'Ukraine is the Wests Fault': Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014 (1 Viewer)

[Schism]

Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014

Take a look at this newly relevant 2014 lecture by Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, the legendary foreign policy realist. He was talking about the Euromaidan situation, and explaining how the West was pushing Ukraine to the point of a serious crisis with Russia:

I’m getting a lot of blowback in the comments section from people who are appalled that I’m not spending all my time lambasting Putin, but instead complaining about how we in the West helped bring about this situation, or bitching about our own decadence. Fine, complain all you want. As I said, ultimately this war is Putin’s fault. He should not be doing this, and I hope he comes to grief because of it.

However, as uncomfortable as it is for some of you to hear it, you had better stop and think about how we got to this dangerous situation with Russia, and what things we in the West had under our control, that we failed to do right. That Hitler was responsible for World War II doesn’t obviate the role the victorious WWI allies played through the ruinous Versailles Treaty. If our goal in the post Cold War era was to rub Russia’s nose in the dirt, well, we gave it a go. We ought to have instead tried to create peace and stability. There is no possible scenario under which offering to bring Ukraine (and Georgia) into NATO, as President G.W. Bush did in 2008, could have led to anything other than what happened today.

The lecture is only about 40 minutes, preceded by the introduction and with a Q&A following.

I've read some critiques of Mearsheimer, but the position he lays out, especially in hindsight and in light of current events, is compelling. The summary: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true? Did the US lead Ukraine down the primrose path by including them in NATO drills and exercises right upon to Sept 2021 with zero intentions of including them as an article 5 nation?

It appears so. Watch this video and draw your own conclusions, but Mearsheimer appears to be speaking to the truth in this situation.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Still looking for a way to defend your russian buddies.

Sad.

 

[Schism]

Still looking for a way to defend your russian buddies.

Sad.

Debate against the lecturers case if you can. He's an expert, and he laid this out over 7 years ago.

His predictions came before the Trump presidency while Obama was dealing with Crimea and Syria.

I'll never understand why there are so many childish responses to actual policy experts. All they can hurl is "your Russian buddies" LOL

 

[Slartibartfast]

It’s like when the guy being arrested for a domestic disturbance call tells the cop it was his wife’s fault for talking back.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It’s like when the guy being arrested for a domestic disturbance call tells the cop it was hide wife’s fault for talking back.

"Look what you made me do!!"

 

[maxparrish]

Mearsheimer Told Us So — In 2014





The lecture is only about 40 minutes, preceded by the introduction and with a Q&A following.

I've read some critiques of Mearsheimer, but the position he lays out, especially in hindsight and in light of current events, is compelling. The summary: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”

Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true? Did the US lead Ukraine down the primrose path by including them in NATO drills and exercises right upon to Sept 2021 with zero intentions of including them as an article 5 nation?

It appears so. Watch this video and draw your own conclusions, but Mearsheimer appears to be speaking to the truth in this situation.

The problem with discussing this is that that I don't have a 40-minute chunk of time to view a video, so unless there is a transcript, most of us need you to summarize or quote a few key points. And I am unclear as to which point you are endorsing, that Putin is not wanting to rebuild the old Soviet Union or that Ukraine was led down a primrose path?

I am always suspicious of the well know habit of both the far left and far right's compulsion to adopt revisionist "blame it on us" narratives whenever it serves ideological sympathies. The "Blame America First" narratives usually serve some need to justify their unhappiness with however history unfolded, with an axe to grind.

Moreover, if this is a repeat of the canard that pledges were made to Russia on NATO, or that NATO rolled over demands by Russia to not expand, then THAT can be discussed cause its mostly B.S.

Finally, at this point it should be obvious that Putin wants to recreate an empire. He's already provided a motivation in his own words, his outrageous lies and his actions confirm it, as does his psychological profile (posted in another thread by me).

So then what truth does speak provide, on what basis does he support it? Is this just 20-20 hindsight about things not known or understood at the time, or is this a claim of knowing?

 

[Schism]

The problem with discussing this is that that I don't have a 40-minute chunk of time to view a video, so unless there is a transcript, most of us need you to summarize or quote a few key points. And I am unclear as to which point you are endorsing, that Putin is not wanting to rebuild the old Soviet Union or that Ukraine was led down a primrose path?

I am always suspicious of the well know habit of both the far left and far right's compulsion to adopt revisionist "blame it on us" narratives whenever it serves ideological sympathies. The "Blame America First" narratives usually serve some need to justify their unhappiness with however history unfolded, with an axe to grind.

Moreover, if this is a repeat of the canard that pledges were made to Russia on NATO, or that NATO rolled over demands by Russia to not expand, then THAT can be discussed cause its mostly B.S.

Finally, at this point it should be obvious that Putin wants to recreate an empire. He's already provided a motivation in his own words, his outrageous lies and his actions confirm it, as does his psychological profile (posted in another thread by me).

So then what truth does speak provide, on what basis does he support it? Is this just 20-20 hindsight about things not known or understood at the time, or is this a claim of knowing?

You should google Prof Mearsheimer and check out his standing as an expert in the poli-sci field. But if you can’t waste 45 minutes of your time to understand what’s happening, you’re among the majority of posters here.

 

[j brown's body]

I read something like this today. And here is a rebuttal. In short, NATO is not a security threat to Rusdia. It is a political threat to Putin.

"Putin is correct when he says NATO is a danger to him, but not in the way you think. Putin knows that NATO does not pose a military threat to Moscow. He has the same information about NATO tanks, armored vehicles, missiles, and troops in Europe as we all do. He knows that NATO is a defensive alliance that would never attack his country unprovoked. He opposed NATO for the same reason he opposed deploying U.S. antimissile defenses in Central Europe 15 years ago: He knew well then they were not aimed at Russia, but were to defend the continent from an attack by at most several ballistic missiles coming from the Middle East, for example from Iran or a rogue terrorist group. Nothing will protect Europe from a massive Russian missile attack. But Putin opposed the stationing of the tracking radar and kinetic missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland because he did not want to have any U.S. military installations there.

Why, then, did Putin oppose the antimissile defenses if he knew they were not a military threat? Because they were a political threat. When a country gets a U.S. military base on its territory, it will not have a Russian base there. Putin rejects NATO in Central and Eastern Europe because he himself wants to be there—in some cases directly, such as now in Ukraine, and later possibly in the Baltics; in other cases indirectly, like in the Czech Republic or Hungary, by bribing local politicians, spreading his economic influence and covert intelligence operations. These things are much harder to do in a NATO member state than in a Finlandized zone of “neutrality.”"

The Real Reasons Putin Feels Threatened by NATO

Here’s what was missed by the foreign policy ‘realists’ who made the case against enlarging the alliance.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[maxparrish]

You should google Prof Mearsheimer and check out his standing as an expert in the poli-sci field. But if you can’t waste 45 minutes of your time to understand what’s happening, you’re among the majority of posters here.

I can spend 45 minutes doing research (I do it all the time) but I don't wish to spend 45 minutes looking for the few nuggets that it contains. I do best by reading, and if you answered my inquiry on exactly what impressed you, I'd be willing to read it.

 

[Schism]

I can spend 45 minutes doing research (I do it all the time) but I don't wish to spend 45 minutes looking for the few nuggets that it contains.

Right, it’s called culpable deniability. A person will continue to argue from a position of ignorance because they can’t be bothered. It’s a form of hand-waving.

I do best by reading, and if you answered my inquiry on exactly what impressed you, I'd be willing to read it.

I liked the entire lecture and agree with his entire premise, especially all of it together.

 

[Schism]

I read something like this today. And here is a rebuttal. In short, NATO is not a security threat to Rusdia. It is a political threat to Putin.

"Putin is correct when he says NATO is a danger to him, but not in the way you think. Putin knows that NATO does not pose a military threat to Moscow. He has the same information about NATO tanks, armored vehicles, missiles, and troops in Europe as we all do. He knows that NATO is a defensive alliance that would never attack his country unprovoked. He opposed NATO for the same reason he opposed deploying U.S. antimissile defenses in Central Europe 15 years ago: He knew well then they were not aimed at Russia, but were to defend the continent from an attack by at most several ballistic missiles coming from the Middle East, for example from Iran or a rogue terrorist group. Nothing will protect Europe from a massive Russian missile attack. But Putin opposed the stationing of the tracking radar and kinetic missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland because he did not want to have any U.S. military installations there.

Why, then, did Putin oppose the antimissile defenses if he knew they were not a military threat? Because they were a political threat. When a country gets a U.S. military base on its territory, it will not have a Russian base there. Putin rejects NATO in Central and Eastern Europe because he himself wants to be there—in some cases directly, such as now in Ukraine, and later possibly in the Baltics; in other cases indirectly, like in the Czech Republic or Hungary, by bribing local politicians, spreading his economic influence and covert intelligence operations. These things are much harder to do in a NATO member state than in a Finlandized zone of “neutrality.”"

The Real Reasons Putin Feels Threatened by NATO

Here’s what was missed by the foreign policy ‘realists’ who made the case against enlarging the alliance.

www.thebulwark.com

Every expert in their field will have critics who have opinions. Dr Mearsheimer is one of a handful of international relations scholars whose reputation is beyond reproach.

 

[Schism]

Bernie Sanders on the root causes of the conflict

“A simplistic refusal to recognize the complex roots of the tensions in the region undermines the ability of negotiators to reach a peaceful resolution,” Sanders told the Senate, in remarks that were all too rare for a chamber where too many members of both parties are rushing to hike defense spending and impose indiscriminate sanctions.

“I know it is not very popular in Washington to consider the perspectives of our adversaries, but I think it is important in formulating good policy,” Sanders said.

To that end, the senator explained:

One of the precipitating factors of this crisis, at least from Russia’s perspective, is the prospect of an enhanced security relationship between Ukraine and the United States and Western Europe, including what Russia sees as the threat of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), a military alliance originally created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union.
It is good to know some history. When Ukraine became independent after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russian leaders made clear their concerns about the prospect of former Soviet states becoming part of NATO and positioning hostile military forces along Russia’s border. U.S. officials recognized these concerns as legitimate at the time.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Debate against the lecturers case if you can. He's an expert, and he laid this out over 7 years ago.

His predictions came before the Trump presidency while Obama was dealing with Crimea and Syria.

I'll never understand why there are so many childish responses to actual policy experts. All they can hurl is "your Russian buddies" LOL

Nobody is going to watch a 40 minute Youtube dude so they can "rebut" it. At least I'm not. Maybe someone will.

 

[Juin]

Biden is saying, and the media is parroting, that Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Is that true? Did the US lead Ukraine down the primrose path by including them in NATO drills and exercises right upon to Sept 2021 with zero intentions of including them as an article 5 nation?

It appears so. Watch this video and draw your own conclusions, but Mearsheimer appears to be speaking to the truth in this situation.

Ukraine was promised membership back in 2008 I believe. That was Baghdad Bush. Problem is a promise to Ukraine to join NATO as equally is a challenge to Russia that its hostile rival intends to set up shop hundreds of miles closer. Somehow the Russkie was supposed to pretend clouds are not gathering on its horizon

 

[Antiwar]

I haven't watched the video. I've posted several comments with quotes from very reputable people that say similar things. This is based on what's said in your comment.

The best one was something like this: There are two competing narratives in the West (primarily the US). One is that Putin is neo-Hitler. This leaves no room for negotiations. The second is that Russia attacking Ukraine is wrong and needs to be stopped AND admit that Russia has genuine grievances about NATO and other things. Therefore, they can negotiate instead of escalating the tensions.

 

[maxparrish]

I haven't watched the video. I've posted several comments with quotes from very reputable people that say similar things. This is based on what's said in your comment.

The best one was something like this: There are two competing narratives in the West (primarily the US). One is that Putin is neo-Hitler. This leaves no room for negotiations. The second is that Russia attacking Ukraine is wrong and needs to be stopped AND admit that Russia has genuine grievances about NATO and other things. Therefore, they can negotiate instead of escalating the tensions.

Putin had a genuine concern in 2007 in his Munch speech. And that was the last time I'd use the word genuine, and never the word grievance. From 2008 forward it was a whole different mindset.

 

[Antiwar]

Putin had a genuine concern in 2007 in his Munch speech. And that was the last time I'd use the word genuine, and never the word grievance. From 2008 forward it was a whole different mindset.

US/NATO nuclear weapons are 100 miles from Russia. NATO countries surround Russia.

 

[noonereal]

Still looking for a way to defend your russian buddies.

Sad.

I think this a harsh post. The OP is balanced and reasoned. Frankly, I tend to agree and I sure as hell hate Putin and teh Russian leaders.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I think this a harsh post. The OP is balanced and reasoned. Frankly, I tend to agree and I sure as hell hate Putin and teh Russian leaders.

The OP is victim blaming, nothing less.

"look what you made me do" is not an acceptable excuse.

 

[noonereal]

The OP is victim blaming, nothing less.

"look what you made me do" is not an acceptable excuse.

Security concerns are valid for any people, any tribe, and nation.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Security concerns are valid for any people, any tribe, and nation.

And still not really an excuse for a preemptive attack on a civilian population.

 

[noonereal]

And still not really an excuse for a preemptive attack on a civilian population.

Well, that is philosophical from a biased perspective, isn't it?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Well, that is philosophical from a biased perspective, isn't it?

Not as far as i'm concerned.

 

[noonereal]

Not as far as i'm concerned.

Yes, I suppose to your posts this is to complex a thought.

 

[maxparrish]

US/NATO nuclear weapons are 100 miles from Russia. NATO countries surround Russia.

If true, then Russia is 100 miles from NATO countries. A reasonable person would suggest a summit to agree on the mutual minimal distance from the common border that a deliverable nuclear weapon should be stored...not invading and destroying Ukraine.

You are anti-war aren't you?