Just asking questions.
Putin said he had no choice, therefore Russia views NATO expansion in Ukraine as an existential threat!
Putin said so himself here:
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1513856993555009540
One day Mearsheimer will wake up and realize his Ukraine thesis was just another Russian propaganda talking point. Useful idiot.
Victor buddy you clearly misread
I donât think itâs wholly a Russian talking point. Like is Ukraine joining NATO a existential (or nearly existential) threat to Russiaâs concept of its âsphere of influenceâ? It definitely plays a factor. But the parallel issue of Ukraine falling out of the orbit of Russia via entry into the EU, removing pro Russian puppets from government, having more relations with Europe and the West are all existential threats to Russiaâs idea of Ukraine as its colonial possession.
1 Like
Itâs predictable that Russia would view Ukraine trying to join NATO as an existential threat. That doesnât mean Ukraine shouldnât try to join NATO or that the West shouldnât encourage it.
There is a massive difference between existential threat to Russia and existential threat to Russiaâs sphere of influence.
2 Likes
Sure, but in realism theory theyâre both one and the same. Some proponentâs and maybe Mearsheimer himself are a bit selective on this though. They point to NATO, correctly, as being a threat, but then kind of side step the other things that Russia was acting like was a threat as well, or kind of hand wave and say well Ukraine should have âaccommodatedâ Russia.
At some point though itâs going to be less Ukraine needs to accommodate Russia and becomes Ukraine should vassalize itself to Russia because Russia wants political, economic, and military control over Ukraine. And if the Ukrainian people donât want that? I mean what should the Ukrainian government do? Clamp down on democracy movements, deny their people the possibility of joining the EU for the economic benefits of becoming part of Europeâs supply chain?
Yeah but it takes a lot of teeth-pulling to get the Mearsheimers of the world to admit that âlegitimate security concernsâ just means âinability to dominate neighborsâ.
They always lead with security concerns, even though the idea of anyone invading Russia is laughable. If the realists led with âloss of sphere of influenceâ, instead of only begrudgingly conceding it when backed into a corner, theyâd sound more realistic and less like bad faith propagandists.
Speaking of bad faith propagandists:
https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1513651340433625089
https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1513652975616630800
https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1513653526051885061
Iâm sure Greenwald will acknowledge that the NYT now has confirmed evidence, any day now.
3 Likes
Thatâs not true (Russia would respond very differently to an attack on Moscow) and if that was a key tenet of ârealismâ thatâs something it gets wrong.
The whole argument from a realism pov is that you have to accommodate Russia being a massive asshole because theyâre massive assholes and thatâs the reality of it
1 Like
If realism theory doesnât differentiate between the two then it seems to be quite useless. It reminds me of statements in newspaper articles like âDuring the incident 350 people were killed or got athleteâs footâ.
https://twitter.com/pmakela1/status/1513821610658222085
Who the hell knows what happened here? Thereâs no context. The Ukrainians easily could have massacred their own. My substack: âŚ
Mearsh seldom even gives Ukrainian people or government this much agency.
1 Like
Itâs a sacrifice heâs willing to make.
For Mearsheimer, international relations is the playground of great powers and Ukraine is not a great power. They donât matter in the grand scheme of things.
The US is responsible for dead Ukrainians, tortured Ukrainians and imprisoned Ukrainians.