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 issue. 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. If anything tensions should have been easing with a new, slightly more Russia friendly, German Chancellor, the nearing completion of NordStream2 and President Zelsynsky ran on a platform of improved relations with Moscow.

If you just look at the independent variables you inevitably are going to make conclusions from ideology rather than testing hypothesis. This type of article is the international relations equivalent off economists have predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions.

You can also see this weakness play out in Mearshimer's answers to journalists questions about the agency of Ukrainians in this article. He dodges the question and points to a speech from George W Bush in 2008, which was 15 years and 3 presidents ago, and prior to the current Ukrainian regime. In contrast he can't explain why the Baltics entering NATO did not trigger the same reaction. If we're going to look at history we can't ignore that these Eastern European Countries have endogenous reasons for joining NATO including the USSR and then Russia's long history of invading those countries.

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 Brezinski, George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, George Kennan, Noam Chomsky, Peter Hitchens, Gonzalo Lira, Tim Marshall, Robert D Kaplan, etc., etc. to gain some insight into the other and more complex side of this story. Their books are a good and quick read.

I am a proud American -- but, I am convinced that my country started this entire episode and planned to have it be so for a long, long time. 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, etc. just got in their way. Instead of drawing a rational meet-me-in-the-middle red-line with Russia (ex: Poland and the Baltics) that we could live with, we decided to take Ukraine for this ride. We did that. We encouraged Zelensky to talk about acquiring nukes, grabbing Crimea back, grabbing Luhansk and Donestk, joining NATO and the EU, etc. -- instead of encouraging Austria-like neutrality, we promoted our-way-or-the-highway.

And now what are we doing? Fighting to the last Ukrainian? Fighting until they lose even more in a country that has lost ~20% of its population from its peak? We are literally sacrificing their country and encouraging suicide. This. is. just. wrong!

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 by Mearsheimer's framework; he's not a madman (necessarily). But to say that what Russia is doing is somehow US's fault, that really does not make any sense.

US and NATO do whatever is in their best interest, and that implicitly means they will try to reduce Russia's power. Russia knows that. In turn, Russia will try to reduce NATO's and US's power (and increase their own). That's all rational. Now, to say that the US and NATO have to have some form of guilt, and they should change their actions, that's crazy, it does not make any sense.

To say that the US, or NATO, or Russia, or anyone else is hypocritical, or they say one thing and do another, well, welcome to politics. "Not one inch", said NATO some decades ago. Russia calls foul play. Well, what did they think? People say one thing and do another thing all the time, that's the way you play the game.

But, one thing is to not keep your word about this or that, another thing is to start killing people. By the thousands. And destroy their homes. And make them leave their countries. Is really Mearsheimer incapable of understanding this difference?

Mearsheimer also is directly blaming Ukraine here in a way that hardly seems reasonable.

"When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States."

This seems too forgiving of Russia and also the US re: Central and South America. "It's not our fault those countries poked us in the eye by being [democratic/socialistic/whatever]."

Maybe Putin and American leaders both need to stop trying to ruling other countries. Putin has fucking nukes, is he seriously afraid of being invaded himself?

I get that Mearsheimer is supposed to be some kind of astute expert on this topic, but he is really embarrassing himself here. His whole argument basically rests on 3 points:

1. Russia is a great power. As such, it is effectively an automaton that must react in specific ways to external stimuli. There's no reasoning, and no morality, only stimuli and response. Thus the concept of blame and responsibility are meaningless when applied to Russia.

2. Europe and the west are not great powers. Instead they are thinking, feeling actors with a moral obligation to tiptoe around and appease great powers like Russia. Because the west are the only thinking feeling people, they're the only ones that can be responsible for anything.

3. Ukrainians are neither a great power or real people. They just need to sit there and accept whatever other actors want to do to them. Any attempt to make decisions for themselves means they deserve any bad thing that happens.

Mearsheimer's statements read like a setup to a punchline (A great power, a real human, and a useless blob walk into a bar). I appreciate that after the interviewer got over his initial shock, he started making fun of Mearsheimer with questions like "But his bombs are touching it [western Ukraine], right?" Also, "I thought you said that he was not interested in taking Kyiv" is a nice touch.

Most ridiculous of all is that Mearsheimer's defines giving improving the economy, reducing corruption, increasing political liberty, and generally improving peoples lives as "western aggression".

As someone from Central and Eastern Europe - blaming U.S. or 'west' is just cope mechanism for some people in the west. "If we did this or that differently Russia would not attack". Well that may be just wishful thinking. But they haven`t realized that we are sovereign countries and it is not Russian business where we want to belong. Just ours.

These so called "realists" haven`t considered one simple fact. Ukraine was attacked. Not Latvia nor Lithuania nor Estonia. What is the difference? NATO.

From the Kievan Rus times Ukraine has fought many times for its independence. They have fought the Russian empire, Ottoman Empire, and often joined sides with a former foe to fight off a bigger menace.

Until about ten years ago Ukraine has tried to maintain sovereignty by doing a balancing act between West and Russia - similar to what Belarus did until the recently. In 2005 I realized that balancing is impossible when Russia supported the election fraud and poisoned the western-leaning president Yushchenko.

Mearsheimer is right that the US and Europe are using Ukraine as a shield for the Western Europe. However, this aligns well with the desires of the Ukrainians - most would rather fight for independence than live oppressed under a decaying chauvinistic dictatorship. Another motivation is that Russia has long history of ethnic cleansing in the regions it captured - that includes Crimea, Western and Eastern Ukraine, and the Caucasus.

As a Lithuanian...

All the „It's the West fault“ crowd is missing the elephant in the room. What is the alternative if West did what Russia want? De-facto Iron curtain still up with tens of millions of people living under authoritarian regimes similar to Belarus and, well, Russia.

Yes, it's completely „West fault“ since they could have left us for Russia to eat for lunch. More „West faults“ please.

Ukraine crisis has a long history, we're only witnessing and recalling the last 40 years or so. Putin views Ukraine as a country which should not exist at all. This is a position that Stalin took almost a century ago before causing 5 millions Ukrainians to die from starvation. We have to understand this: West can not make Russia to change this view. With our without the support of West, whether Ukrainians want to join EU/NATO or not, no matter what West or Ukrainians do, Putin will never leave Ukraine or any other Brezhnev doctrine[1] countries alone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine

A lot of current news feels very biased, even from sources I previously found unbiased. Fortunately I was recently shared a link to John Mearsheimers 2015 YT video where he very clearly explains what has led to the current situation. In that light I now feel it's a lot easier to filter the news.

> We should be pivoting out of Europe to deal with China in a laser-like fashion, number one. And, number two, we should be working overtime to create friendly relations with the Russians. The Russians are part of our balancing coalition against China. If you live in a world where there are three great powers—China, Russia, and the United States—and one of those great powers, China, is a peer competitor, what you want to do if you’re the United States is have Russia on your side of the ledger. Instead, what we have done with our foolish policies in Eastern Europe is drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. This is a violation of Balance of Power Politics 101.

This is the part that confuses me about recent American foreign policy. This line of reasoning seems so blatantly clear that I don't understand why we have consistently adopted such hawkish policies against Russia. We have allies that do stuff that is at least as sketchy, morally and legally, as what we accuse Russia of doing, so why have we made Russia an enemy?

I took a number of classes with Mearshiemer in college. He's right on many things, wrong on others. In this case, he's right that NATO expansion at least contributed to the current situation, but I think he's wrong in undervaluing the great increases in peace and prosperity that have been gained in those countries that did join NATO.

People in the US have a hard time having an intelligent discussion about subjects like this because of the "Well it's different when the US does it". John is right about all of this for sure:

> Right, but saying that America will not allow countries in the Western hemisphere, most of them democracies, to decide what kind of foreign policy they have—you can say that’s good or bad, but that is imperialism, right? We’re essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business.

> We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave.

> Of course we did, but I’m wondering if we should be behaving that way. When we’re thinking about foreign policies, should we be thinking about trying to create a world where neither the U.S. nor Russia is behaving that way?

> That’s not the way the world works.

What is unsaid is does the world HAVE to behave this way? Are humans capable of cooperation beyond petty short-sighted resource grabs? If the US ceased it's imperial ambitions, and all discrimination and capitalist exploitation ended, would we be able to build a harmonious society where we cooperate on prosperity?

Up until the COVID pandemic, I would have said yes. In spite of religion, capitalism, communism, genocide, or the entire history of the world, the human capacity for empathy and adaptability is strong enough that we could build a utopia.

I genuinely believed this until I saw 21st century internet-connected individuals politicize the science of virology, immunology, and epidemiology. When I realized people - MANY people - genuinely valued their own discomfort of wearing a mask over the safety and LIVES of others. When I realized that Alan Moore was actually too optimistic during the ending of The Watchmen.

This is so subjective... do you believe every person deserves freedom? Or are you happy with accepting that some parts may never have them, because whatever reasons, maybe to get the emotion of extra security, however temporary it may be? Answers might make you lean in this topic to each side.

I am never too far from blaming US fuckups in past decades, be it Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and maybe some more. But I still struggle to find any meaningful reason to accept freedom denial to a country who is fighting so hard to retain it, against clear, completely amoral and frankly abhorrent aggressor. Just because Russia has nukes? Well then we can always back away from any conflict... till we have nowhere to back and they are stronger, bolder and more numerous than we can handle.

Russia has been asking for this for a long time. They are meddling in internal politics, in many cases very openly, for past 20 years. One example out of many - blowing up munition depot in Czech republic very openly, laughing at any investigations. Trump is a topic on its own. And every single time, without exception, they were/are the force of evil. Force of death, corruption in many ways.

So, if we stand up this one time, I believe it will have huge consequences for decades to come. It can show other bullies where are the lines that shouldn't be crossed. Otherwise, there are no lines, and psychopaths in power can do whatever they want, wherever they want. And for sure they will just like now.

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 does it REALLY matter if they put up some more bases nearby?

The journalist, Isaac Chotiner, thinks he's a lot smarter and in better command of history than John Mearsheimer. That's really annoying.

I've seen a bit of twitter chatter from international relations people about this article. Most of them are fairly dismissive of Mearshiemer's position---I've seen the phrase "stuck in the 1815 world" of colonial powers used repeatedly.

One substantive issue that I have seen is that he discounts nationalism; it seems like Ukrainians are rather attached to their independence.

One that I haven't seen much about in the nuclear non-proliferation issue: if the existence of a country without nukes is predicated on the whims of one with them, every country is strongly incentivized to develop them.

As for me, a little bit of my heart belongs to his book, Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.

The field of international politics has been embarrassingly primitive to the degree that "The end of history" is a work of a serious scholar. Luckily we still have Mearsheimer, Walt and the old school of realpolitik.

I think Mearsheimer intentionally ignores the facts that "power corrupts, great power corrupts greatly", so that he doesn't need to address the annoying abnormalities that great powers fall eventually, and the incoming fall of USA sooner or later, even if the `blob` gets all the strategic decisions right. After all, the blackboxes of great powers would mess up from inside.

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.

Mearsheimer has this annoying tendency to switch between two completely different claims: (a) that the west caused this crisis in a billiard balls sort of way, x leading to y leading to z, and (b) that the west is culpable for this crisis. Yes, obviously NATO expansion and EU overtures to Ukraine must've upset Putin and that may have played a role in all of this, but unless we think that it's reasonable for Russia to dictate to other countries which alliances to form and what kind of politics to pursue, then there's no moral responsibility for the outcome. So which is it then, did we not pay attention to Russia's "legitimate security concerns" or did we not pay attention to their illegitimate "great-power politics"?

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 is considered a provocation, there's a lot of simplistic "fatalistic madman" narratives. I found this video to be very insightful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

It sums up a few very rational reasons that when combined, add up to a serious existential threat to Russia as a country, as a concept.

Mind you, I'm no Russia apologist, I'm just trying to understand the hornet. So far the video holds up. Putin openly expressing to Macron that he will flip Ukraine entirely. Remarks like "There is no world without Russia in it", emphasizing that this campaign is existential, not a random aggression.

I think Mearsheimer is ignoring the other aspect of the China equation, which is that China is now watching a concerted reaction of NATO and friendly powers against aggression in the Russian sphere of influence.

China would review the US/NATO response differently if the US played the old strategy of setting "red lines" and allowing them to be crossed with minimal reaction. We still have yet to see how this goes but Chinese officials who would have wanted to attack Taiwan are probably watching this play out now.

Russia has awoken a sleeping giant.

Whether John is right or wrong, I am personally interventioned-out. You'd think that after Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria (and any others I might have missed), people in the US would see the pattern by now. Butting into the middle of a fight between two nuclear powers doesn't seem advisable.

It's very clear that the professor thinks in terms of geopolitics, as if people didn't matter. The moment when he says that Putin won't invade the Baltics because they are in NATO but he doesn't consider it a good thing is the most telling. Well, everybody in the Baltics can tell you this is the single most important thing right now for them. This is the thin line that makes a difference between cities thriving or being bombed and the nation turned into poor vassals like Belarus.

Context: Chatham House - Mathieu Boulègue clarifies Mearsheimer mythmaking https://youtu.be/4nZdP7eF9rM?t=2205

They do both talk past each other quite a bit, which is annoying as I do think Mearsheimer has some good input on the subject.

Is he just casually talking about toppling democracies and installing autocratic leaders in nations around the globe for the benefit of America? I thought the US was past that phase, and I suppose if this guy is angry that they're not following his advice and doing it, then maybe they are.

> Nobody seriously thought that Russia was a threat before February 22, 2014

"Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe," -- presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, 2012

I think we are in danger of applying the wrong lesson from history.

People today say you cannot be a "Putin apologizer", or that looking for reasons for Putin's behavior was a form of "appeasement".

People who say these things believe they have learned from history. They look back at Hitler in 1938. Czechoslovakia. Austria. And, finally, Poland. They look back at England and France, who, not wanting to risk war, sought ways to "appease" Hitler. And by doing that, they lost valuable time and allowed Hitler to grow stronger, making the situation much worse for the world.

Now, people are drawing the conclusion: "You should never try to appease a dictator!"

But I'd argue that this is the wrong conclusion.

What backfired back then is not that England and France tried to appease Hitler. What backfired was that the leaders of England and France grotesquely misread Hitler and his goals.

Their mistake was not that they tried to understand Hitler's motives. Rather, their mistake was precisely that they failed to accurately understand his motives.

This is why the English public finally turned to Churchill. Because Churchill actually "got" Hitler. He had formed an accurate mental model of Hitler's motives.

Did that make Churchill into a "Hitler apologist"? Not at all. Instead, it allowed him to accurately predict Hitler's next moves. It allowed him to predict that making territorial concessions to this man would never help to guarantee peace long-term.

Churchill was actually one of the few European leaders who had troubled to read "Mein Kampf". He also read the books written by Sebastian Haffner, a German who had chronicled his life under Hitler from inside Germany.

When I see people today saying they cannot stand Putin, and therefore they don't want to hear what he says, because it's all lies and propaganda anyway, it worries me. Because even if Putin was a Hitler 2.0 (which is very doubtful, since History rarely repeats itself and reasoning by analogy often leads to spectacular failures) it would mean that we should pay even more careful attention to his motives, and not less. We should pay even more careful attention on the outside contingencies and the mental frameworks that drive Putin's actions, and not less.

Nietzsche has said, "If you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you."

And it almost seems that people are afraid of precisely that. They almost think that by not acknowledging a thing they don't like, it will go away. Those who have been warning about a war in Ukraine have correctly pointed out that this strategy will not only not work, but that it will backfire.

So the true lesson from 1938 is not that one should "never negotiate with dictators". The true lesson is that you have to make an effort to face the other party's viewpoint. To make an effort to understand the true motives, without any fear of what you might find.

That includes the fear of finding out that your own behavior might have contributed to the status quo. You need to let go of your comforting beliefs -- that things will "sort themselves out", that it's "just the other party's fault", that there's "nothing to learn or understand" because you already know exactly what the other party is really after, etc..

What made Churchill great, in my view, is that he was able to overcome all of those comforting beliefs. People respected him because he would tell them not what they would have liked to hear, but what they needed to know.

I think this is very, very different from what we're seeing today from our own leaders. They are posturing. They claim that the inconvenient truth is that "Putin is worse than we thought", and that the necessary sanctions will require "sacrifices from all of us". They try to sound like a Churchill. But they make no effort to be one. They imitate the outside posture, but they totally miss the inner essence.

Scholz said it best. He said to Putin during that recent press conference (and I'm paraphrasing), "What do you care about Ukraine and NATO? It's not going to happen anytime during our terms of office anyway".

That isn't Churchill. That's Chamberlain.

[Removed]