The US, etc could have banned Ukraine from NATO forever and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Putin's speech rarely mentioned NATO as his deciding factor. He said doesn't believe Ukraine should exist independently of Russia.
There's often a difference between what people say and what people think, as well as justifications for actions against the actual reasons they did the action. Because telling the public the real reason might be embarrassing. He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Ru…
Imagine how different the world would be if the west allowed Putin to join NATO like he wanted... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
Putin never actually wanted to join NATO, some of his demands were that as Russia joins there is no more need for any US presence in Europe as well as he wanted Russia to be exempt from rule of law and the democracy requirements that NATO has.
This kind of analysis ignores what Ukraine and Ukrainians actually want. Western Ukraine, at the very least, is extremely nationalist and anti-Russian. Do they not have the right of self-determination as a sovereign country?
There's often a difference between what people say and what people think, as well as justifications for actions against the actual reasons they did the action. Because telling the public the real reason might be embarrassing. He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Ru…
> That's made up. It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
About as much of a stretch that the US or Germany are ruled by Nazis because they have far right nut cases in their armed forces.
Ukraine is the only country other than Israel that both its head of state and head of government are Jews.
Shockingly prescient and a well-done analysis in general, but I still don’t buy the “Putin had no other choice” argument. It boils down to the equivalent of the “It wasn’t my fault that I raped the woman, she wore a short skirt!” bullshit argument. I understand the “this is how realpolitik works” line of thought, I really do. But it doesn’t change who’s at fault here.
You say you understand then you give a terrible example or two.
> That's made up. It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
About as much of a stretch that the US or Germany are ruled by Nazis because they have far right nut cases in their armed forces. Ukraine is the only country other than Israel that both its head of state and head of government are Jews.
Oh I know. I've even followed Zelenskiy (his social media is usually entertaining...) since he was elected.
I just said there's a basis for it, not that it's true.
The US, etc could have banned Ukraine from NATO forever and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Putin's speech rarely mentioned NATO as his deciding factor. He said doesn't believe Ukraine should exist independently of Russia.
There's often a difference between what people say and what people think, as well as justifications for actions against the actual reasons they did the action. Because telling the public the real reason might be embarrassing. He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Ru…
2014 was about a trade deal with the EU not NATO.
NATO is not a threat to Russia as a sovereign state it’s a threat to Russia as a wanna be global superpower and an empire something they have no right too.
There is a reason Mearsheimer is part of an IR school of thought called "Realists." This analysis doesn't focus much on self-determinism or international law because it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence. I also think that it's regrettable, but people making foreign policy calls should be aware of this line of thinking. For what it's worth, what Mearsheimer is saying here about NATO expansion being…
> it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence. But international law has a lot of influence. As a set of shared norms, it's something that most competently-run countries and polities explicitly foster in order to achieve some sort of long-term stability and predictability that ultimately benefits them all. A "realist" analysis that simply ignores these dynamics and pretends they do not exist is not very…
Only when backed by force. There is no higher power in the playground of states. Ultimately countries by themselves are not necessarily rational actors. Smaller states join larger power blocs (either coerced or voluntarily, essentially they are trading off sovereignty for protection) and their own individual freedom to act gets subsumed. When it comes to dealing with Great Powers, realism is about as good as we can get, it is also predictably one of the oldest schools of thought in political science. The LIO theory is great in the decade post Cold War, but the world is multipolar now.
There is a reason Mearsheimer is part of an IR school of thought called "Realists." This analysis doesn't focus much on self-determinism or international law because it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence. I also think that it's regrettable, but people making foreign policy calls should be aware of this line of thinking. For what it's worth, what Mearsheimer is saying here about NATO expansion being…
> it assumes that these concepts don't have much influence. But international law has a lot of influence. As a set of shared norms, it's something that most competently-run countries and polities explicitly foster in order to achieve some sort of long-term stability and predictability that ultimately benefits them all. A "realist" analysis that simply ignores these dynamics and pretends they do not exist is not very…
On the other hand, international law only influences where the geopolitical setting allows it to. When it comes to the question of life and death for a superpower, international law no longer needs to mean anything.
I can observe an analogy of this for an individual person in a situation that he feels is life-threatening: criminal law or civil law are not the first things that come to mind but survival is. Only the one who first survives has a chance to return to law when things are settled back enough.