Or a Ukraine War gameday thread
1 Like
Yeah maybe we need to clarify.
If the Mearsheimers and Keeeds of the world led with: “Putin’s real fear is a democracy on his doorstep, and it’s the West’s fault for facilitating that” they’d be a lot more honest in their argument. But that’s a lot less palatable than saying Putin is afraid of NATO.
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they’ll successfully resist, join the EU, and thrive. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you exactly what Russia will do in every scenario, it’s pretty damn hard to look at that graph and conclude that it’s a mistake for Ukraine to try to associate with the West.
2 Likes
Does Mearsheimer actually contend Putin is afraid that NATO will invade? I don’t think that his point - my readings of him seem that his point is Russia is afraid of NATO blocking/limiting his sphere of influence (both economic and militarily).
1 Like
If you actually read what he says, he does lead with that! He says democracy is direct threat to Russia, part of a three pronged approach. The prongs being NATO expansion, EU membership, and trying to get western-friendly corporate friendly western democracy established in Ukraine.
Well you guys don’t lead with that. You lead with him being afraid of NATO. So let’s just call it what it is. He’s afraid of a democracy and you agree with him that the West should have shunned Ukraine and left them to become Belarus.
I disagree. The pragmatic argument is far from clear, and the moral argument is crystal clear.
So I think that’s a pretty clear line where we will never agree and it’s not worth debating ad infinitum.
1 Like
Incredibly they kinda do say it out loud!
Yeah then it’s pretty easy to just say I don’t agree and we can move on. If Ukraine wants to reach out to the West, the West has a moral obligation (and probably also a pragmatic one) to not shun them. End of story.
You can’t let a totalitarian dictator who’s actively trying to sabotage elections all over the West also dictate terms as to whom the West consorts with. Fuck that.
You’re just going to end up in real conflict with them one way or another. This idea that a world consisting two hegemonic superpowers is the only stable solution is nonsense and absolutely screams Russian propaganda.
2 Likes
So, what’s your answer? Direct American intervention in Ukraine? War with Russia?
Just create a mearsheimer containment thread already.
Its a blackhole where Mearsheimer makes unfalsifiable statements, claims them to be true, and sucks everyone into the event horizon of NATO aggression.
2 Likes
What? How did we get from “this is all the West’s fault” to “so you must want US boots on the ground in Ukraine”?
I reject the framing that you have two choices between boots on the ground in Ukraine and actively shunning Ukraine in 2014.
I think we’re doing the right thing. A no-fly zone or boots on the ground is too dangerous for the future of humanity, and changes the entire complexion of the war to one that will motivate the Russian people and military infinitely more, and arguably be worse for Ukrainian civilians.
But that doesn’t mean the West should have cowered to Putin to try to prevent this possibility.
1 Like
I bet when Estonia and Latvia joined the eu Russia wasn’t thrilled about it either. Was it unwise? Should the countries regret it?
I’ve said that JJM’s calculus depends on the assumption that Russia can invade and crush Ukraine (although not necessarily occupy it). If Ukraine is actually strong enough to stand up to Russia then of course it makes much more sense to do so.
Yes please.
I bet Mearsheimer thinks so!
Well JJM already predicted wrongly that Russia wouldn’t invade, and wrongly that Ukraine would roll over. But I’m sure the rest of his analysis is spot on!
1 Like
Russia was too weak to do anything about it at the time. So it worked out very well for the Baltics, I agree with that.
where did JJM predict this, missed this one.
Yes but it angered Putin. And you can’t anger Putin or you get what’s happening in Ukraine. That’s just the law of superpowers.