Why Mearsheimer’s Realist Take Is So Exasperating
tompepinsky.com
tompepinsky.com
Further, I think you could do with giving Russia more credit than you do - Suggesting that they are a declining power because 'all they have is a large portion of the world's energy reserves, and one of the few nuclear arsenals that shapes the world's geopolitics' is more than a little stretched, even if I see what you're shooting for.
It's worth remembering the chaos they have successfully sown in US and European politics over the past 5 years, along with the effective interference they have run in the West's Middle East policy while assessing Russia's level of power in the world.
Nonetheless, I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!
If that means throwing whole middle third of Europe plus Caucasus under the bus, he's apparently okay with that. Finland managed to develop under forced neutrality but that was an exception, life elsewhere between EU and Russia was pretty miserable and has led to wars before. So, western avoidance would not have won stability here either.
If the NATO did not expanded, Russia would had it easy to continue to expand to those theoretically non-NATO countries. There would be war - whether in Ukraine or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland. Expanded up to whatever border of NATO would be.
Mearsheimer is wrong, because he completely ignores Russian state ideology and leadership. He treats them as merely reactive, poor things without agency. Russia could have been democracy, it could have been country in which communist victims are rehabilitated or in which political opposition is not violently suppressed. That it is not so was due to choices of people who got power after 1990. And war in Ukraine is happening because of conscious choices of those exact same people.
> Both sides are responsible for furthering their own agendas, and the agendas are incompatible when they meet.
You want to make it about two sides, because you want to ignore people and nations this is about. Ukraine has its own side. Eastern and Central European countries are different side then USA, although they really really want USA protection right now. And yes, existence of Ukraine as democratic independent nation was incompatible with Russian agenda of becoming USSR again. However, that is not expression of Western interests. That is expression of Ukrainian interests.
Framing them as Western interests is just weak attempt to delegitimatize them. Western countries don't care about Ukraine itself all that much, Ukrainians themselves do. Countries next to Russia and Ukraine worry about Russia expansion beyond Ukraine.
And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.
Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.
Mearsheimer argues that when the path that a country chooses comes into conflict with a great power's security interests, those interests become the overriding concern of both parties. He points out that Cuba was not allowed to ally itself with USSR with nuclear war being put on the table.
I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China to put a military base on its soil.
As a minor example consider the Solomon islands brouhaha[1].
The only interesting part is where this is the exact same BS talking point as from the most extreme of the pro-Russia/ "Maidan was a CIA coup" shills. e.g. (but not the only example) here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30882756
Well no, because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. And I think that's the point of this war, from Russia's standpoint. If they wait until Ukraine is in NATO, then it's too late to prevent that from happening without WWIII.
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
Then they may get ready for further expansion, as Russia has already done several times in their history. And Putin is in fact praising that history.
The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Russia in fact has own writings and speeches. Putin talks about his own historical ideas. Putin talked about it for years at this point. Russian journals print their own articles expressing regrets for big Russia. The whole "Ukraine should not exist as nation" comes from what Russian leadership talks about and talked about for years. Russians, the political minority that is running away out of genuine fear (rather then economy) now were talking about all this for years.
There is also pattern in which Russian non-profits got targeted or who got assassinated. Pattern in who was getting rehabilitated and who is still criminal. Stalin is turning into capable manager and his victims are not rehabilitated unless they were actually innocent of being opposition. The non profits trying to uncover communist crimes (including KGB crimes) were the ones suppressed by Putin. The final blow happened now, but Memorial was quite clearly oppressed for years now.
You talk about Russia as one group and it is like that now, when everyone is passive. Opposition got eliminated and state security strengthened. It happened over years. And it did not happened because of NATO.
> The US was very involved in the "totally-organic-grassroots-uncoup" in Ukraine in 2014[1] - so to think that wouldn't impact Russia's geopolitical strategy is, well, illogical.
Of course, ignoring previous involvement of Russia in Ukraine. It is not like Viktor Yanukovych was not ... lets say influenced by Russia. And Ukrainine still wants to go into NATO and Eu. Desperately they want in.
> present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions
Sure. Not being in NATO and being next to Russia, makes you potential Russian target. Russia attacking non-NATO country does not prove Russia would be peaceful country had NATO not expanded. Nothing about internal Russian politics points toward them being happy and content where they are.
Even Russia stopped the whole "we are afraid of NATO" talking point. Now it is only "denacification" or "protecting Russians in Ukraine" or "Ukrainians are Russians" or "Ukrainians were commtiting genocide" or, in latest talks, "we will destroy them". This talking point existed for a whole week and when it did not flied, Russia abandoned it with no regret.
Would the US respond kindly to China entering Mexico in a "defensive military pact". Of course not. You make threatening moves to a superpower, they will respond.
Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.
If there were a coup here in the US, let's say the January 6th brigade succeeded, then they changed the US Constitution, would we then immediately start trusting the next set of elections? Or would we rightfully see that as fruit from a poison tree? That's Mearsheimer's point, you don't have to agree with Putin's response to accept that it was the obvious and inevitable response from our actions meddling in Ukraine.
Try this analogy - If I walk up to Mike Tyson at a bar and start talking shit to him, spitting on the ground, taunting him and challenging him should I not expect him to punch me in the face? Wouldn't most people acknowledge that I had it coming, even if it was unnecessary and disproportionate to my actions? Does pointing it out mean I'm tacitly approving of his actions, or am I just being logical and saying if you mess with a bull you will get the horns?
It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence. Yanukovych himself cited pressure from Russia for the decision to not join EU. It was Russian pressure that made Ukrainian president to throw away efforts to join EU - and Russia did not cared about legitimacy at all when pressuring him.
Yep. It's a world view in which everyone has agency except the Ukrainian people. Which isn't a description of reality at all, in 2014 or in the last month. Ukraine should be able choose it's own path, this "can't poke the bear" nonsense suggests that only other powers get to choose.
it's a position that the parent poster is very eager to push. Repetitively.
Russia has poked the Ukrainian bear, and now the bear is coming after Russia. Bears do what bears do.
If an argument works, it works both ways. Anything else is propagandistic.
That seems to be the question going largely unanswered.
No, that's not accurate. There doesn't seem to be any "nobody knows" sentiment, the other responses from cuteboy19 and watwut cover it well. There is no need to throw doubt here.
But you're right, in that the surprise is that Russia thought that it would be a good idea.
> why did we think this was a good idea?
I thought it is good idea to join NATO, because then NATO has to help you defend if/when Russia gets expansive again. Or someone else, but realistically it is Russia who is most likely to do it.
Ahem - https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-...
This has been widely known for 25 years that it would lead to war. This is also why the Russian border states not threatening to join NATO are not under attack. Only Ukraine.
Look at this map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi... and ask yourself why wouldn't Russia feel this as an evergrowing encroachment by their enemies. Keeping in mind that NATO = US Military.
Who is being imperial though? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi...
Bears do what bears do. No reason to make up feel good rationales about how attacked people actually deserves it nor how the bear attack was actually caused by a Wolf over the next hill.
I'm amazed that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around why Russia might see it as a threat.
Would the US see it as a threat if the Chinese military moved weapons, people and military training into Mexico? Or if the Soviets had tried the same with Cuba during the Cold War?
I think some people just see us as the good guys because of course we are. But everyone tends to see themselves as the good guys...
except that russia already has NATO neigbours.
Let us apply this logic to other countries. Maybe Poland or Lithuania are threatened but a Russian presence in Kaliningrad. So I guess maybe they too should stage a special operation to rid the area of Putin's Neo fascists?
The point is that this kind of thinking only considers Russia as an active agent, and everyone else is just some sort of NPC. It's extremely convenient that it aligns with Putin's propaganda of course
There was no risk of Ukraine joining NATO anytime soon.
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, but now that Biden is back on top the clock has started ticking again. So yes, Ukraine was very much on its way into NATO, but they needed to either officially cede Crimea and Donbass to Russia, or expel Russia to be eligible. So something had to give.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.
Except that, they don't atribute Russian actions to America, as if Russian leadership could not have own ambitions.
If there was something about Russia that would suggest them staying peaceful absent NATO expansion, then maybe. But it is not and all he does is trying to make Russian politics all about USA.
Agree 100%. To ignore the realist framework makes the world less safe, more prone to war. More theories, more voices, makes us a safer world less prone to war. War is bad, so putting a lot of thought into avoiding it is good.
My sense is that many people have an inverted view because they haven’t studied history or international relations, and lack the meta cognitive capacity to consider what theories are and how to evaluate them. Criticism of defensive/offensive realism comes from this deficit. Learners think a theory is either right or wrong, and that a person is more or less synonymous with a single monolithic theory and so they too must be either right or wrong (eg Darwin, Freud).
The reality is that even “wrong” theories are useful. When nuclear war is a possible outcome, we do ourselves a favor by considering more voices and theories especially those with strong predictive power.
> People want realism to be a theory of how the world actually works, a theory of how the world should work, and a theory of what should we do given how the world works, all at the same time.
In terms of presenting an accurate model realism is only as good as the analysis you put into it, and unless you have a very advanced computer simulation of the world you can't test these models for what exactly will happen and when. Sometimes your prediction will be reasonably accurate and sometimes it won't, and hindsight bias will play tricks.
And as for its usefulness for deciding what we should do there seems to be little provision for the role of ideology, ethics, a sense of honour etc, i.e. what kind of world people would like to live in. Those factors are critical not just for making a model of current and future realities, but are of course essential for figuring out how we want to shape our world. A purely utilitarian view just aiming to minimise war and death might permit a more highly autocratic and repressive world, which could be at odds with many people's view of meaning and personal or collective destiny. An example of such a destiny would be the Ukrainian people's desire to live in a democractic Western-aligned state, and the West's desire to support them in this goal.
Its only later that US propaganda machine got high on themselves proclaiming how they had destroyed the Soviet Union.
That is just flat out false, as many people have pointed out. Yes it was expensive, but there is no inherent reason Soviet Union had to collapse based on that expense.
Gorbachev in order to do the reforms he wanted had to overcome the party opposition, and he did that by basically destroying the power of the party. This then allowed the republics to assert the power.
But those things were not exclusive. Gorbachev could have done a lot of his foreign policy without some of the domestic program that eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet union.
And it’s not like the loser of the Cold War had to start paying tribute to, or got occupied by, the winner.
But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
> In fact, the Cold War was ended with a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union.
Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
Not really. And 'Communism' is an abstract philosophy, the Soviet Union was an actually workable system. And if you can survive from 1917 to 1990 you can survive a lot of stuff.
> would have collapsed eventually anyways.
Anything collapses 'eventually' but there is no inherent reason the Soviet Union would have had to stop existing for 100s of years.
> But to suggest that the West had nothing to do with it is contrary to history and contrary to what the leaders of the USSR frequently complained about.
Sure the Soviet Union was not alone on a planet. And of course the Soviet leadership action were about problems in their country but it emphatically was not the inability fight the US military.
> Yes, those treaties acknowledge that the USSR lost.
Please point out how they acknowledge that.
I've always suspected this is about securing access to Crimea and natural resource rights in eastern Ukraine: water access was cut to Crimea following 2014, and natural resource deposits have been discovered in the east. I suspect NATO is just a rhetorical excuse, to justify it to the world and domestic audiences.
It also explains why the western campaign has been so ineffectual, and the Eastern one so relatively brutal. Yes, the east is easier to access by sea and less central to Ukraine, but I suspect a land bridge to Crimea, and securing natural resource rights, was the primary objective all along. Russia might have been accurate all along when they insisted they didn't want to occupy Ukraine per se or change the government, in the sense they just wanted to annex the east, and the west is just a diversionary tactic and/or secondary goal in service of the primary.
It's also why I suspect Russia will consider this a win if they extract a land bridge as a "compromise" to obtain peace.
All of this I'm saying as someone who'd rather see Russia out of everywhere that was undisputed Ukrainian territory in, say, 2000.
All this discussion of NATO expansion is just falling into Russia's rhetorical trap they set.
I think one of the confusing points is trying to approach these events from a moral or “who’s to blame” point of view which is maybe important when attributing war crimes, calculating reparations or even giving us someone to hate if the world should end.
But the key aspect should be outcomes. And his thesis is quite simple: if you push a major power, they will push back hard - just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So the solution’s also quite simple: if you don’t want the outcome, don’t take actions that lead to it. He’s said it right in the New Yorker article at the end - strategy trumps morality.
That is not consistent with defensive war. Ideologically, Russia was moving toward expansive colonialist theories for years now. They were not worried about NATO attacking them. They wanted to making Russia bigger again.
Ukrainians disagreeing with Russians plans is not fault of NATO. It should not be goal of American diplomacy to make Russian ambitions easier by intentionally weakening other nations.
Russia is always worried about NATO. Courting Ukraine of all countries is a massive miscalculation, unless… the US made a bet they could sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia in the war and test military hardware.
So far so good: Russia is isolated, the EU is struggling with another wave of refugees and is at the mercy of whoever else can give them gas and more dependent on the US.
How does that exclude Russia trying to annex Ukraine regardless of whether NATO expanded or not? Russia is power exerting dominance over their neighbors whenever it can. Nato expanding or not is just creating difference in terms of how far and where those wars will be - the countries no in NATO are more likely to be attacked by Russia.
The Russia as purely reactive state with no own ambitions is the fantasy. That is major fault in Mearsheimer’s nonsense theory.
This is nothing to do with liberals or right wing Russian fanboys. I dont know whether it is psychological need to have everything about you. Or whether it is psychological difficulty to imagine other countries (Russia, Ukraine) as real ones. But either way, attempt to explain last decades in Russia purely by other countries joining Nato is absurd.
Uh, no. That was because the Soviet Union attempted to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, not simply because they formed an alliance.
I think people struggle coming to terms with this due to relying too much on emotion, and not logic.