22 ms·
Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault (2014) [pdf]
- squabble 5y agoUkraine should have kept their nukes or joined Nato or Russia.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gameswithgo 5y agoIt may be the case that "The West" could have done things to prevent this invasion, but the choice to start blowing up children and families was Putin's. It is his fault.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ManuelKiessling 5y agoShockingly prescient and a well-done analysis in general, but I still don’t buy the “Putin had no other choice” argument. It boils down to the equivalent of the “It wasn’t my fault that I raped the woman, she wore a short skirt!” bullshit argument. I understand the “this is how realpolitik works” line of thought, I really do. But it doesn’t change who’s at fault here.
- MrRiddle 5y agoYou say you understand then you give a terrible example or two.
- melony 5y agoA response by other IR theorists: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Moscows-Choice.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Mosco... HN really don’t like IR and geopolitics. Almost all the other IR centric views on other threads have been downvoted or flagged.
- scaramanga 5y agoI think that there are a great many people who don't like realism when it interferes with their ability to enjoy sanctimoniously condemning the crimes of other states. When their own state is the one attacking defenceless countries, the precepts of realism are their last line of defence to justify either their enthusiastic support, or their tacit consent. When my country was destroying Libya, Iraq, and Afhanistan, I found that even those with no education in IR were able to spontaneously invent the precepts of realist theory without needing to read it in a textbook: the world is lawless and anarchic, Saddam is a baddy, if we don't stop him then nobody else will. I try to be sympathetic to it though. When you've lived through enough of these wars (in the aggressor societies) you just get used to grimly observing how people react and I suppose it must build up a sense of righteous indignation and now here is a chance to safely vent it all without any consequences.
- blix 5y agoThanks for posting this. I came away from those criticism thinking Mearsheimer's argument hadn't taken much damage, though I'm still not sure I agree. It is interesting that even the realist author doesn't frame NATO/EU expansion in the context of empire, but of liberal idealism. It's a shame there isn't more IR discussion here. I'm actually pretty surprised by the low quality of the discourse.
- scaramanga 5y agoDitto. Have you checked out caspian report on youtube? I find him to be pretty biassed, but at least he's intelligible and fact-based on the actual economics and geostrategic stuff..
- SubiculumCode 5y agoTankies. Tankies everywhere. Leave off Tankies. Imperialism is Imperialism, and it has nothing to do with NATO.
- dang 5y agoPlease do not post flamebait, name calling, or unsubstantive comments. Those things are against the site guidelines, because they destroy what this place is supposed to be for. You can make your substantive points without any of that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jiqiren 5y agoFrom the opening paragraph this is extremely dated. Recently, in so many words, Putin himself said he wanted the rebuilding of the old Soviet empire. This might have seemed like a plausible explanation during Crimea. But this is all garbage when hearing straight from Putin a couple of days ago.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dTal 5y agoMaybe, just maybe, we shouldn't take Putin's word at face value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- 988747 5y agoOr maybe we should take Putin's words more seriously? He was planning to invade Ukraine for at least a decade now, and was quite openly talking about it - all those times when he claimed that "The fall of Soviet Union was a great tragedy" it was quite obvious that he'll try to rebuild it, in its former borders. Western leaders chose to ignore all warning signs because of they greed (looking at you, Germany, with your Nord Stream 2), and that's how we end up in this mess today.
- pasabagi 5y agoI think for many people in the former USSR, that the fall of the USSR was a tragedy is kind of obvious. Living standards dropped precipitously, whole industries closed overnight, and the state was basically stolen from under the citizen's feet. Even in east germany, probably best served by decomunization, you live amongst the carcasses of all the workplaces that closed down. It doesn't mean that you can reverse that tragedy by lobbing missiles around. That's absurd.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 5y ago
- Synaesthesia 5y agoI found his lecture quite interesting as well on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- vernon99 5y agoYup, came here to leave the same comment. The video is great and he actually has a solid take on modern geopolitics overall. As a westernised russian I could be biased. But I’m also trying to maintain a neutral realistic perspective and this view resonates with me a lot.
- AlexandrB 5y agoThis kind of analysis ignores what Ukraine and Ukrainians actually want. Western Ukraine, at the very least, is extremely nationalist and anti-Russian. Do they not have the right of self-determination as a sovereign country?
- ukrthrowaway 5y agoNo, not if it significantly affects others, as it would in this case, by risking a nuclear war. Should countries be able to get nuclear weapons just because they want them?
- wbsss4412 5y agoRussia is the one threatening nuclear war here. That’s on Russia, no one else.
- ukrthrowaway 5y agoIt's on everyone who can take actions to prevent it.
- melony 5y agoI do not know why you are downvoted and flagged. You are perfectly correct, the point of non-proliferation policy is exactly to prevent more states from acquiring such weapons. The agency and rights of non-nuclear owning nations have no bearing here.
- wbsss4412 5y agoYes except your comment seemingly leaves out any responsibility on Russia’s part. The only way Ukrainian sovereignty leads to nuclear war is if the Russians are making it so.
- mjh2539 5y agoThe author doesn't care what Ukrainians want, and neither does Russia or the United States for that matter. He's a political realist. I think the author would say that you have the right to self-determination if you actually possess the political capital to have the right to begin with. It is obvious that the Ukrainians do not (whereas the Poles, French, Germans, etc. do).
- partiallypro 5y agoThe US, etc could have banned Ukraine from NATO forever and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Putin's speech rarely mentioned NATO as his deciding factor. He said doesn't believe Ukraine should exist independently of Russia.
- netsharc 5y agoThere's often a difference between what people say and what people think, as well as justifications for actions against the actual reasons they did the action. Because telling the public the real reason might be embarrassing. He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Russia, what if his own citizenry gets the idea that if their neighbors can topple corrupt dictators, maybe they can do that as well..
- Mikeb85 5y ago> That's made up. It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BMHTNOFAep_QLUoXavVQ8w&s=19 https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
- dogma1138 5y agoAbout as much of a stretch that the US or Germany are ruled by Nazis because they have far right nut cases in their armed forces. Ukraine is the only country other than Israel that both its head of state and head of government are Jews.
- Mikeb85 5y agoOh I know. I've even followed Zelenskiy (his social media is usually entertaining...) since he was elected. I just said there's a basis for it, not that it's true.
- 5y ago
- rich_sasha 5y agoSounds like a useful idiot to me. Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time. The Kaliningrad region is Europe’s most militarised area, with SAM and tactical ballistic weaponry extending over most of Poland and the Baltic’s, quite possibly most of Europe in fact. Russian nuke-capable bombers graze NATO airspaces on an almost daily rate. But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault? In a 19th century Polish book (very racist by modern standards) by Nobel prize winning author Sienkiewicz, “In the desert and in the jungle”, an indigenous man Kali is being “enlightened” about Christianity. When asked to provide an example of a bad deed, he says “when someone take cow from Kali”. Asked for a good deed, he volunteers: “when Kali take cow”. Basically, you don’t need to understand more about morality to understand Putin’s idea of statehood and leadership.
- Yoofie 5y ago> Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time. You got this exactly backwards. NATO has been expanding towards Russia and is seen as aggressive by Russia. NATO/US "graze" Russian and Chinese airspace aswell - whats your point? This is just military tactics 101. >But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault? Ukraine is a buffer state. When your buffer state is being armed and funded by your political enemies, you draw a red line. When you cross a red line and you fail a diplomatic negotiations, what do you expect to happen?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rich_sasha 5y agoYes yes yes. Russia is a peaceful country, just somehow surrounded by festering wars. Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, not to forget its brainchild North Korea. But sure, it’s everyone else’s fault!
- qiskit 5y ago
- Mikeb85 5y agoImagine how different the world would be if the west allowed Putin to join NATO like he wanted... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- dogma1138 5y agoPutin never actually wanted to join NATO, some of his demands were that as Russia joins there is no more need for any US presence in Europe as well as he wanted Russia to be exempt from rule of law and the democracy requirements that NATO has.
- scaramanga 5y agoWait... Isn't Italy in NATO?
- dogma1138 5y agoHaha funny joke. Turkey would be a better example due to recent events but Spain is a more appropriate historic example as it wasn’t allowed to join until 1982.
- scaramanga 5y agoBut I'm (ethnically) Italian so I feel a bit safer being judgemental :)
- MrRiddle 5y agoI think the author is mostly correct, however has one big blind spot. US policy towards Ukraine is not incorrect, it’s working as designed from the start. They knew how Russia would react, they were just willing to throw them under the bus so they can force Russia’s hand.
- andreskytt 5y agoUm, no. It is the democratization, that ticks Russia off. Regardless of EU and US involvement, Russian leadership cannot tolerate a culturally similar country doing better. This would provoke so many questions: how come they get to change their leadership frequently and, apparently, this does not end in disaster? How come their oligarchy does not run rampant? Also, since this is a repeated pattern from Hungary and Czechoslovakia (county makes decisions Moscow does not like, Moscow sends tanks), who provoked them then? By the logic of the author, every move of every country defending themselves or making any decision against the interests of Moscow can be seen as provocation and thus condemned. That’s not realpolitik, that’s just plain old propaganda of the world order, where one or maybe two superpowers have a say and everyone else stays put. That world is gone.
- taylodl 5y agoThe crux of the argument is since the West is expanding NATO then it's the West's fault. Excuse me - what does national sovereignty mean? If the Ukraine desires to join NATO and NATO desires to have the Ukraine join then that's the Ukraine's prerogative as a sovereign nation. It's also Russia's prerogative to invade a sovereign nation, but they should fully expect to pay a price for that - up to and including all-out war. This isn't difficult. Both sides are calculating the costs and how much they're willing to pay.
- acadapter 5y ago>Ukraine desires to join NATO Do phrases like this have any meaning, in a world where politicians cut out borders through parts of the world that are traditionally multi cultural and have a huge diversity in opinions?