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.
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.”
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.
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.”