Interesting article. I think "The tragedy of great power politics" by Mearsheimer is a great book. It certainly seems to explain the last few hundred years of international relations pretty well. I don’t like it, but as you say, that’s just not the point.
You think the US loves freedom and democracy? US policy towards Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Saudi war against Yemen says no not really. The US loves balance of power politics. Freedom and democracy are buzzwords to keep the voters happy.
If you were Russian you might be as concerned about Ukraine joining NATO as the US was about nuclear weapons in Cuba in the 1960s. Imagine the US reaction if Mexico joined a China freedom and friendship pact and the Chinese troops started pouring in. Do you think the US would say, well, that’s democracy! I don’t. I think they would start with pressure, then threats and if they didn’t work create a pretext for invasion.
It’s the tragedy of great power politics. It isn’t right, but as Mearsheimer points out, let’s face up to reality.
YouTube has been suggesting the same video to me for several months now, "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer." Today I finally watched it, and it was a surprise. Though the lecture is from 2015, his remarks seem extraordinarily prescient.
And no, autocorrect, it is spelled "Mearsheimer," not "Meat shrimp."
3 days before the invasion, Mearsheimer said Putin wouldn’t invade because he was in such a good position, having sown discord in the west so well. Then Putin invaded, bringing the west together as it has never been in my lifetime. So, wrong on both counts.
Putin has openly dreamed aloud about the reconstruction of what was the Russian empire before it became the USSR. Just a few months before he invaded, he “coincidentally” closed down the Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg , a group keeping track of conscripts’ rights, just before throwing those conscripts into a war he didn’t tell them about.
Now, he’s shelling Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. That I’m-so-afraid-of-NATO excuse is not holding up very well; the “realistic” school doesn’t sound very realistic anymore. Jesse Singal’s approach—looking at Mearsheimer’s approach through the lens of agency—actually seems a lot more realistic, not to mention moral, but he doesn’t fit into your liberals vs. realists paradigm. Neither does Anne Applebaum, whom you mentioned. She’s center-right, and sounds a lot more “realistic” than Mearsheimer.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine might be easier to square with a pessimistic/realist model of rational (and unitary) state actors, but there's a case for a liberal/idealist/ideological explanation of Putin's behavior.
It doesn't sound like most Russians, even Russian analysts, seriously expected an invasion (https://twitter.com/antontroian/status/1496823707515379720), which is a bit strange if Putin's behavior was rationally calculated. If Putin's behavior was driven by incentives obvious to Russians, why didn't they seem to anticipate it? And Putin's position seemed pretty secure (https://policytensor.substack.com/p/who-has-the-highest-survival-probability). Where was the potential upside for him in pissing off basically everyone with interstate war?
The US has a key Trump card-no pun intended-that it could have played, but chose not to, thanks to D woke environmental panic. The US, under Brandon, went from being an energy exporter to an energy importer, through voluntary impediments on pipelines, federal drilling leases, etc. The only way to affect Putin is to hit him in the petroleum/natural gas sector-and Brandon, Kerry, etc-refuse to do that. So as a first generation American of Ukrainian descent on one side of my family-thanks a lot a Dems!!
"Putin sees Russia as besieged. He can’t comprehend that American troops in Estonia are there to protect Estonia; all he sees are American tanks 500 miles from Moscow.
...
I think Putin’s view of Russia’s security situation is completely wrong, but nonetheless: It’s his view."
Is it? Given that this view is so unreasonable, I'm not convinced that we should take his public statements as honest expressions of his beliefs. This view serves an important role as a framing for the Russian/global public and could provide cover for the more selfish reasons he may secretly hold. Getting this wrong may be fatal, as we can't negotiate with a man whose motivations we misjudge.
Can anyone here make a strong case for taking him literally?
Interesting article. I think "The tragedy of great power politics" by Mearsheimer is a great book. It certainly seems to explain the last few hundred years of international relations pretty well. I don’t like it, but as you say, that’s just not the point.
You think the US loves freedom and democracy? US policy towards Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Saudi war against Yemen says no not really. The US loves balance of power politics. Freedom and democracy are buzzwords to keep the voters happy.
If you were Russian you might be as concerned about Ukraine joining NATO as the US was about nuclear weapons in Cuba in the 1960s. Imagine the US reaction if Mexico joined a China freedom and friendship pact and the Chinese troops started pouring in. Do you think the US would say, well, that’s democracy! I don’t. I think they would start with pressure, then threats and if they didn’t work create a pretext for invasion.
It’s the tragedy of great power politics. It isn’t right, but as Mearsheimer points out, let’s face up to reality.
YouTube has been suggesting the same video to me for several months now, "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer." Today I finally watched it, and it was a surprise. Though the lecture is from 2015, his remarks seem extraordinarily prescient.
And no, autocorrect, it is spelled "Mearsheimer," not "Meat shrimp."
Nearly sure you and I were in Mearshimer's class together.
3 days before the invasion, Mearsheimer said Putin wouldn’t invade because he was in such a good position, having sown discord in the west so well. Then Putin invaded, bringing the west together as it has never been in my lifetime. So, wrong on both counts.
Putin has openly dreamed aloud about the reconstruction of what was the Russian empire before it became the USSR. Just a few months before he invaded, he “coincidentally” closed down the Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg , a group keeping track of conscripts’ rights, just before throwing those conscripts into a war he didn’t tell them about.
Now, he’s shelling Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. That I’m-so-afraid-of-NATO excuse is not holding up very well; the “realistic” school doesn’t sound very realistic anymore. Jesse Singal’s approach—looking at Mearsheimer’s approach through the lens of agency—actually seems a lot more realistic, not to mention moral, but he doesn’t fit into your liberals vs. realists paradigm. Neither does Anne Applebaum, whom you mentioned. She’s center-right, and sounds a lot more “realistic” than Mearsheimer.
Never mind Belgium, aren't we overdue for Switzerland's once-a-decade invasion of Liechtenstein? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein%E2%80%93Switzerland_relations#Incidents_involving_the_Swiss_military)
Putin's invasion of Ukraine might be easier to square with a pessimistic/realist model of rational (and unitary) state actors, but there's a case for a liberal/idealist/ideological explanation of Putin's behavior.
It doesn't sound like most Russians, even Russian analysts, seriously expected an invasion (https://twitter.com/antontroian/status/1496823707515379720), which is a bit strange if Putin's behavior was rationally calculated. If Putin's behavior was driven by incentives obvious to Russians, why didn't they seem to anticipate it? And Putin's position seemed pretty secure (https://policytensor.substack.com/p/who-has-the-highest-survival-probability). Where was the potential upside for him in pissing off basically everyone with interstate war?
The US has a key Trump card-no pun intended-that it could have played, but chose not to, thanks to D woke environmental panic. The US, under Brandon, went from being an energy exporter to an energy importer, through voluntary impediments on pipelines, federal drilling leases, etc. The only way to affect Putin is to hit him in the petroleum/natural gas sector-and Brandon, Kerry, etc-refuse to do that. So as a first generation American of Ukrainian descent on one side of my family-thanks a lot a Dems!!
"Putin sees Russia as besieged. He can’t comprehend that American troops in Estonia are there to protect Estonia; all he sees are American tanks 500 miles from Moscow.
...
I think Putin’s view of Russia’s security situation is completely wrong, but nonetheless: It’s his view."
Is it? Given that this view is so unreasonable, I'm not convinced that we should take his public statements as honest expressions of his beliefs. This view serves an important role as a framing for the Russian/global public and could provide cover for the more selfish reasons he may secretly hold. Getting this wrong may be fatal, as we can't negotiate with a man whose motivations we misjudge.
Can anyone here make a strong case for taking him literally?