Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 411 posts

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#101

Post by dang »

9999px wrote: post #62
propesh wrote: post #12

Quoted post unavailable.

This sort of braindead mindset is exactly why learning dialectical materialism is so important. You're essentially denying causality. A bobcat is cornered by a man with a stick, the bobcat lashes out, you blame the bobcat. You walk around a corner to see a kid hit another kid. You blame the one who did the hitting because you don't care to investigate what was happening before you rounded the corner. There are decade…

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Also, please omit name-calling from your comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: and please don't use HN primarily for political or ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for. Past explanations on that point can be found via these search links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#102

Post by sidibe »

empressplay wrote: post #49
sidibe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mearsheimer and other geopolitical overthinkers are in a fantasy where small countries should have or have no will of their own and would never choose to reorient to liberal democracy without USA forcing it on them no matter how much more attractive EU is than being a Russian vassal

You mistake saying 'how something is' with approving of it. Pragmatism is an essential part of diplomacy, without it you quickly discover how essential it is. This is no fantasy, this is reality, as frustrating as that may be.

I don't know, every time I hear these realist pragmatists they seem to me to be ignoring the reality in favor of their theories. NATO's growth, if you believe Eastern Europeans, is because they didn't want to be pressured by Russia. But since it doesn't fit the framework, what they say is ignored and instead it's all an overstepping power play from the USA

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#103

Post by empressplay »

projektfu wrote: post #59
empressplay wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Canadian. As a Canadian I am fully aware that my country exists strictly at the whim of the US. If we were to decide to form a military alliance with Russia, hosting Russian troops on our soil, Canada would be invaded by the US in a New York minute. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. It sucks of course but it is what it is. That is all he is saying.

It's different in many degrees. Canada has been warmer and colder to the US at various times but since NAFTA has been very friendly. If a less-US-friendly politics started winning out, Canada could back away from the US orbit in a lot of ways and the US probably would not push for regime change. A future of a pro-Putin Canada is just absurd in its own right. Why not North Korea or Iran? It only really makes sense to…

Right, but the fact is Canada wouldn't be able to get away with aligning with Russia. That's the central point here, likelihood notwithstanding. I'd point you towards the Monroe Doctrine.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#104

Post by Comevius »

Mearsheimer thinks that the United States would have benefited from allying themselves with Russia and the post-Soviet states (under Russian influence) against China.

I think that it's still Russia's fault for using a stick and not having a carrot. The United States, China, the European Union or even Saudi Arabia are influential because of their economy, and not because of their military or democracy.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

empressplay wrote: post #95
dragonwriter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts This rule... isn't. Heck, countries have been admitted to NATO with ongoing territorial disputes with NATO countries .

Right, so NATO could have decided to admit Ukraine at any time and then immediately attempt to force Russia out of Crimea, a scenario which I expect kept Putin awake at night.

> Right, so NATO could have decided to admit Ukraine at any time and then immediately attempt to force Russia out of Crimea

Just like when they admitted Spain, they immediately tried to force Britain out of Gibraltar. (Yes, that's an actual, ongoing, territorial dispute, that also involves a meta-dispute over who gets to be involved on discussion about resolving the primary dispute.)

The Washington Treaty does not have a prohibition against resolving territorial disputes without immediate resort to armed force.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#106

Post by dang »

sonicggg wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

Your account has broken the site guidelines repeatedly lately. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30460844 was particularly bad. We ban accounts that break the site guidelines, so please don't.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#107

Post by 331c8c71 »

propesh wrote: post #94
331c8c71 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be so kind to provide some references supporting your view?

The borderlands suffered annual Tatar invasions. From the beginning of the 16th century until the end of the 17th century, Crimean Tatar slave raiding bands[56] took about two million slaves from Russia and Ukraine.[57] According to Orest Subtelny, "from 1450 to 1586, eighty-six Tatar raids were recorded, and from 1600 to 1647, seventy."[58] In 1688, Tatars captured a record number of 60,000 Ukrainians.[59] The Tatar…

> Tatars captured a record number of 60,000 Ukrainians.[59]

How it is relevant? Your claim was "Ukranians and Russians has been fighting for over 1000 years"

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#108

Post by steveylang »

empressplay wrote: post #36
propesh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, who is to blame outside the hand-waiving of the whole world? And I guess we should just throw out common criminal law foundations of 5000 years. Fine, I say lets blame the sun.

No, you're right, this is a failing of the whole world, or at least all those that hold any power in it. The answer here is to adapt and mitigate these sorts of outcomes in the future by dropping our current 'us vs them' ideology and replace it with one that looks out for the interests of everyone, understanding that our needs as humans for security and stability are largely universal, and our self-interests need to…

I agree with all your points, but ironically what you said here is sort of another form of what Mearsheimer seems to advocate- carefully think things through to prevent provocations and escalations, based on a consideration of the concerns and fears of other involved parties.

That being said, while there may be many factors involved leading up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's still Russia invading Ukraine.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#109

Post by bbatha »

empressplay wrote: post #92
bbatha wrote: post #78

My problem with Mearsheimer and the other realists is they have a very poor explanation why the status quo changes. Yes great power competition explains why tensions are high but does little explain why and when they spill over to war. Notably absent from this article is any discussion of "why now?". Commenters in the thread are saying that his 2015 article on the subject could be written last week. That's precisely…

The answer to 'why now' is COVID. People in the west are already worn-out by the pandemic and are in no mood to engage in a new conflict. Putin has simply picked an advantageous moment to make his move. Also China. Even Biden recognizes China is a problem and is making moves to attempt to manage them (renewed alliance with Australia, domestic manufacturing). China has likely made some guarantees to Russia with regard…

> Putin certainly has not suddenly 'gone crazy'.

I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I would say that if a theory relies on someone "going crazy" to explain the war its probably bunk. Putin has decades of proving himself to be an intelligent player.

The Covid and China pivot is an interesting theory and it would make Mearshimer's argument a lot more compelling if he used current events to explain his theory.

Re: Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

#110

Post by empressplay »

sharken wrote: post #76
empressplay wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Canadian. As a Canadian I am fully aware that my country exists strictly at the whim of the US. If we were to decide to form a military alliance with Russia, hosting Russian troops on our soil, Canada would be invaded by the US in a New York minute. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. It sucks of course but it is what it is. That is all he is saying.

An interesting theory, but hardly comparable to what is going on in Ukraine. Canada is not compatible with Russia, so forming a military alliance is a crazy idea. Putin is the aggressor who has invaded an European country just because their actions did not suit him. There are no acceptable excuses for the invasion, it's a very dangerous game he is playing as Russia cannot live with the sanctions in the long run. At t…

It doesn't matter if it's a crazy idea or not. The US simply would not permit Canada to align with Russia and would use military force to do so, and certainly before Russia had the opportunity to station troops in Canada.

Would the Americans' actions be 'wrong' from Canada's point of view? Of course. Would they be 'right' from America's point of view? Absolutely! That's the point here. Both sides are simultaneously both right and wrong, from each other's perspectives.

Once again, it sucks, but it is how it is.

Post reply on HN