Discussions About Theories of International Relations Such as Realism

I understand that’s not your view of the war, I’m saying that’s the hypothetical interventionist realist view of the war. They wanted to weaken Russia through an intense proxy war so they provoked the confrontation by courting closer relations with Ukraine and supplying them with weapons and training. Again, I don’t think this is actually what the neocons envisioned but it’s entirely consistent with what happened.

I was answering your final question.

But this post makes me question everything you have told me about realism. You previously have talked about realism as “Great powers gonna great power,” that they always want to expand their spheres of influence. What is the difference between 'isolationist realism" and regular old isolationism, and why is the former a position that isn’t trying to ascribe moral judgment to state actors?

Realism is a model aimed at explaining how nations interact. It’s a theory of how states will react to one another, and what objectives states will seek in their relations with other states. It’s a way of looking at the world. But then what objectives a realist leader in control of a country’s foreign policy would pursue isn’t dictated by by the deterministic realism model. He can look at the world through a realist lens but purse an interventionist or isolationist foreign policy, depending on his objectives and priorities.

Are you seeking to understand realism in international relations or are you seeking to understand Keeed’s understanding of realism in international relations (or something else)?

A theory that purports to explain how states interact, but then that punts to leaders ending up doing whatever they feel like on the intervention-isolation continuum sounds utterly useless and unfalsifiable. What could possibly be explained by realism that isn’t explained by just understanding the preferences of the people or parties in power? You make realism sound like little more than branding, that your ideas are (unfalsifiably) more real than some other guy’s.


It’s more cynical than that. The ‘realism’ espoused itt is so descriptively false about almost everything that has happened in post Soviet politics that the only reason it is proffered here is to disguise a geopolitical preference. Or the espousers are completely clueless, take your pick.


Something else, it would seem:

Yeah, of course I am antagonistic. Generally, if a guy I touted as a brilliant expert was more wrong about a major falsifiable prediction than Joe Fucking Biden was, that would cause me some serious introspection about whether that guy was worthy taking seriously, because I don’t take Joe Biden all that seriously. Not for you. You still think this guy is brilliant, despite being more wrong than Biden. That is weird, so I am curious if he actually has anything else going for him. So far, you have failed to articulate any reason to take him seriously except that he is cover for your extreme isolationism preference.


Havent we go a Ukrapto thread for this?


What if what Ukraine wanted and did was specifically ask other countries for help? Do you believe the US unilaterally helped on its own without asking Ukraine wanted they wanted.

Of course not.

I definitely don’t think that Mearsheimer was more wrong than Biden. Mearsheimer’s main thesis was that Ukraine being in Russia’s sphere of influence was extremely important to Russia, and they would wreck Ukraine as a functioning state rather than let Ukraine become aligned with the west. That matches up very well with what has happened.

1 Like

Dude it was OK to think Mearsheimer was smart before all his ideas got obliterated by the cold hard light of reality, but that you haven’t just cut bait and disavowed the guy by this point is kind of weird.

Can you admit that his ideas have been totally discredited by their real world performance so we can all move on from this conversation?

We’ve all had the experience of thinking someone is smart and then seeing them and the ideas successfully sold you get completely trounced lol. This is why it’s not a very good idea to be attached to any particular idea. They’re there for you to use, not to use you. The second they stop working you should trash them or maybe recycle the part that actually did work.

What ideas of Mearsheimer’s got obliterated? How have his ideas been discredited?

Let me guess, asking you that is “sea lioning” or something.

Imagine posting this and thinking anyone would ever take you seriously. How did you escape my permanent ignore list? Back you go lol.

1 Like

Oh, I was very sure you wouldn’t elaborate. Because you can’t. Toodles!

1 Like

The basic flaw of Mearsheimer’s theory is his black box approach to states where domestic politics don’t matter. Under his theory, Russia would act the same, whether it was a dictatorship under Putin or a liberal democracy. Thus, in his view, the West is to blame for provoking such an obvious response. He denies that Putin has any desire for “Greater Russia”, insisting that such aims are a fantasy that the US and NATO have cooked up to hide their culpability because such a motive does not fit his amoralist worldview., but doing so requires ignoring Putin’s own words.

I don’t think you will find many people here who will agree with that basic tenet of his offensive realism.

1 Like

Regarding “Greater Russia” Mearsheimer doesn’t say that Putin doesn’t desire it but rather that he can’t achieve it. He says that if Putin could restore Greater Russia, he would. But as a declining great power Russia isn’t in any position to do so.

As far as ignoring domestic politics, he doesn’t say that domestic politics don’t matter, they’re just ignored by his IR model. He says they often do matter and can be a factor when real world events don’t mesh with his or other’s IR models.

Mearsheimer still insists that Putin has no imperialist desires and is solely motivated by keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Not just that he had no such ambitions before the war, but that he currently has no such ambitions.

This recent interview was given just after Mearsheimer had met with Viktor Orbán in Hungary, something that Mearsheimer did not want to discuss.