Mearsheimer appeals to the new alt-righters in America who feel that there is nothing worth fighting for except their own selfish - and mostly useless - causes. Pathetic.
These days he also appeals to a lot of the ‘anti imperialist’/anti Western left as well.
There’s a kind of moral relativism in his observations, so a theory that allows them to say “look, we told you we’re no better than our enemies” is very appealing.
Even Trump can’t win against the blob? Perhaps, but the road we’re on is suicidal. So maybe the blob will defeat themselves. But it’s just possible they’ll emerge from their bunkers to survey a world blasted to bits and believe it was worth it.
Well it’s at least honest I guess, but I doubt the millions of people who currently enjoy lives like you & I and who currently live in free democratic societies like you & I, or who don’t but desire their societies to be like ours will thank you for saying they should have to accept living under the theme of murderous mafia state.
Mearscheimer sees everything through the lens of his Realist theory and in this instance to make it work he has to blatantly misrepresent events.
- For starters his claims about Putin motives are contradicted literally by the words of Vladimir Putin who when he spoke of his reasons didn’t talk of the reasons Mearscheimer gives but of history, of Ukraine not being a real independent country and supposedly ‘liberating’ Ukraine from a ‘Nazi regime’
- Genuine experts on Russia, Russians & Russian speakers have made it abundantly clear there’s plenty of evidence of Russia’s Imperial intent. Putin has made little secret of this.
- Anyone from Eastern European nations could tell you this and it’s why they were desperate to join NATO.
- Mearscheimer version of NATO expansion completely excludes the agency of all the nations who joined. They weren’t bullied or threatened into joining and have made very their own motivations for joining.
- The supposed ‘threat’ to Russia is never spelt out, what is it? Invasion by NATO? It’s simply not credible.
- The only thing that makes sense is that Putin (and by implication Mearscheimer) thinks that Russia has some right to dominate its neighbours, that it deserves a ‘sphere of influence’ and the desires of Russia’s neighbours are pretty much irrelevant.
- There’s WAY more evidence that the real ‘threat’ Putin perceives is having democratic and open societies on it’s borders.
- Given the situation with Crimea there was little to no chance of Ukraine joking NATO prior to Russia’s invasion.
- If Putin’s invasion was a ‘rational’ response to his real fears about NATO how does he or indeed Mearscheimer explain away Finland & Sweden?
- It’s not hard to find people highly critical of Mearscheimer’s arguments and think he’s not only wrong about this but many other matters.
That’s just on this specific issue, I real issues with the implications of realist theory itself as it’s essentially amoral.
I understand why Mearscheimer’s ideas have become fashionable but it doesn’t make his analysis particularly credible.
The original suggestion by Lauderback was: "Dr Mearsheimer’s argument is absurd, and borders on being intellectually insulting. "
You make the case that this comment has substance. I disagree.
My reply:
1. seems you have not acknowledged that that the over-arching issue that we face about Ukraine is a 3rd world war with nukes. I think this is a distinct possibility and I see no reason to risk thermonuclear war for tertiary reasons. Unintended consequences often propel humans into conflicts of immeasurable and painful proportions. Clearly, WWI is an example. Contemporary policy makers at US DoState remain oblivious to this lesson of history!
2. Second, I object to the characterization of Mearscheimer’s view as "absurd" and "intellectually insulating." A few folks may disagree with Mearscheimer’s analysis, but the summary judgement of it as 'absurd.' ..... is to me, absurd and unfounded. Just because a student may have alternative reasons to disagree with Mearscheimer, it is silly, yes-SILLY, to make the case Mearscheimer's analysis is "absurd."
3. Putin does not present an ideological threat to the West or NATO. There really is no reason the West cannot find accommodation with Putin and Russia. Putin is not perusing an Internationalist Communist agenda like that of Stalin, post WWII. Putin does, however, have a very real interest that states which border Russia are neutral, or at least not aggressively anti-Russian. My view really is no different than how the US would perceive a Caribbean nation's decision to create a mutual defense treat with PRoChina that would result in 100,000 Chinese soldiers being stationed there. Surely, the US would object, regardless it's notational reference to the Monroe Doctrine. We understand that......so why does the USDept ofS tate ignore a similar interest by Putin in the nature of the states thatt border his nation?
4. What do any of us really know about US-CIA subversive actions to support the Orange revolution in Ukraine? Empirically, what do we know? Are the emails and DoS communications transparent for objective analysis? Of course not. We don't even know details about the levels of corruption between the Biden Crime Group, the DoState, and the government officials in Ukraine. NOR do we have access to any audit of financial aid to Ukraine from the US.
5. If Russia/Putin believe Ukraine cannot, or should not, be able to leave the hegemonic control of Russia, what is wrong with that notion? After all, that is exactly the logic that Lincoln used to justify the Civil War. When South Carolina left the Union, the sovereign state of South Carolina was exercising "agency" to leave the Union, just as the 13 colonies had exercised "agency" to leave the imperial control of the UK with the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln and Putin would likely view "control" in the same manner.
6. Regardless Mearscheimer’s views, the original claim by Lauderback lacked substance, IMO. The question of US policy toward Ukraine and risk of thermo-nuclear war merit further dialogue.
1. Not necessarily and indeed most experts on Russia, think the chance are minuscule for many reasons, but what’s the answer here...capitulate to Putin’s blackmail?
2. Why get hung up on a word, but actually ignoring the literal words from Putin’s literal mouth regarding his motivations because it undermines your theory IS absurd.
3. He’s literally just invaded a neighbour, he’s literally murdered dissidents in Western cities, he has other tiny neighbours who could (and have been in living memory) easily overrun and who obviously live with that fear, hence their desire to join NATO. To say Putin isn’t a threat is too silly for words, but if you want to go and tell historically neutral countries who’ve just joined NATO they’ve got it all wrong, knock yourself out.
4. You’re now in the territory of conspiracy theories. You say ‘we don’t know’, but what we do actually know, is it’s clear the Ukrainians people have no desire to be a client state of Putin and that Russia has sort to undermine the democracies of multiple European states (whatever you may think about his involvement in the US).
5. The former Soviet states have a history of independence in a way no US state ever has. The former Soviet states have now been independent for almost 30years with internationally recognised borders and internationally recognised sovereignty.
It’s not even vaguely comparable, but if you want to argue that Latvia wanting to be a democratic nation that determines its own destiny is the equivalent of states seceding to protect slavery, go for it. I wouldn’t have high expectations of being taken seriously by many people if I was you.
Nor would I expect your Putin is like Lincoln argument to be much of a runner either...
6. Yes, of course they merit dialogue but not everyone has time to type out detailed reasons and someone may have valid grounds for describing Mearscheimer’s position as absurd.
It’s pretty clear to me his arguments are given way more credence than they deserve by people who instinctively are either pro Putin or anti US policy and he provides them with a veneer of respectability.
Was it Scott Adams that came up with Trump Derangement Syndrome? A lot of Americans also suffer from Putin Derangement Syndrome. In fact, I bet there is a lot of overlap between TDS and PDS.
Given what’s happened in Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, given the history of Soviet/Russian imperialism, given the clear evidence of Putin messing with democracies in Europe, clear evidence of him arranging the murder of Russian dissidents in European cities, do you think it ‘deranged’ that Latvians, Fins, Estonians truly fear Putin?
Is it ‘deranged’ for Westerners to think we have a duty to help these nations defend their freedoms?
Off topic, apologies, it’s on the Middle East. But everyone who has any interest in world affairs right now needs to listen to this:
https://youtu.be/l-hrGiuTfvw?si=GXQFtX9P4V5rJ00A
Mearsheimer appeals to the new alt-righters in America who feel that there is nothing worth fighting for except their own selfish - and mostly useless - causes. Pathetic.
WTF?
These days he also appeals to a lot of the ‘anti imperialist’/anti Western left as well.
There’s a kind of moral relativism in his observations, so a theory that allows them to say “look, we told you we’re no better than our enemies” is very appealing.
...or until a republican gets elected- minus the hawks Haley and Pence and a few others that have zero chance.
Even Trump can’t win against the blob? Perhaps, but the road we’re on is suicidal. So maybe the blob will defeat themselves. But it’s just possible they’ll emerge from their bunkers to survey a world blasted to bits and believe it was worth it.
So, what is the solution? Let Putin have his empire?
In a word, "Yes."
Well it’s at least honest I guess, but I doubt the millions of people who currently enjoy lives like you & I and who currently live in free democratic societies like you & I, or who don’t but desire their societies to be like ours will thank you for saying they should have to accept living under the theme of murderous mafia state.
Your view, Mr. Lauderback, is not obvious to me. Please make a compelling case or simply admit your ad hominem comment has no value.
I will.
Mearscheimer sees everything through the lens of his Realist theory and in this instance to make it work he has to blatantly misrepresent events.
- For starters his claims about Putin motives are contradicted literally by the words of Vladimir Putin who when he spoke of his reasons didn’t talk of the reasons Mearscheimer gives but of history, of Ukraine not being a real independent country and supposedly ‘liberating’ Ukraine from a ‘Nazi regime’
- Genuine experts on Russia, Russians & Russian speakers have made it abundantly clear there’s plenty of evidence of Russia’s Imperial intent. Putin has made little secret of this.
- Anyone from Eastern European nations could tell you this and it’s why they were desperate to join NATO.
- Mearscheimer version of NATO expansion completely excludes the agency of all the nations who joined. They weren’t bullied or threatened into joining and have made very their own motivations for joining.
- The supposed ‘threat’ to Russia is never spelt out, what is it? Invasion by NATO? It’s simply not credible.
- The only thing that makes sense is that Putin (and by implication Mearscheimer) thinks that Russia has some right to dominate its neighbours, that it deserves a ‘sphere of influence’ and the desires of Russia’s neighbours are pretty much irrelevant.
- There’s WAY more evidence that the real ‘threat’ Putin perceives is having democratic and open societies on it’s borders.
- Given the situation with Crimea there was little to no chance of Ukraine joking NATO prior to Russia’s invasion.
- If Putin’s invasion was a ‘rational’ response to his real fears about NATO how does he or indeed Mearscheimer explain away Finland & Sweden?
- It’s not hard to find people highly critical of Mearscheimer’s arguments and think he’s not only wrong about this but many other matters.
That’s just on this specific issue, I real issues with the implications of realist theory itself as it’s essentially amoral.
I understand why Mearscheimer’s ideas have become fashionable but it doesn’t make his analysis particularly credible.
The original suggestion by Lauderback was: "Dr Mearsheimer’s argument is absurd, and borders on being intellectually insulting. "
You make the case that this comment has substance. I disagree.
My reply:
1. seems you have not acknowledged that that the over-arching issue that we face about Ukraine is a 3rd world war with nukes. I think this is a distinct possibility and I see no reason to risk thermonuclear war for tertiary reasons. Unintended consequences often propel humans into conflicts of immeasurable and painful proportions. Clearly, WWI is an example. Contemporary policy makers at US DoState remain oblivious to this lesson of history!
2. Second, I object to the characterization of Mearscheimer’s view as "absurd" and "intellectually insulating." A few folks may disagree with Mearscheimer’s analysis, but the summary judgement of it as 'absurd.' ..... is to me, absurd and unfounded. Just because a student may have alternative reasons to disagree with Mearscheimer, it is silly, yes-SILLY, to make the case Mearscheimer's analysis is "absurd."
3. Putin does not present an ideological threat to the West or NATO. There really is no reason the West cannot find accommodation with Putin and Russia. Putin is not perusing an Internationalist Communist agenda like that of Stalin, post WWII. Putin does, however, have a very real interest that states which border Russia are neutral, or at least not aggressively anti-Russian. My view really is no different than how the US would perceive a Caribbean nation's decision to create a mutual defense treat with PRoChina that would result in 100,000 Chinese soldiers being stationed there. Surely, the US would object, regardless it's notational reference to the Monroe Doctrine. We understand that......so why does the USDept ofS tate ignore a similar interest by Putin in the nature of the states thatt border his nation?
4. What do any of us really know about US-CIA subversive actions to support the Orange revolution in Ukraine? Empirically, what do we know? Are the emails and DoS communications transparent for objective analysis? Of course not. We don't even know details about the levels of corruption between the Biden Crime Group, the DoState, and the government officials in Ukraine. NOR do we have access to any audit of financial aid to Ukraine from the US.
5. If Russia/Putin believe Ukraine cannot, or should not, be able to leave the hegemonic control of Russia, what is wrong with that notion? After all, that is exactly the logic that Lincoln used to justify the Civil War. When South Carolina left the Union, the sovereign state of South Carolina was exercising "agency" to leave the Union, just as the 13 colonies had exercised "agency" to leave the imperial control of the UK with the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln and Putin would likely view "control" in the same manner.
6. Regardless Mearscheimer’s views, the original claim by Lauderback lacked substance, IMO. The question of US policy toward Ukraine and risk of thermo-nuclear war merit further dialogue.
1. Not necessarily and indeed most experts on Russia, think the chance are minuscule for many reasons, but what’s the answer here...capitulate to Putin’s blackmail?
2. Why get hung up on a word, but actually ignoring the literal words from Putin’s literal mouth regarding his motivations because it undermines your theory IS absurd.
3. He’s literally just invaded a neighbour, he’s literally murdered dissidents in Western cities, he has other tiny neighbours who could (and have been in living memory) easily overrun and who obviously live with that fear, hence their desire to join NATO. To say Putin isn’t a threat is too silly for words, but if you want to go and tell historically neutral countries who’ve just joined NATO they’ve got it all wrong, knock yourself out.
4. You’re now in the territory of conspiracy theories. You say ‘we don’t know’, but what we do actually know, is it’s clear the Ukrainians people have no desire to be a client state of Putin and that Russia has sort to undermine the democracies of multiple European states (whatever you may think about his involvement in the US).
5. The former Soviet states have a history of independence in a way no US state ever has. The former Soviet states have now been independent for almost 30years with internationally recognised borders and internationally recognised sovereignty.
It’s not even vaguely comparable, but if you want to argue that Latvia wanting to be a democratic nation that determines its own destiny is the equivalent of states seceding to protect slavery, go for it. I wouldn’t have high expectations of being taken seriously by many people if I was you.
Nor would I expect your Putin is like Lincoln argument to be much of a runner either...
6. Yes, of course they merit dialogue but not everyone has time to type out detailed reasons and someone may have valid grounds for describing Mearscheimer’s position as absurd.
It’s pretty clear to me his arguments are given way more credence than they deserve by people who instinctively are either pro Putin or anti US policy and he provides them with a veneer of respectability.
Thank you, Miller.
Dr Mearsheimer’s argument is absurd, and borders on being intellectually insulting.
Was it Scott Adams that came up with Trump Derangement Syndrome? A lot of Americans also suffer from Putin Derangement Syndrome. In fact, I bet there is a lot of overlap between TDS and PDS.
Given what’s happened in Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, given the history of Soviet/Russian imperialism, given the clear evidence of Putin messing with democracies in Europe, clear evidence of him arranging the murder of Russian dissidents in European cities, do you think it ‘deranged’ that Latvians, Fins, Estonians truly fear Putin?
Is it ‘deranged’ for Westerners to think we have a duty to help these nations defend their freedoms?