Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by throwaways85989 » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

warner_of_doom wrote: post #38

Seeing this play out in the media reminds me of the Iraq War hysteria in 2003. Completely one-sided coverage, classic war-time propaganda (ghost of kiev), banning Russian arts and paralympians, etc. I've lost all faith in the media. Period. You may think that there is an absolute answer to this situation, but there isn't. I recommend that you study commentators and scholars such as: John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brezins…

I despise this western-centric view- were only the people in the west are real people, that can make decisions for themselves, and the rest is just pawns for playing a funny great board game.

The idea that even a new-born nation, could walk out of the board game and do its own thing is so outrageous to the players, it is not even considered.

Well, ukraine just tried that. Its a sovereign nation, and it wanted nothing to do with its imperialistic neighbourhood. And all the zhars horse and all the zhars man, could not hold all its conquered ethnicities in again and again, cause technology now favors david instead of goliath.

So ukraine might not walk this time, but others will, until this ball of muddy-power dissolves one last and final time. Russia, this unreformable assembly of thiefdoms, is stumbling like a feverish plague victime towards the end of its story and it will not be pretty. To blame this corrosion on the west, is pompous victim blaming.

Russia is also falling apart near the chinese border, were large parts of the economy are now owned by chinese state owned companies. Its just a failed state and to the man with glass-bones-disease even a friendly handshake is a attack.

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

#162

Post by snake_plissken » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:23 PM UTC

warner_of_doom wrote: post #147

kashunstva wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am convinced that my country started this entire episode Unequivocally the government of the Russian Federation is the aggressor here. That the United States has been inconsistent with respect to Ukraine doesn't diminish the fact that the military of the Russian Federation is actively shelling hospitals, schools, residential dwellings and precipitating a humanitarian crisis in Europe.

No. Not unequivocally. Do you know about what Victoria Nuland (leaked intercepted tapes), Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, Hunter Biden, CIA John Brennan, etc. did in Ukraine? Zelenskyy ran on peace with Russia, but his puppet masters in Washington would never have allowed that. So, by late-2021, do you know that Zelenskyy had a sub-28% approval rating from his own population because he threatened to acqu…

Can you expand on the US-backed putsch? Are you talking about Maidan? The thing where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Kiev?

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

#163

Post by avasylev » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:24 PM UTC

warner_of_doom wrote: post #140

avasylev wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Completely one-sided coverage I'm not sure what else you expected, it's completely one-sided issue - one side started and continues the war. One side can stop this war at any time. Did you expect 50-50 coverage, with 50% repeating Putin's propaganda?

> one side started and continues the war Not true. You have to look at the entire political situation in Ukraine, starting at least since 2003-4. And, especially 2014 and the US-backed putsch that took place that year.

I'm well aware of political situation in Ukraine. I took part in the protests of 2004 that led to "US-backed putsch", had nothing to do with USA. You're stripping Ukrainian people of any agency. Not everything is secretly manipulated by USA or Russia, people of the country are not mindless bots.

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

#164

Post by mcguire » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:24 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #64

warner_of_doom wrote: post #38

Seeing this play out in the media reminds me of the Iraq War hysteria in 2003. Completely one-sided coverage, classic war-time propaganda (ghost of kiev), banning Russian arts and paralympians, etc. I've lost all faith in the media. Period. You may think that there is an absolute answer to this situation, but there isn't. I recommend that you study commentators and scholars such as: John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brezins…

I have studied this situation nonstop for the last week and I pretty much have the same opinion as you. If you ask a simple question, Cui bono? (Who benefits?) it becomes clear that it’s ultimately another military industrial complex project. The sad part is that the only real victims here are the Ukrainian people, who were led along with false promises. Had NATO been wiser, none of this would be happening.

Lessee here,...

Following several hundred years of rule by Poland and then Russia, in 1991 the Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. (I assume you think that was a mistake?)

Between 1991 and 2004, two the administrations of two presidents retained close ties to Russia. However, in 2004, in an election festooned with accusations of fraud (serious accusations, not Trump-accusations), another pro-Russian president was elected, sparking protests and a second election, which brought into power another president who called for closer ties with the European Union. (Yeah, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko demonstrating the results of not recognizing Russian authority.) Corruption seems to have abounded during most of these and the next president's terms.

In 2010, another pro-Russian president was elected, which in 2013 and 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk. (They should have just given up then, right?)

The next President, elected in 2014, began again the policy of closing the relationship with the EU and withdrawing from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the association of countries from the USSR, and generally trying to clean up the mess. In 2019 the constitution was amended:

"The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine include ... determining the principles of internal and foreign policy, realization of the strategic course of the state on acquiring full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"The President of Ukraine is a guarantor of the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine provides the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

(Stupid fools, don't they know they have no rights a world power is bound to respect? They're barely human!)

Also in 2019, Zelenskyy was elected president with 73% of the vote, a group of prisoners were exchanged with Russia, freeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Sentsov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sushchenko and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olexandr_Kolchenko, among others, and here we are today. (Not that I'm suggesting holding political prisoners is bad, mind you.)

Now, Putin has said that the big mistake happened when Lenin's USSR gave Ukraine any autonomy at all, which may in fact be true. But,

1. The Ukrainians are not victims. Well, they are, but only of Russian aggression.

2. The military-industrial complex seems to have an awful lot of reach and power. Shades of the Elders of Zion, eh? On the other hand, seems like they could have worked a bit faster.

3. NATO does not look to be a very big player; the EU and Poland have had as big a hand in "false promises" if you choose to look at it that way.

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

#165

Post by thraneh » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #154

I read Mearsheimer's "Tragedy of Great Power Politics", and I think it's one of the most important books ever written. It completely changed the way I think about what's going on in the world. That being said, I think on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, Mearsheimer is not consistent with his own theory (defensive realism). I completely understand why Putin is doing what he's doing, his actions are very well explained…

What is NATO's objective except to defend the member countries from aggressors? As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, perhaps what is happening is about the control of natural resources. The entire situation is then politically motivated. Aren't NATO and Ukraine then simply actors that have been strung along? (Obviously at great cost to Ukraine now.) This would also explain why EU has been so quick to respond with sanctions. This is about cause and effect. Russia attacking Ukraine is obviously very wrong. It seems philosophical to discuss if the cause should be blamed. However, Mearsheimer has warned about this aggression for a very long time. The history seems to indicate that this outcome has been forced.

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

#166

Post by mcguire » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:28 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #141

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…

>Why did Russia raise the stakes in December? Sure, NATO's eastward push has demonstrably increased tensions but the eastward push has been frozen since about 2014 since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts. Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine. At some point, there are simply t…

"...NATO/US troops in Ukraine..."

Do you have a source for that?

Don't forget,

"On June 1, 1996, Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation, sending the last of the 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads it had inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia for dismantling. Ukraine had committed to this by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in January 1994."

That was certainly a stupid idea.

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

#167

Post by warner_of_doom » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:28 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #156

warner_of_doom wrote: post #38

Seeing this play out in the media reminds me of the Iraq War hysteria in 2003. Completely one-sided coverage, classic war-time propaganda (ghost of kiev), banning Russian arts and paralympians, etc. I've lost all faith in the media. Period. You may think that there is an absolute answer to this situation, but there isn't. I recommend that you study commentators and scholars such as: John Mearsheimer, Zbigniew Brezins…

I'm also surprised at just how many of my friends have turned from dovish "can't we all just get along" types into rabid "Russia Delenda Est" types who think that anyone who believes that even a modicum of this is perhaps America's fault is committing treason. For what it's worth, what Russia is doing is wrong. But I do absolutely understand Mearsheimer's perspective that this is basically a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0…

> turned from dovish "can't we all just get along" types into rabid "Russia Delenda Est" types

Manufactured consent.

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

#168

Post by hutzlibu » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #28

hutzlibu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Putin has fucking nukes, is he seriously afraid of being invaded himself?" He is afraid of insignificance. Once there was a great RUS empire, now there isn't. Many russians feel sad about that. I don't to be honest, because those great empires, whether from the tsar or sowjets, were mainly known for slave conditions for most people.

After the arguable win in the Cold War, the winning party has failed to offer the better peace to Russia. Just compare the fate of Japan in 1944 vs. 1954 and Russia in 1989 vs. Russia in 1999. It has caused an enormous traumatic syndrome in the russian society.

This is true as well.

The russian patriots would not need the nationalism substitute so much, if they had wealth in real life.

A Ryszard Kapuściński quote from one of the sowjet people I remember:

"We might be poor, but our empire is big"

Now they are just poor, without the comfort of being part of a big empire.

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

#169

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:33 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #141

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…

>Why did Russia raise the stakes in December? Sure, NATO's eastward push has demonstrably increased tensions but the eastward push has been frozen since about 2014 since countries can't join NATO if they have territorial conflicts. Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine. At some point, there are simply t…

> Formal joining was on hold, but everything else was accelerating since 2014. Most notably arms shipments, military funding, and NATO/US troops in Ukraine

Yes, after suffering defeat in an unprovoked invasion and occupation by Russia, Ukraine cranked up arms purchases and outside training for it's military.

Blaming this on NATO and not the invader is...beyond stupid.

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

#170

Post by mcguire » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 10:34 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #123

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…

Here is an article about the background to the war: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/implementing-minsk-ag... Zelsynsky promised better relations with Russia but didn't follow through.

Zelenskyy promised? I can't see that anywhere in the article. In fact, the only mention of that sort of thing is Russian expectations:

"In 2019 the Kremlin expected that Volodymyr Zelensky’s victory in the presidential elections would change Ukraine’s agenda, making peace in the Donbas a top priority."

Zelenskyy has always been pro-EU, anti-Russian.