The real WTF would be if they weren’t saying these things. They’ve been praising Putin for years because they love strongmen. He’s what they aspire to be! Tucker was just recently hanging out with and singing the praises of Hungary’s right wing anti-LGBT nationalist leader. They want a world where Putins are in charge, where they imagine they can be the Putins of America, where they can bully and punch down at disadvantaged groups. They keep telling us that they want to create the Handmaid’s Tale in the US and people keep being surprised when they incrementally move farther in that direction.
I think its different when you have all these images to unite with their words. Its easier to say Putin is just a “strong leader” and not a ruthless, evil dictator when he’s not actually inflicting destruction.
They’re Aeroflot flight attendants. Other than that your guess is as good as mine as to what the hell is going on.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1500109526581891072
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1500110300963557389
Guess those SAM systems found a more appreciative home?
Pretty good anti-Mearscheimer take:
https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1500097922788175879?s=21
I think my final analysis is that the Mearscheimer take has the right parts, but is backwards. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they were worried about NATO. They were worried about Ukraine being in NATO because invading/otherwise dominating Ukraine was always their strategic goal.
EDIT: I also think that “NATO expansion” plays roughly the same role in the discourse as “Stop resisting!” plays in police brutality videos.
https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1500097960650194946
https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1500097965356113927
Mearsheimer doesn’t deny Ukrainian agency, he criticizes their choice to try to align with the West when they should know how the Russians are going to receive that alignment. Mearsheimer makes the point that small, weak countries next to big, powerful countries have to be very careful to find a modus vivendi with the powerful country or really really bad stuff can happen to them.
Oryx is now reporting that Ukraine has lost 41 tanks, but captured 45. They’ve lost -4 tanks so far! (I mean, probably not, given that equipment captures are v likely reported at a higher rate than other kinds of losses, but still…)
Does Mearsheimer argue either that a Russian democracy would still react militarily to Ukraine trying to join NATO or that Russia is inherently oriented against democracy within its borders?
https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1500109933131534336
OK, so Poast is agreeing with JJM that great powers like Russia will try to become regional hegemons. And agrees that Russia’s incursion into Ukraine fits with his theory of offensive realism.
Offensive realism also explains the US’s violent reactions to Soviet incursions into Cuba in the early sixties. You can say that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fault of the US, but according to JJM’s thesis, that’s just how great powers act when their regional hegemony is challenged. You will say that the Soviet Union had every right to base their nuclear missiles in Cuba, Cuba is a sovereign country who can host Soviet weapons, warships, soldiers, whatever. According to international law, sure, that’s true. But if, as Poast concedes, great powers will act with great violence when their regional hegemony is threatened, maybe putting nuclear missiles in Cuba isn’t the wisest strategic decision for Cuba and the Soviet Union.
In any other context this choice would be called “bravery” and criticizing their choice would be called “victim blaming.”
I suppose in any case where violence is used against someone, you could criticize the victim for failing to find a modus vivendi with the aggressor. That’s not especially insightful though. Violence happens because one party does something that the other side would rather resort to violence than allow. That can be due to a miscalculation (Ukraine thought they could have internal independence without Russia invading), but it can also be because both parties prefer to take their chance on the outcome of the violence rather than accept the modus vivendi on offer.
Now, is Mearscheimer (who was downplaying the odds of a full-scale Russian invasion like 10 days ago) saying that Ukraine underestimated the risk from Russia (who they have been fighting semi-actively for 8 years)? Or is he saying that they “should” (however interpreted) have submitted to Russia peacefully?
The first interpretation just seems wrong. The second interpretation is defensible, but most people find it morally abhorrent. By and large, people think it heroic and morally praiseworthy to fight for justice rather than knuckle under to intimidation.
Yea there are going to be very real, very big food shortages globally as a result of this. Countries are already starting to shut down their exports of wheat to make sure they have supplies domestically. Corn will be right behind wheat. They have a huge amount of corn stuck in Ukraine that is to be exported and won’t be any time soon, if ever. And they’re planting season for the next crop is 1.5 months away. Also a huge amount of fertilizer comes out of Russia. Fertilizer prices are insane right now, some products 3-4x what they were a year ago, and rapidly going higher. There either won’t be enough fertilizer or the price will be high enough that less will be used, making it hard for the US corn crop to maximize it’s potential this coming season too.
A true man of the people with those jokes, a natural comedian.
Yes, Mearsheimer also says that sort of moralizing has no usefulness in the analysis of international relations, especially in the relations between great powers. If a person or gang commits a terrible crime in civilized society, you can call the police and expect to get justice (to varying degrees, I know). The first precept of Mearsheimer’s model is that the international system is anarchic: there is no one to call for monstrous crimes like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So talking about Ukraine’s right to choose it’s own foreign policy is useless. There are no rights in an anarchic system.
His argument is might makes right got it.
The key thing, though, is that Cuba came out of the 60s just fine (at least by their own lights). Batista gone, a strong foreign protector, the independence to build their socialist utopia. The Soviet Union got US missiles removed from Turkey. In retrospect, I think the USSR would not have stationed missiles in Cuba due to the insane downside risk, but I don’t think Cuba would have done a think differently, even with 20/20 hindsight.
More like the powerful will do as they will and the weak do as they must. But yes.