• 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!

John Mearsheimer on Putin's Invasion of Ukraine

No, it doesn't excuse Russia at all. What it does do is place in context our failure to reach diplomatic solutions to a problem that has been known to us for some time.

It doesn't give us the full context. Mearsheimer nit picks the hell out of the history to fit his narrative of Russia being a victim.
 
Plenty of people have said 💩 like what I mentioned to me. It's sure shown me who's conservative and/or doesn't have good reasoning on the issue. Even people that claim to be more 'left.' More 'righties' have a better perspective on this.

The righties siding with Russia on this do so because they see Putin as the white nationalist daddy they've always wanted. He locks up gays and throws ant-war protesters in prison. They see Russia as their paradise.
 
The righties siding with Russia on this do so because they see Putin as the white nationalist daddy they've always wanted. He locks up gays and throws ant-war protesters in prison. They see Russia as their paradise.

I haven't seen that nor hints of it in their comments.

You seem to be going with the dominant narrative. Russia operates in a geopolitical vacuum?
 
People commenting on DP.

AmNat and EMNSeattle have expressed support for Russia. Pretty sure Monica did too (but she may be a tankie).
 
It doesn't give us the full context. Mearsheimer nit picks the hell out of the history to fit his narrative of Russia being a victim.

That's your opinion. He makes good points regarding the US's flirtation with Ukraine's NATO desires, knowing full well Putin had drawn a line of demarcation on NATO encroachment. Instead of approaching China to mediate, which is a questionable move for that and entirely other reasons, Biden should have been straightforward and gone directly to Putin about it. If the US was going to do it, why not 6 months ago? Was the offer ever real? If so, why aren't we treating it like a "Pending Article 5 Country" instead of responding with "we can't get involved"?

I don't think we have the whole story, but we might get it if Zelenskyy gets a little more frustrated with the NATO, EU, and US response so far.
 
I don't care why.

You said the right wingers are more correct in their position on this issue. I just want to make sure you understand why the far right takes the position they take on Putin and Russia.

I don't think so. I have no idea what prompted you to ask that.

You seem to not think too highly of the fact I am taking the so-called 'dominant narrative.' Did you ever consider that maybe the dominant narrative can sometimes be correct?
 
AmNat and EMNSeattle have expressed support for Russia. Pretty sure Monica did too (but she may be a tankie).

Yeah, I don't support Russia or China. I'll alway support the US even when I disagree with decisions by leadership.
 
AmNat and EMNSeattle have expressed support for Russia. Pretty sure Monica did too (but she may be a tankie).

Forget about these people and look at Victoria Nuland -- she's a Righty who becomes a Lefty at will, like a chameleon. She's party of the Deep State - the permanent bureaucracy in Washington.
She worked for VP Dick Cheney's office during the Iraq invasion. She's married to Neo-Con Larry Kagan, who was an outspoken academic advocate of that war. Yet she also particularly gets to serve in Democrat administrations like Clinton, Obama and now Biden. She was the one recorded plotting for the overthrow of the democratically elected govt in Ukraine -- the recordings of her were posted online before the actual Capitol Insurrection event in 2014. What do you not understand? You're just willfully blind.
 
AmNat and EMNSeattle have expressed support for Russia. Pretty sure Monica did too (but she may be a tankie).

The second person has made some good points, surprisingly.

I guess I'm more interested in why 'liberals' are taking conservative positions on this issue. There are several very compelling reasons (above and beyond the USG/NATO reasons) for being at least a little more thoughtful about this. But nearly all of them aren't. Like was recently said, Ukrainians seem middle class; and I think a Democratic president is another main reason.
 
Forget about these people and look at Victoria Nuland -- she's a Righty who becomes a Lefty at will, like a chameleon. She's party of the Deep State - the permanent bureaucracy in Washington.
She worked for VP Dick Cheney's office during the Iraq invasion. She's married to Neo-Con Larry Kagan, who was an outspoken academic advocate of that war. Yet she also particularly gets to serve in Democrat administrations like Clinton, Obama and now Biden. She was the one recorded plotting for the overthrow of the democratically elected govt in Ukraine -- the recordings of her were posted online before the actual Capitol Insurrection event in 2014. What do you not understand? You're just willfully blind.

Ukraine's Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych. Democracy in action.
 
The second person has made some good points, surprisingly.

I guess I'm more interested in why 'liberals' are taking conservative positions on this issue.

First, I'm a left-anarchist, not a liberal.

Second, what are the conservative positions I am taking?

There are several very compelling reasons (above and beyond the USG/NATO reasons) for being at least a little more thoughtful about this. But nearly all of them aren't. Like was recently said, Ukrainians seem middle class; and I think a Democratic president is another main reason.

How about defending a sovereign nation's right to not be invaded? You think that isn't a good reason for liberals to support Ukraine?
 
First, I'm a left-anarchist, not a liberal.

I used 'liberal' inclusively. All libertarians should be anti-war, so they should have better perspectives.

Second, what are the conservative positions I am taking?

I already mentioned the two you mentioned.

How about defending a sovereign nation's right to not be invaded? You think that isn't a good reason for liberals to support Ukraine?

That's irrelevant. And it strikes me as being another conservative notion (similar to invoking patriotism).

Of course attacking people is wrong.
 
Ukraine's Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych. Democracy in action.

No, man - that parliament and its were established through a coup. This was a Regime Change move orchestrated by Washington. That lady Victoria Nuland orchestrated the overthrow of Yanuckovitch.
 
I used 'liberal' inclusively. All libertarians should be anti-war, so they should have better perspectives.

Better perspectives than... the anti-war perspective they're currently expressing?
I already mentioned the two you mentioned.

Must've missed them. Please restate.
That's irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant.
And it strikes me as being another conservative notion (similar to invoking patriotism).

Actually liberals are pretty patriotic. They just don't like the ultra-nationalist 'my country right or wrong' attitude many right-wingers exhibit.

As for myself, I don't really get into the patriotism thing as I don't like the idea of nation-states. But despite my idealistic views, pragmatically I am strongly opposed to other nation-states invading them.
 
No, man - that parliament and its were established through a coup. This was a Regime Change move orchestrated by Washington. That lady Victoria Nuland orchestrated the overthrow of Yanuckovitch.

You've provided no actual evidence or links to any of your claims.
 
Better perspectives than... the anti-war perspective they're currently expressing?

Most r-libs aren't anti-war. I feel like I'm the only anti-war person at DP (moreso, now). What's your anti-war commentary on this war?


* Tired. Maybe the rest of your reply, another time. The highlighted is my main interest.
 
Most r-libs aren't anti-war.

Not in a general sense, but they are taking an anti-war perspective on this particular conflict.

I feel like I'm the only anti-war person at DP (moreso, now).

Well, if by 'anti-war' you mean just let nation-state bullies roll on through other nations then sure, you can have that crown.

What's your anti-war commentary on this war?

I think you asked me this question before but my position remains the same: I oppose the invasion, I support diplomatic resolutions. I also oppose Russia's attempts to annex any more Ukraine territory. I oppose NATO getting directly involved in the conflict.
 
In spite of your unwillingness to give a summary of his viewpoint, I went ahead and watched 80 percent of the video. I think there is value in it, but as a lesson in how confirmation bias works to distort reality.

From the outset Mearsheimer has a moral message, that someone has to be blamed, and to find out who should be blamed, one side or in the other. This alone undermines his academic objectivity, especially coming from an advocate of the amoral realist school of international relations. For example, why would a scholar assume that there can't be degrees of fault, a shared negligence, by both parties? How is it that, for example, Obama is guilty of something because he said Russia doesn't produce anything, but Putin is not guilty of provocation when he (or state press) mocked a President for his lack of manhood?

And who says, him being a realist, that "fault" is in any sense applicable if, as he claims, the great powers have inevitable desires and wants and actions that transcend any individual actors' desires?

One has the sense that Mearsheimer is working against himself, on one hand making Putin the center of expressing rational and plain-spoken objections for "Russia", while on the other dissing the western theory that Putin is behind Russia and his/their immoral actions.

Mearsheimer and McGovern use the typical rhetorical tricks, as much to convince themselves as the listener. They cherry pick events to make a case, ignoring other events, such as Obama canceling the European ABM system to keep Russia happy. They point out the cancelation of the open skies treaty, not pointing out that Putin was not allowing overflights of major areas of suspicion. They point out that Putin in 2008 may have considered NATO a threat but failed to note that that his public justification was to primarily to protect Russian minorities. They don't mention Putin and his Russian cruise missiles, breaking the treaty, or the NATO concession (prior to Putin) to Russia to not base permanent NATO forces in new member states.

And while he is dismissing Putin as the root of this crisis, he fails to address how it is that all this happens on Putin's watch? Not Yeltsin, not Medvedev (2009 to Jan 2012), but under Putin.

Did your speakers forget that 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, provided supply routes through Russia for American supply in Afghanistan, got Russia in the WTO, and established far more liberal visa regime. Or how about the re affirmation of the US, UK, and Russia memorandum persevering Ukraine's sovereignty? That doesn't sound like a country who is deeply offended and driven to extremes because of NATO being perspective for Georgia in 2008, or later?

There is ONE common denominator to these Russian actions, i.e. Putin. Putin, not Russia, is the core problem. Every other US President and Russian President has got along very well.

When you know all the facts, and make all the connections, their analysis doesn't explain who's at fault, or than Putin.
@Yakshi, read the above. Mearscheimer isn't completely right.
 
Not in a general sense, but they are taking an anti-war perspective on this particular conflict.



Well, if by 'anti-war' you mean just let nation-state bullies roll on through other nations then sure, you can have that crown.



I think you asked me this question before but my position remains the same: I oppose the invasion, I support diplomatic resolutions. I also oppose Russia's attempts to annex any more Ukraine territory. I oppose NATO getting directly involved in the conflict.

I started a new thread that I think works as a reply to the above.

 
Don't be Mister No -- open your mind and see what others have to say.

That is what I am waiting for. FRom YOU.

Don't me Mister no-- open your mind and respect forum etiquette then others can see what you have to say.

Thanks!
 
Back
Top Bottom