Mearsheimer is right that a free and Western-allied Ukraine poses an existentual threat to Russia, but he is wrong that this threat comes from an enlarged NATO or Western encroachment toward Russia.
The real reason is that Russia is a belligerent, mafia-run kleptocracy which cannot abide a democratic and Western-oriented neighbor that shares strong cultural ties with it. It's discouraging to see the extent to which Mearsheimer cedes moral authority to Putin, as though NATO, itself, is the belligerent and was not formulated out of primarily pacifist member nations to respond to the imperial aspirations of the USSR.
It's not hard to see that Ukraine and Russia are now in a war of attrition and America is footing much of the bill. In a war of attrition, you need to destroy your opponent's ability to wage war (as the Allies did in WWII) by targeting their production facilities and make it impossible for them to continue fighting. Ukraine does not hae the capability to do this to Russia, and the US is unwilling to do so. Meanshile, hundreds of thousands of human casualties and untold destruction of the Ukrainian landscape, cities and infrastructure are going to make it more difficult and more expensive to "win the peace" (as Stephen Kotkin is fond of saying).
We need to get that war over with stat, so Ukraine can spend our money on rebuilding their country instead of blowing it up.
Ukraine is in the position of a homeowner in a home invasion, where submission means the rape and murder of their family. Ukraine does not fight for territory, but for the people on that territory.
While Russia may have a greater population and military capability than Ukraine, they still have to bring them to bear. Russia depends on rail links, especially to supply Crimea. Their logistics are terribly vulnerable.
I read Mearsheimer years ago when I was exploring the origins and dictates of geo-political realism. I found his theories then to be idiosyncratic and compelling. He has not aged well in the Trumpian environment. He is a defeatist and one dimensional thinker and writer who will lot budge from his long standing views. He is wrong and dangerous, and, as is evident by the criticisms he’s received in the past several years, clearly out of step with the challenge of protecting democracy and liberty. To him, liberty is expendable.
Mearsheimer must be understood as an International Relations theorist who seeks in all world events confirmation of the theory that has garnered him academic success and influence, i.e. Offensive Realism. He takes something of an economist's view of the international system, in which the ordering principle is the relative military capability of the component states, which many international relations scholars regard as very reductive. In Mearsheimer's view, only a small number of states actually exercise any degree of agency. He essentially denies the agency of most European states, including Ukraine, the Baltics etc. His system of thought is not concerned with the messy details of history; values and human motivation do not count. He should not be considered an expert on Russia or Ukraine, because the internal working of these states, the motivations of these peoples, or the cultural identities at issue are not relevant to his view of international relations. What Mearsheimer said to you needs to be properly contextualized, in other words.
As I was listening to Mr. Mearsheimer's full-throated defense of Putin's supposed fears, I couldn't help wondering whether Mr. M wasn't actually trying to 'manufacture consent' for a murderous assault on Gaza. Not your finest hour, Mr. Loury. I am deeply, deeply disappointed.
Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, the roots of this conflict go back a long way. After all, the Arabs were promised autonomy as a reward for their uprising against the Turks. And it's not clear what rumors about this 'operation' were being bandied about - and if they had, someone as well-connected as Mearsheimer would have known about it.
The imperial power being faced has an overwhelming economic, manpower and artillery advantage. Victory is impossible. A common refrain up and down the eastern seaboard….in 1779.
Fascinating discussion on Ukraine. I find the comparison to Cuba compelling. I am curious about the European perspective on Ukraine as NATO-member. Also curious as to what Ukraine’s security would have been if not in NATO? But, not too long ago - the soviets had nuclear missiles on the east/west German border - as did we.
On the woke’s Putin Derangement Syndrome; Hamas’ sexism and homophobia makes Putin look like Drag-queen story-hour by comparison.
What would the USA do if Mexico or Canada decided to join an anti-American military defense association?
Ah, just what I was looking for—an apologia for appeasement rife with unchallenged and dubious assumptions with a side of gratuitous Biden bashing. I subscribed to this substack in accordance with JS Mill’s dictum that if you only know one side of the argument you scarcely understand that. But if this is the best the other side can offer, perhaps it’s time to look elsewhere. Thomas Sowell also can’t resist digs at Biden but at least he credibly states his coherently and credibly. Russia is winning? Some evidence please. It will use tactical nukes (which are far more useful as a dare than a weapon)? Yeah, elsewhere is looking pretty darn inviting of late. Just because someone is a contrarian doesn’t mean their position merits the label “expertise.”
The insistence on evidence is wholly bogus when commonsense can tell you all you need to know. The Russian took 27,000,000 casualties against the Nazis. The US had something under 300,000. Arming an ally against an opponent they have no hope of defeating is tantamount to murder. That's Joe Biden.
Clearly your understanding of common sense and mine differ vastly. Comparing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, creating a battle for the Soviet Union’s very existence, and an invasion BY Russia of a neighboring country where it’s Ukraine’s existence at stakes turns “common sense” on its head.
Why is there cultivated uncertainty about the number of Ukraine dead when other commentators put it at around 500,000? The answer is: if the issue is funding Ukraine, the administration understands that a casualty report like that will not generate continued support. The fog of war is particularly thick in this conflict for a good reason. The Soviet casualties during W2 is a legitimate indication of the relative size of the antagonists, as well as of their will. Russian sees Nato incursion as a red-line. Why not believe them? There are multiple reports that Ukraine is already done. Why argue when we can just wait and see? It is just a shame that we helped Ukraine wreck their own country, that we pushed the Russians into the arms of the CCP.
Russia's primary goals were to keep Ukraine out of NATO and grab some territory. Putin is achieving both those goals.
Obviously they did not take Kyiv and install a puppet government. However, they have taken four oblasts and Ukraine has not been able to dislodge them. Russia has claimed territory that has been disputed for almost a decade. That's a win for them.
Ukraine cannot join NATO during a hot war; that would be too much of an escalation. Russia's goal there has been accomplished as well.
Ukraine is in a weak position at this point. Absent some unforeseen circumstance, this war will continue indefinitely.
What you describe is a botched invasion becoming at best a stalemate. Russian troops are poorly trained and equipped. Support for the war inside Russia is waning. Casualties to the Black Sea fleet have caused Russia to withdraw its ships. Evidence of hideous Russian war crimes continues to mount. Ukrainian morale and its new cache of weaponry belie your claim of a “weak position.” Whatever you’re reading, stop and look for more credible sources.
I am not following the war in detail; my sources are MSM. I read about a highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive but not much once it actually started, which tells me it was a dud. As you say, Ukraine has done damage to the Russian fleet.
My mental framework for the war is conventional and consists of two commonly accepted premises:
First, to remove an entrenched defender requires a significant tactical advantage: firepower, maneuvering, manpower, etc. The fizzle of the Ukrainian counteroffensive indicates that they don't yet have that advantage.
Second, a nation does not control disputed territory until it has grunts on the ground. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to kick the Russians out.
My prediction is that the tactical situation in eastern Ukraine will be largely unchanged when the next President is inaugurated in just over a year. Russia will still be entrenched in those four oblasts; Ukraine certainly will not be a member of NATO.
Ukraine is in the position of a counterinsurgency, and stalemates favor the counterinsurgents, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. (Or consider US experience there or in Iraq, Vietnam.) for a credible source on this war, good, bad, indifferent, see Tymofiy Mylovanov.
Mearsheimer is right that a free and Western-allied Ukraine poses an existentual threat to Russia, but he is wrong that this threat comes from an enlarged NATO or Western encroachment toward Russia.
The real reason is that Russia is a belligerent, mafia-run kleptocracy which cannot abide a democratic and Western-oriented neighbor that shares strong cultural ties with it. It's discouraging to see the extent to which Mearsheimer cedes moral authority to Putin, as though NATO, itself, is the belligerent and was not formulated out of primarily pacifist member nations to respond to the imperial aspirations of the USSR.
It's not hard to see that Ukraine and Russia are now in a war of attrition and America is footing much of the bill. In a war of attrition, you need to destroy your opponent's ability to wage war (as the Allies did in WWII) by targeting their production facilities and make it impossible for them to continue fighting. Ukraine does not hae the capability to do this to Russia, and the US is unwilling to do so. Meanshile, hundreds of thousands of human casualties and untold destruction of the Ukrainian landscape, cities and infrastructure are going to make it more difficult and more expensive to "win the peace" (as Stephen Kotkin is fond of saying).
We need to get that war over with stat, so Ukraine can spend our money on rebuilding their country instead of blowing it up.
Ukraine is in the position of a homeowner in a home invasion, where submission means the rape and murder of their family. Ukraine does not fight for territory, but for the people on that territory.
While Russia may have a greater population and military capability than Ukraine, they still have to bring them to bear. Russia depends on rail links, especially to supply Crimea. Their logistics are terribly vulnerable.
Just going to leave this here.
https://youtu.be/L7-zRWai5yY?si=_j_FQFi4dsv05S88
I read Mearsheimer years ago when I was exploring the origins and dictates of geo-political realism. I found his theories then to be idiosyncratic and compelling. He has not aged well in the Trumpian environment. He is a defeatist and one dimensional thinker and writer who will lot budge from his long standing views. He is wrong and dangerous, and, as is evident by the criticisms he’s received in the past several years, clearly out of step with the challenge of protecting democracy and liberty. To him, liberty is expendable.
Mearsheimer must be understood as an International Relations theorist who seeks in all world events confirmation of the theory that has garnered him academic success and influence, i.e. Offensive Realism. He takes something of an economist's view of the international system, in which the ordering principle is the relative military capability of the component states, which many international relations scholars regard as very reductive. In Mearsheimer's view, only a small number of states actually exercise any degree of agency. He essentially denies the agency of most European states, including Ukraine, the Baltics etc. His system of thought is not concerned with the messy details of history; values and human motivation do not count. He should not be considered an expert on Russia or Ukraine, because the internal working of these states, the motivations of these peoples, or the cultural identities at issue are not relevant to his view of international relations. What Mearsheimer said to you needs to be properly contextualized, in other words.
As I was listening to Mr. Mearsheimer's full-throated defense of Putin's supposed fears, I couldn't help wondering whether Mr. M wasn't actually trying to 'manufacture consent' for a murderous assault on Gaza. Not your finest hour, Mr. Loury. I am deeply, deeply disappointed.
Fwiw, this conversation was recorded on September 28, well before the Hamas attacks.
Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, the roots of this conflict go back a long way. After all, the Arabs were promised autonomy as a reward for their uprising against the Turks. And it's not clear what rumors about this 'operation' were being bandied about - and if they had, someone as well-connected as Mearsheimer would have known about it.
He's not very well connected and he's almost universally derided by anyone that knows anything at all about IR or geopolitics. Total crank.
The imperial power being faced has an overwhelming economic, manpower and artillery advantage. Victory is impossible. A common refrain up and down the eastern seaboard….in 1779.
True, but the weaponry in the 21st century is vastly more lethal.
Fascinating discussion on Ukraine. I find the comparison to Cuba compelling. I am curious about the European perspective on Ukraine as NATO-member. Also curious as to what Ukraine’s security would have been if not in NATO? But, not too long ago - the soviets had nuclear missiles on the east/west German border - as did we.
On the woke’s Putin Derangement Syndrome; Hamas’ sexism and homophobia makes Putin look like Drag-queen story-hour by comparison.
What would the USA do if Mexico or Canada decided to join an anti-American military defense association?
Ah, just what I was looking for—an apologia for appeasement rife with unchallenged and dubious assumptions with a side of gratuitous Biden bashing. I subscribed to this substack in accordance with JS Mill’s dictum that if you only know one side of the argument you scarcely understand that. But if this is the best the other side can offer, perhaps it’s time to look elsewhere. Thomas Sowell also can’t resist digs at Biden but at least he credibly states his coherently and credibly. Russia is winning? Some evidence please. It will use tactical nukes (which are far more useful as a dare than a weapon)? Yeah, elsewhere is looking pretty darn inviting of late. Just because someone is a contrarian doesn’t mean their position merits the label “expertise.”
The insistence on evidence is wholly bogus when commonsense can tell you all you need to know. The Russian took 27,000,000 casualties against the Nazis. The US had something under 300,000. Arming an ally against an opponent they have no hope of defeating is tantamount to murder. That's Joe Biden.
Clearly your understanding of common sense and mine differ vastly. Comparing the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, creating a battle for the Soviet Union’s very existence, and an invasion BY Russia of a neighboring country where it’s Ukraine’s existence at stakes turns “common sense” on its head.
Why is there cultivated uncertainty about the number of Ukraine dead when other commentators put it at around 500,000? The answer is: if the issue is funding Ukraine, the administration understands that a casualty report like that will not generate continued support. The fog of war is particularly thick in this conflict for a good reason. The Soviet casualties during W2 is a legitimate indication of the relative size of the antagonists, as well as of their will. Russian sees Nato incursion as a red-line. Why not believe them? There are multiple reports that Ukraine is already done. Why argue when we can just wait and see? It is just a shame that we helped Ukraine wreck their own country, that we pushed the Russians into the arms of the CCP.
"Russia is winning? Some evidence please."
Russia's primary goals were to keep Ukraine out of NATO and grab some territory. Putin is achieving both those goals.
Obviously they did not take Kyiv and install a puppet government. However, they have taken four oblasts and Ukraine has not been able to dislodge them. Russia has claimed territory that has been disputed for almost a decade. That's a win for them.
Ukraine cannot join NATO during a hot war; that would be too much of an escalation. Russia's goal there has been accomplished as well.
Ukraine is in a weak position at this point. Absent some unforeseen circumstance, this war will continue indefinitely.
What you describe is a botched invasion becoming at best a stalemate. Russian troops are poorly trained and equipped. Support for the war inside Russia is waning. Casualties to the Black Sea fleet have caused Russia to withdraw its ships. Evidence of hideous Russian war crimes continues to mount. Ukrainian morale and its new cache of weaponry belie your claim of a “weak position.” Whatever you’re reading, stop and look for more credible sources.
I am not following the war in detail; my sources are MSM. I read about a highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive but not much once it actually started, which tells me it was a dud. As you say, Ukraine has done damage to the Russian fleet.
My mental framework for the war is conventional and consists of two commonly accepted premises:
First, to remove an entrenched defender requires a significant tactical advantage: firepower, maneuvering, manpower, etc. The fizzle of the Ukrainian counteroffensive indicates that they don't yet have that advantage.
Second, a nation does not control disputed territory until it has grunts on the ground. I don't think Ukraine has enough grunts to kick the Russians out.
My prediction is that the tactical situation in eastern Ukraine will be largely unchanged when the next President is inaugurated in just over a year. Russia will still be entrenched in those four oblasts; Ukraine certainly will not be a member of NATO.
Ukraine is in the position of a counterinsurgency, and stalemates favor the counterinsurgents, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. (Or consider US experience there or in Iraq, Vietnam.) for a credible source on this war, good, bad, indifferent, see Tymofiy Mylovanov.