I demure from trying to add to the thoughtful lights shown on Mr. Mersheimer's illogical and ahistorical reasoning re Ukraine.
I do want to compliment his dexterous tap dancing in that part of the discussion and the several follow up topics. His ability to avoid the heart of a question while speaking words that appear to be near responsive is very well refined.
I do join in not knowing how to best proceed re Ukraine. Putin is a thug. Ukraine can not prevent his taking their country without help.
We fought the Cold War for forty years for the sake of the baltics and Poland and the rest. But we never attacked Russia or tried to advance past the border of east germany. When 8t ended we got everything we asked for and We agreed to respect all the borders of Europe and not to expand nato. Then we broke the deal by bombing Belgrade and occupying Kosovo and recognizing Slovenia and Croatia. It has been downhill ever since but the Russians have vowed to get even and the result has been 9/11 and a whole list is subsequent wars. Why can’t we just make a deal with the Russians and stick to it?
sorry! But I find this to be a bullshit analysis. really, a nation attacks another nation because that other nation decides they don't like the attacker? Geez, that didn't even work in high-school, not to mention geoplitics. Deal with it! If your pal sucks and get dumped, that's bad? This is very weak isolationist politics.
A lot of her takes on Putin are actually pretty bunk, especially as they pertain to the US. She ascribes an all-powerful aura of diabolical influence to him while simultaneously calling him utterly incompetent, even laughing at how stupid he is. That's not a helpful or workable theory, whether you favor regime change or coexistence. She knows her audience, though.
Stephen Kotkin is really the best source on this subject for a balanced analysis that can inspire a thoughtful, solution-creating approach to the Ukraine War. He would be an incredible guest on The Glenn Show. He is also a Hoover fellow.
Kotkin is indeed probably the best and most balanced source (not to mention darkly entertaining), but I wish we would hear more from *Russian* experts, or at least people from the region who are experts on Russia and Putin, or at the very least people who actually speak Russian. My favorite example there is Masha Gessen.
M thinks that Ukraine policy will continue because this is clearly how the nat sec establishment feels and his analysis tells him that they are in charge, not elected politicians. But he also believes that Russia is prevailing on the battlefield, leading to his underscoring the rising probability of US escalation. What M does not consider is that the increasing Russian military dominance is coming just as allies (US, Germany, Poland) are fading away from Ukraine. The nat sec community has a lot of power in DC but they cannot compel a Republican House to approve desperately needed funds or arms factories to produce more weapons than they are able to. So the two trends (Russian growing strength, Western fading strength) are pointing in the same direction: Ukraine capitulation. Nat sec cannot conjure US armored troops onto the plains of eastern Ukraine - US public opinion won't allow it, even more so with a conflict in close friend Israel. Even if those armored troops were in place, it is far from certain that the US would prevail at this stage. As M said, the miscalculation was first the efficacy of sanctions and second the superiority of NATO training, tactics and equipment over Russian. Russian forces have not been overwhelmed by US equipment... another subject.
Putting this together, the equilibrium is the US not giving up and not prevailing, but rather being kicked out of the country in extremis. This has happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam and seems destined to happen in Ukraine. The calculus at the end it always: this benighted country isn't actually worth fighting for and we have the option to just leave. So M is wrong on one major point: this is not existential for the US. Will NATO collapse because of this? No because Russia will not invade the Baltics and Poland. Will it be severely diminished in prestige? Absolutely. Will this change the power dynamics in Central Europe? Very likely. Trading with Russia will be the on the table as it's so highly beneficial to both parties.
An add to the conclusion of a common sense justification for Russia's action against Ukraine. In its history, Russia had an alliance that became problematic - Nazi Germany. Today, Russia has an alliance with China. Russia shares a 2600+ mile border with China. If Russia had allowed NATO to invite Ukraine to join it, and Russia allows it to happen, what does that border with China look like to Russia? An open door.
This Mearsheimer person strikes me as someone who is so committed to the righteousness and wisdom of his own ideas, that he is no longer capable of recognizing evil when he sees it - similar to the current “Free Palestine” folks. Sad - and dangerous. Glenn, you so readily challenge the “black people have no agency” argument when it comes from the left regarding domestic racial matters, but you fail to challenge Mearsheimer when he makes the same argument, except on a geopolitical scale. Disappointed.
Mearsheimer is committed to the international-relations school known as "realism". Sometimes it is a useful lens, but in the Russo-Ukrainian War it is not. Here you actually need to understand something about domestic politics and culture. I wouldn't pay any attention to any American "expert" who doesn't speak Russian, except maybe military guys talking about purely military matters.
YES, people deny Ukrainians agency analogous to how they deny it to American blacks.
This guy's argument does seem poorly developed. I've been listening a lot to commentary by the geopolitician Peter Zeihan (YouTube it) who talks about all of the geographic, demographic, economic and systemic weaknesses of the Russian regime under Putin that make territorial acquisition--especially agricultural territory that also provides an outlet to the Black Sea, necessary to the future viability of the Russian system as it now stands. He argues that yes, Russia had to invade Ukraine but not because NATO was at its doorstep (hasn't that been true this whole time? wasn't that kinda the point of NATO?) but because Ukraine is an incredibly valuable piece of real estate for Russia. To extend Glenn's somewhat crude simile out, this guy doesn't seem to want to ask, why did wife have to take a lover in the first place? What wasn't husband delivering?
RUSSIA didn't have to invade Ukraine, Putin did. It is the elite in Russia's mafia structure who would benefit, not ordinary Russians. Ordinary Ukrainians just wanted to be closer to Europe, which they rightly see as less corrupt and "normal".
I have never heard a Glenn Loury interview with less conversation/push back. That was disappointing.
I read a very long article in the Atlantic a few years back on Paul Manafort (it was the cover story). It provided incredible context on a whole bunch of seemingly unrelated issues of our day. Manafort was a major campaign guy for Yanukovych, the Corrupt Ukrainian president who was strongly allied with Putin. There is a lot of documentation of this, including a ledger documenting bribes. This is the corruption the US (via VP Biden) at the time was attempting to combat. It was only after Putin did not have a person as head of Ukraine ( a puppet, you might say) that he began aggressing against Ukraine. If you read the full story many names will sound familiar. It is a much more cohesive story than the one this guest tries to portray.
It does go to show, that if you choose the right/wrong frame to a story you can completely distort it.
What frustrates me to no end is the incompetent, arrogant hubris of Western leadership.
When the South fired on Ft Sumter, Lincoln was ready: he issued a successful call for volunteers the next day and was able to galvanize a divided North to support the war. Blinken is no Lincoln.
Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had declared the US "the Arsenal of Democracy" and had pushed through Lend Lease so that Britian could continue fighting. He was already rebuidling the US military. FDR was ready.
Here's what we got from our President during Russia's mobilization:
"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we [NATO] end up having a fight about what to do and not do." JRB is no FDR.
It's not like this is out of character for Putin-he invaded Georgia, he invaded Crimea, he told NATO that if they made Ukraine a member he would invade. Shouldn't we already have had a plan?
As to NATO's enlargement, it comes at a cost of a hundred thousand or more Ukrainian casualties and an order of magnitude more refugees. I will echo Thomas More: "Ah, Sweden. Ah, Norway."
The war began with the invasion and annexation of Crimea, not the full-on assault of the rest of Ukraine.
It was the annexation of Crimea that led Ukraine to seek entrance to NATO.
Access to the EU's open markets made sense for a Ukraine growing their tech, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors.
The USSR may not have opened a naval base or placed missiles in Cuba but they were certainly active and had a military presence there. Russia and China are both moving into South and Central America. So according to Mearsheimer's Russian rationale we should be sending troops south of the border.
Back in 2014, a friend of mine from Moscow, an accountant with an MBA, said, "Ha, Europe doesn't need Ukraine! Only Russia would ever buy Ukraine's products." I said, "Are you sure? I've heard that Europe imports quite a lot from Ukraine." She answered, "Yes, I've seen the numbers." I looked the numbers up: Russia 25%, and the EU 25%. And you can guess the trend.
This little exchange illustrates two of the war's many factors: Ukrainians want to be closer to the EU, and Russians (even educated Russians) have no respect for Ukrainians. And that was before Russians started calling them nazis.
A great discussion! The war in Ukraine has become a quagmire that the USA/NATO/West will find difficult to extricate from. At this point the best that the West can hope for is a perpetual armistice (frozen conflict) like North and South Korea.
Wake up Black folks, your reparations are being diverted to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and housing undocumented Hispanic immigrants in Chicago and New York. 13 billion dollars for illegal aliens.
What about fixing the bad water situation in Jackson, Mississippi, and Flint, Michigan where black people live? Amazingly, billions are instantaneously available for bombs.
And, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that were written/codified to free black people are now being used against black people.
If you compare US government expenditures on Ukraine, expenditures on "Black folks", and expenditures on everything else, I think you'll find that Ukraine is not diverting much from us. :)
Lengthy wars add up to spending trillions of dollars of national treasure. 20 years in Afghanistan and America was defeated by the Taliban---a waste!
And, Ukraine is a racist country--- African nationals were the last to be put on trains headed out of Ukraine at the start of the war. Poland treated African refugees like shit. I've traveled to Russia as a tourist and was treated like shit.
During the Vietnam War, I was subject to the draft. Fortunately, my lottery number was in the 300s. Blacks disproportionately suffered casualties in that war while their family and friends were being discriminated against in America. The Vietnamese didn't lynch or castrate African Americans.
I visited Vietnam about 5 years ago and couldn't make sense of the Vietnam War for which America lost---over 50,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese dead plus the national treasury spent.
Moreover, if Ukraine committed to neutrality, there wouldn't have been a Russian invasion. Gorbachev got a promise from Europe and America that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO.
>Moreover, if Ukraine committed to neutrality, there wouldn't have been a Russian invasion.
You don't know that. Russia experts (which, I suspect, you are not) don't know that, and many believe the opposite: a "neutral" (i.e. without allies) Ukraine would have been easier pickings for Russia, one way or another. Russia didn't "invade" Belarus, because it established dominance by other means. It's a pretty sad place.
>Gorbachev got a promise from Europe and America that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO.
You're parroting a fallacy. Look it up. James Baker--a US secretary of state, not a president--verbally told Gorby that NATO wouldn't expand east in a specific context: German reunification. A binding, permanent commitment like that would require something written, even a treaty, not the unwritten words of a secretary of state.
I'm half black, lived in Russia and Ukraine for many years, and worked in arms control. The US played a big role in de-nuking Ukraine, and we and Russia both made formal, written commitments to them under the Budapest Memorandum. Russia blatantly violated the agreement, but the US needs to uphold its commitments, at the very least for the sake of its reputation.
Shelby Steele, a black conservative double agent, is half white too with a strong European indoctrination of meritorious manumission. Lol!
The long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost 6.5 trillion dollars which added to the U.S. deficit. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and taking out Saddam Hussain was a great strategic mistake insofar as helping to keep Iran in check. Furthermore, the U. S. lost the war in Afghanistan.
The Vietnam War was also a waste of national treasure and American lives. America has a nasty history of subversive activities around the world, including assassinating democratically elected leaders in South America and Africa.
And the American industrial-military complex has made bankers, defense contractors, and major stockholders fifty rich. These are the real winners.
Lionel Rothchild's banking enterprises, back in the day, made a family fortune by financing wars.
My priority is pro-black economics and group survival. 270,000 Ukrainian refugees in America have diverted resources to people with unearned benefits and who have no desire to live next door to blacks.
You probably have a Russian or Ukrainian wife. Two of my former subordinate staff got burned by Ukrainian ex-wives. Yes/no? Lol!
I demure from trying to add to the thoughtful lights shown on Mr. Mersheimer's illogical and ahistorical reasoning re Ukraine.
I do want to compliment his dexterous tap dancing in that part of the discussion and the several follow up topics. His ability to avoid the heart of a question while speaking words that appear to be near responsive is very well refined.
I do join in not knowing how to best proceed re Ukraine. Putin is a thug. Ukraine can not prevent his taking their country without help.
Should we help?
I say yes.
But heck, what do I know?
We fought the Cold War for forty years for the sake of the baltics and Poland and the rest. But we never attacked Russia or tried to advance past the border of east germany. When 8t ended we got everything we asked for and We agreed to respect all the borders of Europe and not to expand nato. Then we broke the deal by bombing Belgrade and occupying Kosovo and recognizing Slovenia and Croatia. It has been downhill ever since but the Russians have vowed to get even and the result has been 9/11 and a whole list is subsequent wars. Why can’t we just make a deal with the Russians and stick to it?
sorry! But I find this to be a bullshit analysis. really, a nation attacks another nation because that other nation decides they don't like the attacker? Geez, that didn't even work in high-school, not to mention geoplitics. Deal with it! If your pal sucks and get dumped, that's bad? This is very weak isolationist politics.
A lot of her takes on Putin are actually pretty bunk, especially as they pertain to the US. She ascribes an all-powerful aura of diabolical influence to him while simultaneously calling him utterly incompetent, even laughing at how stupid he is. That's not a helpful or workable theory, whether you favor regime change or coexistence. She knows her audience, though.
Stephen Kotkin is really the best source on this subject for a balanced analysis that can inspire a thoughtful, solution-creating approach to the Ukraine War. He would be an incredible guest on The Glenn Show. He is also a Hoover fellow.
Kotkin is indeed probably the best and most balanced source (not to mention darkly entertaining), but I wish we would hear more from *Russian* experts, or at least people from the region who are experts on Russia and Putin, or at the very least people who actually speak Russian. My favorite example there is Masha Gessen.
M thinks that Ukraine policy will continue because this is clearly how the nat sec establishment feels and his analysis tells him that they are in charge, not elected politicians. But he also believes that Russia is prevailing on the battlefield, leading to his underscoring the rising probability of US escalation. What M does not consider is that the increasing Russian military dominance is coming just as allies (US, Germany, Poland) are fading away from Ukraine. The nat sec community has a lot of power in DC but they cannot compel a Republican House to approve desperately needed funds or arms factories to produce more weapons than they are able to. So the two trends (Russian growing strength, Western fading strength) are pointing in the same direction: Ukraine capitulation. Nat sec cannot conjure US armored troops onto the plains of eastern Ukraine - US public opinion won't allow it, even more so with a conflict in close friend Israel. Even if those armored troops were in place, it is far from certain that the US would prevail at this stage. As M said, the miscalculation was first the efficacy of sanctions and second the superiority of NATO training, tactics and equipment over Russian. Russian forces have not been overwhelmed by US equipment... another subject.
Putting this together, the equilibrium is the US not giving up and not prevailing, but rather being kicked out of the country in extremis. This has happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam and seems destined to happen in Ukraine. The calculus at the end it always: this benighted country isn't actually worth fighting for and we have the option to just leave. So M is wrong on one major point: this is not existential for the US. Will NATO collapse because of this? No because Russia will not invade the Baltics and Poland. Will it be severely diminished in prestige? Absolutely. Will this change the power dynamics in Central Europe? Very likely. Trading with Russia will be the on the table as it's so highly beneficial to both parties.
An add to the conclusion of a common sense justification for Russia's action against Ukraine. In its history, Russia had an alliance that became problematic - Nazi Germany. Today, Russia has an alliance with China. Russia shares a 2600+ mile border with China. If Russia had allowed NATO to invite Ukraine to join it, and Russia allows it to happen, what does that border with China look like to Russia? An open door.
This Mearsheimer person strikes me as someone who is so committed to the righteousness and wisdom of his own ideas, that he is no longer capable of recognizing evil when he sees it - similar to the current “Free Palestine” folks. Sad - and dangerous. Glenn, you so readily challenge the “black people have no agency” argument when it comes from the left regarding domestic racial matters, but you fail to challenge Mearsheimer when he makes the same argument, except on a geopolitical scale. Disappointed.
Mearsheimer is committed to the international-relations school known as "realism". Sometimes it is a useful lens, but in the Russo-Ukrainian War it is not. Here you actually need to understand something about domestic politics and culture. I wouldn't pay any attention to any American "expert" who doesn't speak Russian, except maybe military guys talking about purely military matters.
YES, people deny Ukrainians agency analogous to how they deny it to American blacks.
This guy's argument does seem poorly developed. I've been listening a lot to commentary by the geopolitician Peter Zeihan (YouTube it) who talks about all of the geographic, demographic, economic and systemic weaknesses of the Russian regime under Putin that make territorial acquisition--especially agricultural territory that also provides an outlet to the Black Sea, necessary to the future viability of the Russian system as it now stands. He argues that yes, Russia had to invade Ukraine but not because NATO was at its doorstep (hasn't that been true this whole time? wasn't that kinda the point of NATO?) but because Ukraine is an incredibly valuable piece of real estate for Russia. To extend Glenn's somewhat crude simile out, this guy doesn't seem to want to ask, why did wife have to take a lover in the first place? What wasn't husband delivering?
RUSSIA didn't have to invade Ukraine, Putin did. It is the elite in Russia's mafia structure who would benefit, not ordinary Russians. Ordinary Ukrainians just wanted to be closer to Europe, which they rightly see as less corrupt and "normal".
Here's Zeihan debunking Mearscheimer's exact argument: https://youtu.be/Rh4QU7hxKVg?si=T0z_41vFiWUIjaX8
It’s about time we heard a reasonable voice on this issue.
I have never heard a Glenn Loury interview with less conversation/push back. That was disappointing.
I read a very long article in the Atlantic a few years back on Paul Manafort (it was the cover story). It provided incredible context on a whole bunch of seemingly unrelated issues of our day. Manafort was a major campaign guy for Yanukovych, the Corrupt Ukrainian president who was strongly allied with Putin. There is a lot of documentation of this, including a ledger documenting bribes. This is the corruption the US (via VP Biden) at the time was attempting to combat. It was only after Putin did not have a person as head of Ukraine ( a puppet, you might say) that he began aggressing against Ukraine. If you read the full story many names will sound familiar. It is a much more cohesive story than the one this guest tries to portray.
It does go to show, that if you choose the right/wrong frame to a story you can completely distort it.
The war in Ukraine is on Putin-he started it.
What frustrates me to no end is the incompetent, arrogant hubris of Western leadership.
When the South fired on Ft Sumter, Lincoln was ready: he issued a successful call for volunteers the next day and was able to galvanize a divided North to support the war. Blinken is no Lincoln.
Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had declared the US "the Arsenal of Democracy" and had pushed through Lend Lease so that Britian could continue fighting. He was already rebuidling the US military. FDR was ready.
Here's what we got from our President during Russia's mobilization:
"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we [NATO] end up having a fight about what to do and not do." JRB is no FDR.
It's not like this is out of character for Putin-he invaded Georgia, he invaded Crimea, he told NATO that if they made Ukraine a member he would invade. Shouldn't we already have had a plan?
As to NATO's enlargement, it comes at a cost of a hundred thousand or more Ukrainian casualties and an order of magnitude more refugees. I will echo Thomas More: "Ah, Sweden. Ah, Norway."
Only 15 minutes into this...
The war began with the invasion and annexation of Crimea, not the full-on assault of the rest of Ukraine.
It was the annexation of Crimea that led Ukraine to seek entrance to NATO.
Access to the EU's open markets made sense for a Ukraine growing their tech, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors.
The USSR may not have opened a naval base or placed missiles in Cuba but they were certainly active and had a military presence there. Russia and China are both moving into South and Central America. So according to Mearsheimer's Russian rationale we should be sending troops south of the border.
Does anyone think that makes sense?
Back in 2014, a friend of mine from Moscow, an accountant with an MBA, said, "Ha, Europe doesn't need Ukraine! Only Russia would ever buy Ukraine's products." I said, "Are you sure? I've heard that Europe imports quite a lot from Ukraine." She answered, "Yes, I've seen the numbers." I looked the numbers up: Russia 25%, and the EU 25%. And you can guess the trend.
This little exchange illustrates two of the war's many factors: Ukrainians want to be closer to the EU, and Russians (even educated Russians) have no respect for Ukrainians. And that was before Russians started calling them nazis.
At last. Another perspective to the western narrative
A great discussion! The war in Ukraine has become a quagmire that the USA/NATO/West will find difficult to extricate from. At this point the best that the West can hope for is a perpetual armistice (frozen conflict) like North and South Korea.
Wake up Black folks, your reparations are being diverted to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and housing undocumented Hispanic immigrants in Chicago and New York. 13 billion dollars for illegal aliens.
What about fixing the bad water situation in Jackson, Mississippi, and Flint, Michigan where black people live? Amazingly, billions are instantaneously available for bombs.
And, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that were written/codified to free black people are now being used against black people.
This is what a race war looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/live/Wkj0f8GmGMs?si=HIMr-xyTfl1MkCDw
If you compare US government expenditures on Ukraine, expenditures on "Black folks", and expenditures on everything else, I think you'll find that Ukraine is not diverting much from us. :)
Lengthy wars add up to spending trillions of dollars of national treasure. 20 years in Afghanistan and America was defeated by the Taliban---a waste!
And, Ukraine is a racist country--- African nationals were the last to be put on trains headed out of Ukraine at the start of the war. Poland treated African refugees like shit. I've traveled to Russia as a tourist and was treated like shit.
During the Vietnam War, I was subject to the draft. Fortunately, my lottery number was in the 300s. Blacks disproportionately suffered casualties in that war while their family and friends were being discriminated against in America. The Vietnamese didn't lynch or castrate African Americans.
I visited Vietnam about 5 years ago and couldn't make sense of the Vietnam War for which America lost---over 50,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese dead plus the national treasury spent.
Moreover, if Ukraine committed to neutrality, there wouldn't have been a Russian invasion. Gorbachev got a promise from Europe and America that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2021/08/16/the-war-in-afghanistan-cost-america-300-million-per-day-for-20-years-with-big-bills-yet-to-come/?sh=3b5a79ac7f8d
>Moreover, if Ukraine committed to neutrality, there wouldn't have been a Russian invasion.
You don't know that. Russia experts (which, I suspect, you are not) don't know that, and many believe the opposite: a "neutral" (i.e. without allies) Ukraine would have been easier pickings for Russia, one way or another. Russia didn't "invade" Belarus, because it established dominance by other means. It's a pretty sad place.
>Gorbachev got a promise from Europe and America that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO.
You're parroting a fallacy. Look it up. James Baker--a US secretary of state, not a president--verbally told Gorby that NATO wouldn't expand east in a specific context: German reunification. A binding, permanent commitment like that would require something written, even a treaty, not the unwritten words of a secretary of state.
I'm half black, lived in Russia and Ukraine for many years, and worked in arms control. The US played a big role in de-nuking Ukraine, and we and Russia both made formal, written commitments to them under the Budapest Memorandum. Russia blatantly violated the agreement, but the US needs to uphold its commitments, at the very least for the sake of its reputation.
Shelby Steele, a black conservative double agent, is half white too with a strong European indoctrination of meritorious manumission. Lol!
The long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost 6.5 trillion dollars which added to the U.S. deficit. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and taking out Saddam Hussain was a great strategic mistake insofar as helping to keep Iran in check. Furthermore, the U. S. lost the war in Afghanistan.
The Vietnam War was also a waste of national treasure and American lives. America has a nasty history of subversive activities around the world, including assassinating democratically elected leaders in South America and Africa.
And the American industrial-military complex has made bankers, defense contractors, and major stockholders fifty rich. These are the real winners.
Lionel Rothchild's banking enterprises, back in the day, made a family fortune by financing wars.
My priority is pro-black economics and group survival. 270,000 Ukrainian refugees in America have diverted resources to people with unearned benefits and who have no desire to live next door to blacks.
You probably have a Russian or Ukrainian wife. Two of my former subordinate staff got burned by Ukrainian ex-wives. Yes/no? Lol!