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

321–330 of 411 posts

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

#321

Post by cpleppert »

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…

Defensive realism? “My theory, which I label “offensive realism,” is essentially realist in nature; it falls thus in the tradition of realist thinkers such as E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Kenneth Waltz.”: John J. Mearsheimer. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

>>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 by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily).

Except Mearsheimer explicity didn't predict a major war between Ukraine and russia. He has commented on this situation repeatedly and failed to accurately predict the outbreak of major war. Mearsheimer has a problem here: Russia is weakening its military potential against other major states by going to war against ukraine. His formulation of offensive realism does not really produce a testable prediction in this case.

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

#322

Post by landemva »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #301
BitwiseFool wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No shit. Russia just launched an unprovoked attack on another country. That's about the farthest from "just getting along" that you can get. Is it any wonder that people who like peace get mad when countries start wars?

Which people like peace? Modern USA two decades in Afghanistan?

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

#323

Post by cpleppert »

zozbot234 wrote: post #201
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…

The thing about this archaic, old-fashioned "power politics" is that it's self-defeating in the age of late-stage modernity. You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong. Japan has power. South Korea has power. But the thing is that, invariably, they did not gain that power by playing zero-sum "power politics" games, but rather as a side-effect of br…

>>You want to talk about power? China has certainly gained plenty of real-world power since the days of Mao Zedong.

From the perspective of power maximizing their willingness to go to war is puzzling. But most research suggests states are not power maximizing but rather security maximizing. States don't consider their military potential in a vacuum but rather relative to other states that could disrupt their security. ( see: Collateral Damage Sino-Soviet Rivalry and the Termination of the Sino-Vietnamese Alliance)

In this regard, Russia's decision for war is very easy to understand even if it comes across as blindingly machiavellian and immoral. Even if the Russian economy is wrecked and the people of Russia are materially worse off Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed.

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

#324

Post by cpleppert »

steveylang wrote: post #55
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.

At the end of the day most people still have some sense of justice and morality (misguided or not.) In the interview, he could have acknowledged that these values still exist and influence the decisions of individuals and countries, without at all compromising his (many good) points about the politics of the region. The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his c…

>> The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?

I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer here (he was wrong on whether Russia would go to war for one thing; for another, he extrapolates way too far in ascribing motives to Putin/Russia that he doesn't have evidence for) and I think states are generally security maximizing and not power maximizing.

But Mearsheimer's book title of "The Tragedy of Great Power politics" is apt. Because the tragedy is that states have different interests than the well being of the people that live in them. I don't think pointing that out is immoral, quite the opposite; hard truths are still truths.

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

#325

Post by MrYellowP »

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…

> Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen,

Got in their way? What? Nonsense?!

When you go to war based on lies you yourself made up, then it's intentional.

That's not accidents that "get in the way".

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

#326

Post by Grustaf »

microtherion wrote: post #279
Grustaf wrote: post #186

Instinctively it makes sense that Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorsteps, but at the same time, why not? He already has NATO in the Baltics, and it's not like NATO would try to invade Russia just because they are neighbours. They are showing now very clearly that they are not interested in a conflict with Russia. Sure I understand it's not black and white, but NATO is already the stronger party, by far, so what doe…

Since it is now Putin's stated goal to annex Ukraine, he's going to end up with more NATO states on his doorstep if he wins this war. So is he going to demand that Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia renounce their membership next?

Last I read he explicitly said that this was not his goal. When did he say that?

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

#327

Post by 331c8c71 »

mcguire wrote: post #293
warner_of_doom wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. There are audio tapes that prove this as well.

These audio tapes: * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 * https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/... (I like the line, " A "new low?" From a Russian perspective, assuming they did it, it was brilliant. And it didn't require assassinating a former spy in a foreign capital with a radioactive isotope. ") There's nothing there about a "US instigated coup." What you're looking at are borin…

"Instigated" is inaccurate, I agree.

There were protests going on but there's still a legitimate president (de jure at least). US diplomats are caught on tape discussing who should be and should not be in the new government.

To me it means that they were directly talking to the protesters leaders and assuring them of us support.

If that kind of diplomacy sounds fine I don't quite understand why the Americans were so sensitive about the so-called "Russian involvement" in the US elections

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

#328

Post by Grustaf »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #230
Grustaf wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're fighting because they are being attacked, and because Slavs are courageous and stubborn. But the West are not telling them to give up, to save civilian lives. Instead they encourage them to keep fighting, delaying the inevitable. I don't know by how many days that will prolong the war, but it's reckless.

Imagine Biden telling Ukraine to lay down arms and capitulate to the Russian occupation, and we thought Trump acted like the Manchurian candidate ! I really can’t see into your mind, how is Putin not the reckless one here? He’s going on a military adventure that has kept the Russian stock market closed for a week.

There can be more than one reckless party. Putin obviously started the war, and Russia will have suffered huge losses, not to mention the devastating human toll.

But do you think Ukraine has a chance here? What is the purpose of fighting? It would only make sense if there was a chance of NATO or the EU stepping in to help them, but that seems to be ruled out.

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

#329

Post by MrYellowP »

landemva wrote: post #322
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No shit. Russia just launched an unprovoked attack on another country. That's about the farthest from "just getting along" that you can get. Is it any wonder that people who like peace get mad when countries start wars?

Which people like peace? Modern USA two decades in Afghanistan?

Hey, you're being unfair!

Don't forget Iraq, Lybia, Syria and the others!

The US is all about peace, how could you forget??

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

#330

Post by jazzyjackson »

polski-g wrote: post #316
jazzyjackson wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says who? I’m only caught up to what’s been declassified, so I had to google what you’re talking about. This [0] is a good enough answer for me: CIA involvement in 2014 is a rumor at best and Russian propaganda at worst. I like knowing what my government is up to so if you have a credible source by all means… > The claims are coming from Putin's advisers who threatened to invade Ukraine. However, there's a problem wi…

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/ukraines-de... In April 2014 the CIA director was in Kiev, immediately after the coup. Additionally, federal law prohibits diplomacy with governments who came to power via coups, yet we were engaging in diplomacy immediately after it happened.

Thanks for the link, I do want to understand this perspective.

The article makes some claims I'm skeptical of

> Obama administration-backed coup that toppled a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv.

I haven't seen any material evidence of how the coup was backed by America. Obviously it wouldn't be the first time, but I see this stated as fact when it's little more than he-said she-said.

> Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994 in exchange for U.S. security guarantees in the event its neighbors, Russia in particular, turned hostile.

It was never Ukraine's arsenal, it was USSR leftovers, the launch codes were in Moscow. Further, this "in exchange" is without citation. The Budapest agreement is short and sweet, we (UK/USA/Rus) promise not to attack Ukraine, we promise to come to her aide in the event of nuclear war. It is not a defence pact, and the only nation in violation is Russia.

And look, I was born in 1990, I am not a political scientist nor historian. I just don't take Putin's word on any of this. I don't know how federal law applies to international relations, but saying USA somehow holds itself back from diplomacy with post-coup-power is laughable to me given how many coups we instigated and then normalized relations (I am not beyond recognizing USA as the bad guy, but coup is a somewhat intersubjective notion outside of military juntas). What law is this?

Post reply on HN