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

401–410 of 411 posts

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

#401

Post by ComradePhil »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #276
ComradePhil wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Russia had their bases in most of the South American countries and had been openly discussing having their base in Mexico for 14 years. And then 5 years ago, if all of the Mexican leaders that America was maintaining relationship with were suddenly arrested for "corruption" and then Gabriel Iglesias was elected for the president... and you try to befrend the new leadership, but then they start speaking the Ru…

Who is democratic in this scenario?

Let's say everyone's constitution says they are "democratic", just like they do in the real world.

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

#402

Post by chakhs »

tim333 wrote: post #377
chakhs wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is you're arguing from an idealistic point of view. But in the real world might makes right. Doesn't matter what Ukraine wants if it doesn't have nukes to back it up.

Does that go for the other 90% of countries that don't have nukes? Maybe Russia should take Canada as it's fairly close by and non nuclear?

USA won't let Russia come near the Americas so that won't happen. France didn't care that Libya was a "sovereign" nation, neither did USA care about Iraq's sovereignty.

Unfortunately that's how the world works, rules are for the weak nations only. Superpowers don't really care.

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

#403

Post by cuteboy19 »

warner_of_doom wrote: post #393
cuteboy19 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important to remember that Chomsky has repeatedly supported actual genocides so long as the person committing the genocides was anti western in some way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

Dude. This is just not true. He didn't deny genocide. There are many reasons not to like Chomsky. I don't like him as of late. But, genocide-denial isn't one of them.

You can literally read it. He denied the genocide while it was going on. He later gave a notpology but that doesnt change that he denied it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

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

#404

Post by warner_of_doom »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #403
warner_of_doom wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude. This is just not true. He didn't deny genocide. There are many reasons not to like Chomsky. I don't like him as of late. But, genocide-denial isn't one of them.

You can literally read it. He denied the genocide while it was going on. He later gave a notpology but that doesnt change that he denied it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

Where in that does he deny it? LOL. Agenda much?

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

#405

Post by mcguire »

bjourne wrote: post #347
mcguire wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much in that article about Zelenskyy and Russian relations, before or after his election. Certainly nothing about "reconciliation" with Russia, just settlements in the Donbas war. " ...he leveraged his massive online following into a serious campaign against official corruption. ... [In his post-election speech,] Zelensky vowed that his first goal as president would be to achieve a lasting peace in war-to…

I don't get your point since that is what "reconcilation" means. Here is yet another article supporting my claim: https://www.ft.com/content/ed40d675-16b3-4a35-a157-b9bf0078b... Do your own research to learn more.

1. That speech was after the election. One generally makes campaign promises before the election.

2. If "reconciliation" is the same as a "peace settlement", it's exactly what Zelenskyy did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy#Attempts_t...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996

And he took a lot of heat for it, since at least some Ukrainians regarded it as "capitulation".

Unfortunately, as far as Mr. Putin (and most of the world) believes, "reconciliation" means distancing Ukraine from western Europe and becoming a Russian client state. Zelenskyy did not do that, he never promised to do that, it would be in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, and if your "research" has actual evidence that he promised that, I'd appreciate it if you would show me 'cause I can't find it.

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

#406

Post by s1artibartfast »

tim333 wrote: post #382
cpleppert wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

>Russia the state will be more secure with Ukraine destroyed. I don't get that. How does having a democratic neighbour like say Estonia, or a democratic Ukraine, make Russia insecure? No one's going to go invading them with them having the world's largest nuke stockpile and people were happy trading. Now Putin personally, I can see how he might have issues.

MAD is insufficient. There are a vast array of security threats that nukes dont protect you from. This is true for all nuclear powers.

Given that the US has nukes, why have any other military at all? You could ask the same China.

Conventional military and geopolitics are relevant for everything that you wont launch a nuke over. Without conventional power, any nuclear power can be bled to death with 1000 small cuts nukes cant stop.

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

#407

Post by owenversteeg »

calyth2018 wrote: post #146
ceilingcorner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These would be of interest for you: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-... https://archive.ph/gnqkv - among the signers who opposed the NATO expansion during the late 90s to include the Visegrad group, Former SoD MacNamara https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch Fog of War (Errol Morris documentary) - rather telling in there is empathy for your adversary, and the fact that…

Quite the list of signatories, including C. William Maynes (editor of Foreign Policy magazine), Sen. Bill Bradley, Raymond Garthoff (former ambassador to Bulgaria), Morton Halperin (former ACLU director), Sen. Gary Hart, Arthur Hartman (Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union), Sen. Mark Hatfield, Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Fred Ikle (the man who proposed sending weapons to the Mujahideen), Sen. Bennett Johnston, James Leonard (ambassador to the UN), former Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze, former Secretary of Defense McNamara, Sen. Sam Nunn, Ambassador to East Germany Herbert S. Okun, commander of US Air Force Japan Robert E. Pursley, CIA Director Stansfield Turner, plus a list of everything from well-known professors to Purple Heart recipients.

In other words - left and right, ACLU and Senators, academia and veterans, a broad swath of the American political landscape - I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.

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

#408

Post by calyth2018 »

owenversteeg wrote: post #407
calyth2018 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These would be of interest for you: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-... https://archive.ph/gnqkv - among the signers who opposed the NATO expansion during the late 90s to include the Visegrad group, Former SoD MacNamara https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch Fog of War (Errol Morris documentary) - rather telling in there is empathy for your adversary, and the fact that…

Quite the list of signatories, including C. William Maynes (editor of Foreign Policy magazine), Sen. Bill Bradley, Raymond Garthoff (former ambassador to Bulgaria), Morton Halperin (former ACLU director), Sen. Gary Hart, Arthur Hartman (Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union), Sen. Mark Hatfield, Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Fred Ikle (the man who proposed sending weapons to the Mujahideen), Sen. Bennett Johnston, James Le…

> I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.

Because this perspective dampens the prevailing narratives, that Russia is spinning pure propaganda in regards to NATO?

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

#409

Post by rudnevr »

Grustaf wrote: post #196
inglor_cz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe this is about NATO. What Putin does not want is Ukraine as a democratic state where a president loses an election and steps down peacefully. Ukraine is "small Russia" and Russians could start asking questions.

That's exactly what McFaul suggested, and it's frankly absurd. Putin is quite popular, even my modern, non-Putinist friends in Moscow think he would win a fair election. Besides, he never lost an election, it's not that he lost and stayed on, that's not the issue. And every one already knows that there are democratic countries, it's not like Russians would suddenly stage a coup because Ukraine has a fair election. Wh…

You wrong on all accounts.

Putin has never had fair elections in the first place. He was appointed first and ran as an incumbent already. He never held a single public debate with any of his opponents. He never faced a single opposition TV channel. Shutting down TV was his first term agenda. He never faced a single popular opposition leader competition, because they've been always excluded from elections in the first place.

And no, Ukraine rates better than Russia in corruption. Not saying Ukraine is a true democracy, which means the power was passed to opposition multiple times.

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

#410

Post by rudnevr »

fleddr wrote: post #84

People take the guilt question far too personal. Consider it this way: if you stick your finger into a nest of hornets, whom is to blame if you get hurt? You can say the hornet (Russia) is always too blame. Or, you can acknowledge that hornets are dangerous and best not provoked. Willingly provoking them if there is the alternative of not doing that, can be considered irresponsible. As to why Ukraine turning western…

yes, you're Russia apologist.
Post reply on HN