picked story to advocate for an opinion he holds independent of scholarly deliberation.
 
Last edited:
Here's a great video to watch from a policy expert. It's different from the other video.



Lot's of good points all throughout the video.

Which ones do you think were good?
 
As I have said, the problem with Mearsheimer is that he has an axe to grind, and he announces it at the beginning of the video I viewed.

You say that and then write this...
To that end, it is obvious that Putin and his world view, his deeply imbedded history as a KGB agent for a totalitarian system, his indoctrination on the nature of the west strongly distorts reality. The problem wasn't Yeltsin, Medvedev, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Biden...it was and is Putin.

Your observations, your opinion.
Consider, after Putin's invasion of Georgia,

Wait, why did Putin invade Georgia?

his term expired, and Medvedev (2009 to Jan 2012) became President. And guess what, Obama and Medvedev had an era of cooperation. They signed and ratified a new START treaty, voted to support the most comprehensive set of sanctions against Iran, Obama convinced him to keep an American base open to supply routes to American military action in Afghanistan, got Russia in the WTO, and established far more liberal visa regime. And that era also included the re affirmation of the US, UK, and Russia memorandum persevering Ukraine's sovereignty in 2010. That doesn't sound like "Russia" who is deeply offended and driven to extremes because of NATO being an "existential threat" to Russia. (

Yet, when Putin regained the Presidency in 2012 it again fell apart. NATO was an extensional threat to his worldview, and he worked overtime promoting that delusion.

Who is arguing that this isn't Putin's agenda?

So I suggest you broaden your readings and note the shortcomings of your go to source. He's telling a highly cherry-picked story to advocate for an opinion he holds independent of scholarly deliberation.

LOL.
 
All of them. Enjoy the video, or not.
My bad. I thought this was a discussion forum. Didn't realize it was just a place to share video links.
 
See -- this is where I feel the Russia Collusion Hoax Against Trump ties in. During his presidential campaign, Trump made some off-hand remarks about how NATO countries should pay their fair share, according to NATO's stipulated spending requirements. The moment he did that, I noticed a huge frenzy of angry activity from NATO supporters. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright under the Clinton Whitehouse, immediately showed upon TV the same evening, calling Trump "crazy" in a very alarmed voice. I knew right then that Trump had just painted a big bullseye on his back, and that he was going to come under an avalanche of hellish fury from the NATO lobby. Within days, there were suddenly accusations that Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had worked for Russia (various Democrats had also done this, and plus he had also worked for Ukraine too.) Then quickly after that, there were allegations that Trump himself was in bed with Putin. The Russia Collusion Hoax then spun into high gear.

NATO has become a fountainhead for powerful lobbies practicing political corruption. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is now a godsend for them -- and they can once again move into high gear. It's boom times again.


Albright warned against Trump's isolationist posturing, which was reasonable, and seems even more so today.
 

Mearsheimer is wrong in his assumption that Putin sees NATO as a threat to Russia. It is not. What Putin sees as a threat, to him, not Russia, is democracy and freer markets.​

 
This is what "Westplainers" like John Meirshmer get wrong:

"...by focusing almost exclusively on the wrongs of NATO, critics ignore the broader question of Eastern European states’ right to self-determination, including the right to join military alliances. Westsplaining ignores Eastern European history and the perspective of the Eastern Europeans, and it selectively omits facts on the ground about NATO expansion.

...NATO did not expand into “Eastern Europe.” Czechia, Poland, and Hungary in 1999 and the Baltic countries among others in 2004 actively sought membership in the alliance. This is not just semantics. For the historical reasons mentioned above, the West has been a desired political direction associated with prosperity, democracy, and freedom—despite the limitations of Western liberal capitalist democracies and the implementation of that model in Eastern Europe. Being at the receiving end of Russian imperialism, many Eastern Europeans looked forward to membership in NATO as a means of securing their sovereignty. NATO, in other words, would not have “expanded” into Eastern Europe if the Eastern European nations had not wanted it and actively pursued it.


...In the westsplaining framework, the concerns of Russia are recognized but those of Eastern Europe are not. This, again, mirrors the Russian line that “Ukraine’s current regime lacks any sovereignty,” which of course also operates within a framework inherited from the bipolar world of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is something that can be explained but isn’t worth engaging with....The result is that hard-nosed realists see the world not as it is but as it appears in their theories and, worse, that Western internationalism, which claims to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, does the opposite: It asks the subaltern to speak, only to ignore them when they ask for military support or self-determination."

Link
 
This is what "Westplainers" like John Meirshmer get wrong:

"...by focusing almost exclusively on the wrongs of NATO, critics ignore the broader question of Eastern European states’ right to self-determination, including the right to join military alliances. Westsplaining ignores Eastern European history and the perspective of the Eastern Europeans, and it selectively omits facts on the ground about NATO expansion.

...NATO did not expand into “Eastern Europe.” Czechia, Poland, and Hungary in 1999 and the Baltic countries among others in 2004 actively sought membership in the alliance. This is not just semantics. For the historical reasons mentioned above, the West has been a desired political direction associated with prosperity, democracy, and freedom—despite the limitations of Western liberal capitalist democracies and the implementation of that model in Eastern Europe. Being at the receiving end of Russian imperialism, many Eastern Europeans looked forward to membership in NATO as a means of securing their sovereignty. NATO, in other words, would not have “expanded” into Eastern Europe if the Eastern European nations had not wanted it and actively pursued it.


...In the westsplaining framework, the concerns of Russia are recognized but those of Eastern Europe are not. This, again, mirrors the Russian line that “Ukraine’s current regime lacks any sovereignty,” which of course also operates within a framework inherited from the bipolar world of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is something that can be explained but isn’t worth engaging with....The result is that hard-nosed realists see the world not as it is but as it appears in their theories and, worse, that Western internationalism, which claims to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, does the opposite: It asks the subaltern to speak, only to ignore them when they ask for military support or self-determination."

Link

A good find. The author notes that Ukraine doesn't even have agency or a role in Mier's scenario -- that it only becomes of interest to Moscow because it's all NATO's doing. (Perhaps NATO ought to get out the popcorn, and announce it is considering membership for Iran, Mongolia, and China so Putin 'be forced' to invade those countries too. )

Very good article.
 
First, NTOA does not ask countries to join NATO, countries have to ask to be admitted. Are you saying that countries can not belong to any such organization if they wish to do so? Are you saying they first have to ask permission of Putin to do so, really? Second, the problem Putin has with NATO is not that he expects them to attack Russia, but he wants to reunite the countries that were the USSR and those same countries joined NATO to safeguard them from Putin and Russia. I would not be surprised to see more countries join NATO after seeing what has happened to Ukraine who had not joined NATO.
 

Mearsheimer is wrong in his assumption that Putin sees NATO as a threat to Russia. It is not. What Putin sees as a threat, to him, not Russia, is democracy and freer markets.​

And he wants to reunite those nations that made up the USSR nd many have joined NATO to safeguard themselves from Putin. That is why Putin backed Trump's effort to end the NATO alliance or at least get the US out of the alliance. The Russian generals are really afraid of the US military as we have so many really experience fighters.
 
Again I ask, where do you live? And I bet yoo have watched hi a lot because he says what you want to hear and not the truth.

Keep asking, it's right in front of you.
 
Back
Top Bottom