Moscow mearsheimer.. Another Putin propaganda distributor pretending to be an academic. He has been totally wrong so far, including predicting there would be no war. So why give him more credit at the bank of public debate? It's just another troll..
He’s also as pro-America as you would expect any American in that academic field to be. He’s just coming at it from a Realist perspective.
He also treats the fake referendum conducted by Russia after Russia seized Crimea as matter of fact despite it being completely fake and made up
He has an extremely biased view which is 100% inline with Russian propaganda and not shared by anybody in the West
There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source).
There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.
I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising.
If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims.
Why not quote the full sentence?
> Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
I'd like to particularly emphasize:
> the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome
> there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.
BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this:
> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda.
Theres a difference.
By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really.
> By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
What problems are these? its hard to tell.
You said:
> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”:
> > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
Mostly, yes.
Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.
So your reply is a non sequitur?
Doesn't that lecture also say that he doesn't think Putin would try and capture all of Ukraine?, thats exactly what he's trying to do right now.
And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
Because Russian media (RIA Novosti, which is the Russian government owned domestic news agency). literally posted a article congratulating Putin on capturing Ukraine?.
They outed their own intentions from the start.
You can read it here yourself if you want.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence fragment?
When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine.
I would say they are reliable yes.
Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more dams in Ukraine I believe them.
No amount of evidence would satisfy you, you literally have a primary source (the government) telling you their intentions and you are trying to reject it.
Please note that this is different from statements like "bring Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence" or similar things. Unless you wanna conflate military objectives with geopolitical ones.
>> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved (this is just for reference).
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
>> Now there is no problem - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be eliminated, but it will be rebuilt, re-esturbished and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world.
Did you even read it?.
They might mean that or might not, but it's not explicitly stated. You are choosing one possible interpretation and sticking to it like it's the only one.
I mean, just look at it:
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.
Adjusted for the sensitivities of western audiences:
>> Germany is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1918, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.
The subtext is abundantly clear.
He said that some claim that Putin would try to conquer all of Ukraine. All of it.[1] He said that that would be a mistake and that Putin is “too smart” to do that. And what does Russia care about Western Ukraine?
He also said that it would be a mistake for Russia to get bogged down in Ukraine for a long time. So then it depends on whether you think Russia is already “bogged down”; then either Mearsheimer changed his mind or else he’s contradicting himself.
[1] There was also the outlandish “try to re-establish Greater Russia” which is a bit absurd since Russia doesn’t have the capacity to do that even if it wanted to (2015 Mearsheimer said either that Putin does want that or that he may want that).