John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian
economist.com
economist.com
Submitted at least 10 times, some with more discussion than yesterday: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Also, it seems that HN is recognized as some kind of high value target, the amount of single issue accounts is off the scale since this war broke out.
This is Putin's war. Ukrainian and Russian deaths are his responsibility.
[1] https://www.democracynow.org/2022/2/17/jack_matlock_ukraine_...
This is also quite consistent with Putin's revendications over time. It's a sensitive topic but to me Mearsheimer's explanation makes more sense than "Putin got crazy overnight and want to rule Europe", like we often hear in the medias.
But Mearsheimer and other such experts are anything but. They just belong to the realist school, as in "no BS ideological sugarcoating international relations, saying like it is".
Kissinger, for one, has written similar things.
Putin might still have gotten it wrong (eg. miscalculating the success, etc), and he's war could fuck not just Ukraine, but also Russia considerably, but that's different to a "crazy unprovoked and without long term national interests in mind war".
"Look at what you made me do" is a bullshit excuse, you have agency.
The bigger question is how far Putin is willing to escalate it so he can pretend to claim victory, the West has zero agency in getting Putin to stop unless they are prepared to escalate themselves, but apparently we are willing to stand by watch thousands of people get murdered, using illegal weapons no less. Appeasing Putin is what got us into this war in the first place, it made the West look weak when in fact all they wanted was to avoid yet another war. But we're there now, and that changes everything, looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab.
Mearsheimer may well have had a point, but it's easy to argue from the sidelines, the options before us at the time, to either allow Ukraine into NATO or to let them fend for themselves both had significant downsides. Dictators do what dictators do: throw people into the meatgrinder to make up for their own deficiencies, it doesn't need any high degree of intelligence to observe that, least of all about Russia.
In what sense did the West try to appease Putin? Which of Putin's long standing revendications concerning Ukraine have been taken into account by the West?
> looking back at how you got here may help inform the worlds response to the next dictator that tries for a landgrab.
Well, looking back, many voices told us what the world's response should have been, such as [1]
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b5886606-4d7d-41af-87c1-8d9993722...
But in your opinion, what should the response have been?
Sorry, not playing.
And I'm not only asking questions, I've also told you how I think this war could have been avoided (see the linked FT article). I also consider it may be stopped the exact same way it could have been avoided, by considering Putin's not crazy and accepting some of his revendications (but I'm just parroting Chomsky or Mearsheimer, for lack of better explanations).
Account created 15 days ago...