Hacker News Reader

Mearsheimer is not merely noting, he is criticizing and wants the West to join Russia against China with "laser focus"- that's directly from linked interview.

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.

Life was/is pretty good in Austria as well.

> This is Mearsheimer's point; if we didn't want conflict in Europe, we should not have run toward it.

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.

Its kind of fun he and many others have been pointing these things out for 15+ years.

And now that the thing finally happened that they predicted people start paying attention and start arguing about it.

Uhm, "the thing they predicted" is NATO expansion ("the heart of the strategy" in Mearsheimer's words), and the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv. Far from it.

CIA Director, William Burns wrote this in 2008.

Edit: Nyet means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines : https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

Cart before the horse, cause before effect, really.

Russia's belligerence towards nations that should be allowed to freely choose their own path, has sent them all running towards EU and NATO.

Of course nations should be free to choose their own path. No-one is arguing against that.

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].

[1]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60896824

> I can't help but wonder what the US would do if Mexico signed a security pact with China

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

And who is the "great power" in the current situation, and why do you deem them so?

>the thing that's happened isn't a NATO base being established in Kharkiv.

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.

By which I think you mean that the invasion is an effect of Ukraine's joining NATO. Even if they apply now that's very unlikely to happen before 2024, agreed? But in that case the effect comes ten years before the cause, and if the effect precedes the cause by ten years, you should consider whether another cause is more reasonable.

Well no, immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. Then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]

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...

The point of this war from Russia standpoint is that Ukraine should not exist as nation. The point is to take over Ukraine, change government to puppet one at best and then export their own autocracy there.

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.

This is exactly why people like Mearsheimer are so important, to cut through emotional takes like this and present the actual logically based outcomes of our actions.

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.

[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Why do you assume it is emotional rather then logical, because it does not feel as good as what Mearsheimer says?

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.

If that were the case, then Finland would be in trouble too. But they're not, because they have maintained neutrality and not threatened to bring US military to Russia's borders.

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.

The support for joining NATO in Finland is going up, because exactly as you say, they think they are in potential trouble.

Obviously they in fact are at risk and they know it.

If you would recall there has already been an election after 2014.

Sure, there was a coup in which a regime favorable to their biggest enemy was installed, and then the Constitution was changed to put NATO back on the menu, which if we're honest about it NATO = US Military (again, their biggest enemy). And then we expect Russia to trust the legitimacy of the new US-backed regime who just overthrew the government and made moves to bring the US/NATO to their doorstep, all because they later held "elections"?

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?

Are you saying that Russia is in Ukraine to defend Ukrainian democracy? Because that sounds like pretty novel theory, considering Russia itself is pretty oppressive state. And considering how Russian puppet states (Belarus, Chechenia) behave.

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.

> It is also absurd to frame 2014 events purely in terms of Americans influence

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.

The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you. And expecting the rest of the world to wonder why the bear would respond to a poke, is silly. Bears do what bears do.

> The argument isn't that they can't poke the bear. The argument is that if you poke a bear, you shouldn't be surprised when it comes after you.

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.

Sure, after all Ukraine has a right to defend itself. But we need to stop pretending nobody knows why Russia invaded. We knew exactly what they would do, so the question is...why did we think this was a good idea?

That seems to be the question going largely unanswered.

> But we need to stop pretending nobody knows why Russia invaded.

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.

Yeah, we do. Nato expansion is NOT the reason.

> 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.

> Nato expansion is NOT the reason.

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.

The answer is simple: imperialism. Moscow cannot deal with the fact that Ukraine does not want to be vassal state of a dying has been empire

>The answer is simple: imperialism.

Who is being imperial though? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hi...

The contra argument is that bear can and will come at you whether you poke it or not. I fact, you can be hanging out in forrest, minding own business, actively avoiding bear and he/she will come at you to attack you.

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.

NATO = US Military

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...

>around why Russia might see it as a threat.

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

No, it speaks to what Mearsheaimer is saying which is essentially - don't be surprised if you threaten Mike Tyson and he punches you in the face. And if some 3rd party (ie the US) talked you into threatening Mike Tyson, understand that they also knew you were going to get punched in the face. Understanding that doesn't mean you support Mike Tyson, it just means you know how to understand consequences of messing with someone bigger and stronger than you.

Mearsheaimer would have to show that absent NATO expansion, Moscow would let Ukraine live in peace.

There was no risk of Ukraine joining NATO anytime soon.

Seems you're forgetting the timeline. Immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. Then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]

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 problem with imperialists is that they consider the very thought of independence to be an attack.

No, he was wrong. Ukraine is not part of NATO and Russia is attacking them. Had Ukraine was part of NATO, chances are Russia would not be attacking them. Or at least, NATO would had duty to help them.

The reason to be in NATO is to prevent Russia from attacking you.

Go and actually listen to his talks. He predicts pretty accurately what has happened. And so have many people.

Sure. And people who were talking about Russia becoming imperial last dozen years were predicting the exact same thing. The people who warned about Russia turning back to USSR legacy were super correct.

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.

“I have been interested to see how much debate he has caused in such a short time - We need more lightning rods like this!”

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.

I think most people who are making counterarguments to Mearsheimer et al are not ignoring or dismissing realism, they are pointing out the limitations and flaws with its predictive powers and usefulness for determining 'optimal' policies.

> 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.

Sure, the neo-cons are right to criticize realist frameworks on those grounds; the importance of moral imperatives, importance of soft power and other cultural factors, etc…. The neo-cons sure to get us into a lot of foreign entanglements so they aren’t perfect either. It’s good to have more perspectives, more voices at the table was my point.

You don't have to be a neoconservative to criticise realism, just speaking for myself I wouldn't fit into the definition of one. Using expressions of particular opinions to demonstrate that people belong to a more general class is usually a bad idea.

I am not demonstrating anything. I am saying the argument you make is the distinguishing feature of neo-conservative foreign policy- viz the importance of value judgements about the sort of world we want to live in. I would add also that neo-cons generally do not self identify. They see themselves as defending liberalism and protecting people from tyranny. You may or may not fall into that camp, but you are carrying their water for them here in the rhetorical sphere, whether you understand that or not.