John Mearsheimer on Putin's invasion of Ukraine
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 мар 2022
- Critique of John Mearsheimer's argument that NATO expansion is the cause of the Ukraine crisis.
This is a casual chat that doesn't settle the issue - a longer episode may come on the main channel.
John Mearsheimer 2022 | Putin's Invasion of Ukraine Salon
• Putin's Invasion of Uk...
Hans Georg Moeller / Carefree Wandering
Ukraine War: De-Escalate The Destructive Dynamics NOW!
• Ukraine War: De-Escala...
John Mearsheimer Foreign Affairs essay:
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault / The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
Critical reply by Michael McFaul; Stephen Sestanovich
www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Visualizer)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![The death of ideology | John Mearsheimer [Full Interview]](/img/1.gif)
See my main channel for full content - ruclips.net/user/VladVexler
Quite a bit of Dunning-Kruger going on in the comments. I reply to everybody. Sometimes bluntly, if I think you are speaking without self awareness. I see it as ethical to reply and in response I kindly ask you to unsubscribe if you feel this content is not bringing value. Thank you!
I appreciate bluntness.
blunt is good
It's my fault Vlad. At least people like me. Im an RN and been so for many years. We have saved all the idiots! You might laugh but it's true. A lot of people alive today would never have made it to 40 if they could not see further than their own enshrined thoughts. Thankfully we also save more than a few worth saving. I never saw so much entitlement and over inflated arrogance when I started out 45 years ago. It scares me, actually. I lived in Russia for one year in 2014. You are the most balanced and thoughtful presenter that I have come across, on this and other topics, and they concur very much with me experience of Russia. In fact, helped clarify some of the feelings I had that I did not fully understand. Im busy recommending you to all my colleagues. Thanks so much for your analysis, I do appreciate your content.
imagine, most Russians want peace and democracy.
imagine, Russian people rising up and bringing down putin from the power.
imagine, people disagree with you because they dont know anything.
imagine, there's no heaven
, It's easy if you try.
i just hope you are right and Mearsheimer is wrong.
but my money is on Mearsheimer.
0
Let's say for the sake of debate that NATO didn't expand. Wouldn't that expose other post soviet countries such as Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania ... to potential Russia's invasion or meddling? Would then Eastern Europe be more unstable rather than what it is now - free of conflicts with more or less functioning democracies and economies? The problem with John Mearsheimer's argument is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that all those former members of Warsaw Pact would resist fiercely Russia's attempts to control them and seems to believe that they would accept their fate in order to save their countries from bloodshed. For him they are rather like pieces on a chessboard - without voice or their own ideas.
He basically sees them as the sovjet union does, as vasalls that do not have the power or right to be even independent states.
Don’t forget the Kremlin used to greet him very very well. He is after all only an academic so…
Yes, it would. It is very crucial for those smaller countries to be a part of NATO , even right wing politicians there are mostly pro-NATO. No other option really when you are next to biggest country in the world which somehow still wants more territories. Unless you want to join them lol.
Mearsheimer is a vile Soviet apologist.
Ukraine is a unique case Compromise is due,… of which the annexed regions should be the compromise.
Years ago I was at a debate between Mearsheimer and Lech Walesa about Poland joining NATO. They each gave their arguments but in the end Mearcheimer's ultimate point was that, he claimed, the US would never come to Poland's defense regardless of whether Poland was in NATO or not. Walesa looked downright sad when he heard his interpreter relay that view to him.
As of today it is hard to imagine the US not going to war to defend Poland. What is NATO without Article 5?
I don't put much credence in Mearsheimer's views and I wonder why he has been inserted so much into the conversation about Russia, Ukraine, and NATO.
I cannot agree more. Mearsheimer is Putin's apologist.
9 months later, it's hard to imagine Russia succeeding against an invasion of Poland even if Poland wasn't in NATO. Which de-risks the rest of NATOs entry. Also it's hard to imagine Russia invading the Baltics, without columns of Polish military hardware moving into defend them on day 1. Many expect the rest of NATO to wait to see what USA does in such a situation, but Eastern Europe NATO will mobilise with or without a signal from the US.
@@lindsaycole8409
Let's hope! But in the age of Trump's absolute and ridiculous absurdity in America, anything is possible, and not, in the same time!
Mearsheimer's arguments have this premise that small countries don't get to decide or that they are indifferent whether they are part of Russia or the west. To any sane person that should sound absurd - and it is. It's not a coincidence that opposition of Russia is the highest in ex-soviet states. They remember what it was like and want to make sure it will never happen again. NATO's "aggressive expansion" is more like Russia aggressively pushing countries into NATO. The first time I heard Mearsheimer's points I was sure he's getting paid by Kremlin or he's just delusional but now I'm thinking that it might as well be both.
To any sane person, it is you that sounds absurd. You have no argument to debunk Mearsheimer. It is NATO expanding towards Russia, not Russia expanding towards NATO. As for small countries and their decisions, nobody has an inherent right to join a foreign military alliance, or even if they did, what about the alliance's right to not accept new members? How come people like you never mention that right? What about China's right to sell weapons to Russia? All of a sudden rights aren't mentioned anymore. Hypocrisy all around.
@@dwl3006 "nobody has an inherent right to join a foreign military alliance" why not? Are saying that some other third part country has right to decide that? Please elaborate. And of course the alliance has the right to not accept new members. In case of NATO, literally every member country has a VETO. And at the moment Sweden is not accepted by two NATO members and therefore not accepted by the alliance. There, I mentioned it. Are you happy now? Furthermore, China can sell all the weapons it wants to Russia, they have the right to do it. West also has the right to choose which countries it does business with. It's China's rightful decision which one it values more as a business partner, but I'm afraid they can't have it both ways...
@@vesas5214 If Mexico joined a military alliance with Russia, the United States would turn Mexico into Iraq 2.0 faster than you can say "we lied about WMDs in Iraq", and you know that.
You are absolutely correct about China, and about vetos, etc. which is why it is a fruitless exercise in the absurd to talk about rights with regards to geopolitics and strategic wisdom. Children talk about rights: "I have a right to cookies". Adults talk about responsibilities.
Geopolitics are not dictated by rights, but by strategic wisdom.
Ukraine loses nothing by remaining neutral, what prevents it from being a successful neutral country like Switzerland, Austria or Finland before they became brainwashed by hysterical manufactured consent? Only Ukraine's own exorbitant levels of corruption, which have only gotten worse as a result of the war. And if Russia invaded them despite them agreeing to remain neutral, then we are in the exact same position we are in today so there's no excuse for not trying.
@@dwl3006 There's a huge problem in your argument: Ukraine was not willing, nor had any plans of joining NATO or even the EU before 2014, in fact public support barely hovered around 50% only after the "civil" war in Donbas started. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Popular_opinion_in_Ukraine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Popular_support_of_Ukraine's_integration_with_the_European_Union
Now, how the fuck do you rationalize that a country losing its most productive regions and millions of people to an aggressive neighbor would prosper without aligning with anyone? Or even develop in peace? Even non war torn ex-Soviet countries that haven't aligned west are shitholes today compared to the lowest performing EU countries.
@@dwl3006Ukraine has been neutral for decades until Russia invaded Crimea and Donbass. How did that neutrality work out then?
Excellent! I made essentially the same point in a comment on his video: he talks about "the Russians" as though they think in lockstep with Putin, when the current madness is a product of Putin's paranoia and isolation. The eastern European nations, including Ukraine, looked west, towards freedom and democracy. THAT was the great threat to Putin, and not to Russia.
Mearsheimer seems to think that only leadership counts. It is a Bismarckian view, and also the view of Putin. So when he says 'Russians' - he means Kremlin.
It is not a Bismarckian view. It is a view that is aligned with the so-called "Realist" theory if International Relations. In that theory, states are viewed as monolithic, self-serving actors that maximize their own power in any viable way when interacting on the international stage. There is no reason to talk about political culture of a country or domestic dissent because they simply don't matter to the behaviour of states on the international level.
Mearsheimer has been one of Realism's proponents for decades. Realism is a very useful reminder that this logic plays a role and is always present to an extent. What Mearsheimer seems to have forgotten over his decades of work in the field is that the explanatory value of Realism is, oftentimes, very limited.
@@gjk282 Whoever expands own power it would inevitable clash with another power. Hitler expanded power and clashed with other powers. Imperial Japan expanded power. Stalin expanded power and territory and was very close to real conflict. What clashing powers will pack their struggles as historical grievances, needs for strategic depth, cheap oil, democracy, liberation, racial theory, lebensraum, classless worldwide society, good against evil - it does not matter (after all old men must somehow inspire and lead young soldiers into trenches) and these will be additionally packed into exciting proclamation that this would be short, easy campaign and they would be home before vinter arrives.
Yes, you are making a Realist point, albeit in heavy words. But power isn't necessarily a zero-sum game as you insinuate. Not all old men want to carve their legacy in trenches and craters into other countries. Not all want to sign their period in office with the blood of young men. Many people, old and young alike, are motivated by the idea of reducing suffering for other people, improving and saving lives not only within their own borders, but well beyond. Such leanings do have effects. Realists want to make us believe they don't.
@@gjk282 You are right, I just picked up some more famous and tragic examples of human history of power and warfare. Fortunately for human race, only minority of statesman finish their office worrying about going into war or not. Maybe I am getting old and cynical but I hope and pray this easily avoidable conflict finish ASAP, it disturbs me to see ruined lives and buildings.
Mearsheimer is a great asset for Russia.
Mearsheimer is THE classical useful idiot.
Absolutely.
In all honesty, I had never heard of John Mearsheimer until I watched a video of him expressing his views to a journalist (I truly do not remember who it was). I always try to have an open mind and enjoy hearing the opinions and ideas of others. Unfortunately it did not take me long to see that Mr Mearsheimer had a very biased opinion that I felt did not tally with known facts. He seemed entirely bent on blaming this war on the US and Ukraine. He also portrayed President Zelenskyy as someone who was pandering to the west looking for attention. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when speaking about something that involves the death of innocent people, get your facts straight! Mr Mearsheimer is not someone I would waste my time on in the future.
he's not biased he is a realist. of course you won't waste your time on someone who has an alternative world view than you have because you would prefer to stay inside your echo chamber.
i can give you one undeniable example of Western hypocrisy - The Cuban Missile Crisis. The US went absolutely crazy when Russia were going to put missiles in Cuba. If someone attempted to do something similar today, they would go crazy again, they would be having none of it. If Russia made a defensive alliance with Mexico and said we are putting thousands of troops near the border and missile systems. The US would not have it.
Yet the US has 800 foreign military bases around the world, they have been out of war only 16 years of their entire existence, they killed 400,000 civilians in the last 20 years in wars they had no business being in.
Now you tell me, who is biased. This is reality, its a harsh reality that you dont want to think... to ponder that your side could actually be the antagonist in the story is a very uncomfortable feeling.
@@Writeous0ne You believe what is good for you, and I will believe what's good for me.
@@ZannerBatman so you don't acknowledge any of the facts i said? Come on, i want to hear a solid argument to justify why the US has 800 military bases across the globe, why they constantly put troops near other nations which is a security threat, why they killed so many civilians in the last 20 years? Why do the US support Israel, yet Palestinians are people of Canaan and live their way before Ashkenazis? Why does the US support Taiwan even though Taiwan is not recognized by the world - China is? Why does the US support Ukraine even though they illegally overthrew an elected government official which is against international law?
I would love to hear what your thought process is on the justification of such antagonistic, atrocious and contradictory behaviour of the US and by extension the West?
Agree..This old man shd also ne removed as A Professor in That University he is now lecturing... He is truly a shallow mindef man..He is obviosly encouragjng people to stop fighting for your freedon and give in to bullies or terrorists...
@@Writeous0ne Why USA do what they do? Because they can. Depending on where you live you ought to be thankful. Without them every terrorist country could do whatever they want.
Saying that Mearsheimer is too abstract in his views is the kindest possible interpretation. I think he's just living in the wrong century. Send him back 200 years so that he can be happy.
I actually think you are the ones living in the bubble. We have advanced in technology for the past 200 years and this by far but in terms of power and as human beings, not so much. You guys look at the world as what it ought to be (which is very nice), but also know what it exactly is and it's not what it ought to be (as you see it).
@@gags-villsounds5351 Meaning what? You haven't produced an argument, as it stands, your comment is just childish drivel.
@@gags-villsounds5351Albert, you missed his point by a country mile, the forest for the trees. Mearsheimer is of the opinion that small states don't matter, don't have rights, nor self determination. Why? Because might is right. And this clown is an expert in international relations? Hence the comment he should have been put back 200 years ago, when that mentality prevailed.
By the way you word salad makes absolutely no sense. Are you young and think you know it all? Rots of ruck.
@Maelli535 actually, I don't see anyone debunking Mershimer. Just general platitudes. Even Vexler just generalizing by saying he's wrong, but not anything specific.
@@gags-villsounds5351, Irrelevant. Ukraine must and will win unless the west abandons them.
Yes Putin is probably genuinely worried about NATO expansion, but why is he? I think he does not see a direct military threat, but rather that NATO membership makes a neighbour country more politically independent and difficult to control, which of course not in the interest of Russia.
There is NO democracy! Consequently, the 'pretend' democracy that Ukraine aspires to is one directed by CIA spooks... just like in the USA. NO TRANSPARENCY=NO DEMOCRACY, plain and simple.
...more politically independent and difficult to control with tons of weapons from the US.
@@_valentina_nikolaevna let's not forget article 5 of NATO and Zelensky's war declaration last year. He said along the lines "We will join NATO and take back Crimea even if we have to go to war."
@@zelle2841 to say nothing of his desire to get nuclear weapons.
@@_valentina_nikolaevna @Valentina Nikolaevna @Valentina Nikolaevna @Valentina Nikolaevna @Valentina Nikolaevna If Zelensky has a desire to get nuclear weaponry, this only equal to other countries national defence; but is this a truth, anyway?
Clearly, you have a view but, the Ukraine should have a right to do as others, and join NATO. The fact that to do so poses a risk of war - well, the situation speaks for itself! Oppression. Is Russia oppressed? No more so than anyone else, if we look closer.
No to Russian mother's losing their sons to a war they didn't ask for and so sadly woe for a decimated Ukraine. We can never learn, it seems. Life has little value, only the polemic exists ..
.. fortunately what I actually believe is that the cost has been viciously high, to learn simply that lives matter most and the improvement of life.
Mearsheimer keeps insisting that we should respect Russia's hegemony because it is a "great power".
What great power has an economy the size of Spain's?
What he is espousing isn't "realism". It is Cold War nostalgia.
Exactly!
The horror is that Mearsheimer is still respected in so many circles. I guess appeasement is always in favor by some.
I think Mearsheimer's fundamental problem is that he has "gone native." We ask foreign intel and IR analysts to see problems through the lens of our adversaries so that we can understand what they value and are likely to do. In some cases those analysts are able mentally transpose themselves so well (i.e., think like our adversaries) that they start to believe that our adversaries positions are correct and we are wrong. At this point they are a hazard to the government (if that is where their position resides). They are fine in academia, but their prescriptions should be taken with a large dose of salt. Fundamentally, NATO is a defensive alliance. If you don't attack a member state, then you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, giving the Russians what they want (a revanchist return to the Soviet borders), would subjugate the Poles, Czechs, Baltic Republics, ..... Clearly this isn't going to happen without a fight no matter how much Mearsheimer wishcasts it.
"Never get off the boat." -Martin Sheen
You aren't understanding Mearsheimer, he isn't saying anyone's position is "correct" he isn't making a moral judgement, he's giving a description of what is actually happening in the real world. What he's saying is that the US is expanding it's hegemony into Eastern Europe, Russia's sphere of influence, and that is the crux of what is causing the conflict. Regardless of whether you think Russia is bad, regardless of whether you think it's good or bad or moral or not to expand NATO and US sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, that is an objective description of what is happening.
@@danielshepard2315 Wow anti-communists live rent-free in your head
@@danielshepard2315 But that is trivially true. Russia doesn't want to lose its slaves and will use force and annex them as an alternative if they don't stay slaves. But then Mearsheimer makes a moral judgement and decides who is correct when he decides who caused the current evil happenings -- NATO in his head -- because whoever causes evil to happen must be the bad guy. Unless he also makes no moral judgements about thousands of people dying in Ukraine as being an evil, in which case my moral judgement is that no one should take him seriously lest they also become sociopaths.
@@danielshepard2315 it is not an objective description to say that the US is ‘expanding its hegemony’ but rather sovereign nations are freely chosing to follow the western model of democratic rule and law abiding institutions. By adopting the word ‘hegemony’ and applying it to this circumstance you and Mearsheimer are merely thinking in the same terms as Russia’s paranoid elite. And he IS making moral judgements, by any definition of that term. He is saying that Ukraine ‘should’ do x and ‘should not’ do y, other countries ‘should’ treat Ukraine in way x and ‘should not’ treat Russia in way y. These are moralistic assertions.
Great analysis. Back in January I watched Mearsheimer's video about how the Ukraine issue was all the fault of the West and following on from Peter Hitchens' analysis I found it very compelling. But since the invasion, the more have discovered about Putin, which your analysis Vlad has put into the most credible setting, the less I agree with Mearsheimer. The nagging doubt for the West is what could we have done to stop this current situation.
Well I was very surprised at the cavalier attitude the US had for Russia - for instance in pulling out of the ABM Treaty and flying B52 bombers up and down the Russian borders or sailing the latest British warship up and down the Black Sea coast. The later two incidents were clearly designed to show strength, but then undermined by definitive statements that we wouldn't put troops into Ukraine.
Now, based on your analysis, I come to the conclusion that however much the West tried to accommodate Putin, his internal requirements meant he would end up doing something like this. They big irony is Putin's actions have created Ukraine's full emergence as a nation state. When Russian speakers are re-identifying as Ukrainians, this is more than just a switch in nationality, it is a switch of philosophical viewpoints. As you say, Putin doesn't believe democracy is real and yet he fears it.
Just a small comment to say that Peter is the shit Hitchens. The brilliant Hitchens passed away some years ago.
@@ameerhamid89 "The brilliant Hitchens" as you call him also unrepentantly approved of the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq resulting in 100s of thousands of innocent civilian deaths - war crimes that Putin apologists invariably seize upon to justify or at least mitigate their own disgusting actions.
@@pauldove966 I know, mate. It was a serious blight on an otherwise excellent career, and I think we can agree that he was mostly right on a number of other important issues.
I don't think it's fair to say that the Iraq war gives ammunition to Putin apologists, sympathisers, and trolls. These people have an inherent bias, and would happily latch onto any such example in US/NATO history to try and justify/mitigate Russian expansionism. Some even go so far as to brand the NATO intervention in Bosnia and the bombing of Serbia as Western imperialism, so let's be plenty clear about the nature of their intentions when they bring up Iraq. Noam Chomsky, for example, is still in deniable about the Bosnian genocide.
Most of Christopher Hitchens support of the Iraq war was based on his dislike for Saddam Hussein, whose track record I hardly need to summarise here. I grant that his removal was merely a side effect of a war fought for a different, and wrong reason, but it didn't come a moment too soon. At least ten years too late, by my count.
I agree Russia has made Ukraine a full fledged state now. They have given Ukraine a unified cause to rally around and a sense of unity. This war is their great patriotic war that will forge Ukraine's identity for generations to come.
@@ameerhamid89 sanctions after first Iraq instead of removing Saddam were the stupidest decision by US in modern history. People who came up with them should be in Hague tribunal right next to Milosevic. These sanctions were literally a genocide of Iraqi. I sometimes think that Russia is an evil twin of US with the same urges but different ideals.
I've been waiting for someone to take on this analysis since I first read Mearsheimer. Thank you
This is of course too preliminary to be definitive. I talk about similar issues in the Noam Chomsky video. From an International Relations point of view, I recommend the rebuttal of JM by Adam Roberts in the Economist. But that one too is too brief and not conclusive.
I got too annoyed to listen to Mearsheimer because he was only concerned about Russia's worries, not about the point of view of the Eastern Europeans.
yep. It is Ukrainians that want to fight Russia, so I don't think Russia conquering Ukraine would have peaceful solution. The only way Russia could subjugate Ukrainians is to commit genocide and I think the moral obligation is to give Ukraine a chance to fight genocide.
I watched Mearsheimer's lecture on the topic and for me, as one who is Latvian, at first it seemed like total nonsense Well, in the paradigm of the concept his argument adds up. But my problem with that is, that the very concept of allowing agency just for a couple of superpowers at the expense of anything between them, is utterly wrong. And yes, that is also Putin's view. And I didn't like the lecture because that was some kind of legitimizing Putin's worldview, by a Western scholar.
But have you also considered that it is not only Putin's views but the views of all the men in power and who make decisions about the fate of the world? Most people analyze these things like there's pure democracy anywhere in this planet and view it from the point of an ordinary human being who lives in a pure democracy
@@gags-villsounds5351 you are mostly right. but there is a trick in democracies - even if people in power just pretend to possess certain values, they already are restricted by those values in their actions
He's also a Hamas apologist, unsurprisingly.
Not all academics are smart. Mearsheimer has NEVER been to Ukraine, or Russia for that matter. He leaves one important piece of the equation out. What about what Ukrainian people want? they are proving just how far they are willing to go to fight for their freedom, their dream. John is a typical academic who should come out of his textbooks and talk to real people, on the ground? The fact he doesn't even talk with this disclaimer is arrogance of the highest order.
Do you really think Humans got a free will ?
If.... You should really read about Mass Manipulation, the psychology about will and herd behavior. Before 2014 there went immense sums of money from europe and the US to Ukraineian pro Democratic pro NATO pro EU NGO's.
Just one famous sentence from Hitlers book "Mein Kampf"
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level adjusted to the receptivity of the most limited of those to whom it intends to be addressed. Thus their purely spiritual height will have to be placed all the lower, the larger the mass of people to be grasped is supposed to be. If, however, it is a question, as in the case of propaganda for enduring a war, of drawing an entire people into its sphere of influence, then caution in avoiding too high intellectual prerequisites cannot be too great.
What Ukrainains want is not relevant to Mearsheimers point about the geopolitics of the situation. You are trying to moralize a situation where Mearsheimer is just giving an objective analysis about what both states geopolitical goals are and why the conflict is happening.
@@danielshepard2315 he is still wrong. He doesn't understand Russia or Ukraine. He is speaking about something he is just not qualified to fully understand. Hey is also wrong. Objective? I wonder if he would be quite so "objective" is his country was being invaded. BTW the idea that any human can ever be objective is an oxymoron.
@@bronim7311 What is he wrong about? You don't have to "understand Russia or Ukraine" to get this point, beyond understanding the geopolitical goals of Russia and how Ukraine fits into that as well as the geopolitical goals of the US. The conflict is starting because Russia wants to maintain a sphere of influence and hegemony over Ukraine that was taken away when the government was overthrown after Euromaidan in 2014. That's the primary driver of the civil war, which lead to invasion. In reality, for the US and Russia it's a fight over who gets a sphere of influence over Ukraine.
No if his country was being invaded he likely wouldn't be able to be objective, what does that have to do with anything though? When you are in a war, you aren't thinking objectively, you're thinking emotionally, that's human nature. Mearsheimer is able to step back and view it objectively partly because he's not the one being invaded.
@@danielshepard2315 his view is that NATO expansion is the cause of the conflict and therefore the west's fault. He is categorically wrong. The conflict would have happened regardless, and will continue beyond Ukraine if Russia is not stopped. Mearshieimer is giving an opinion. There is nothing objective about it. If anything the evidence points to to contrary. Putin is bombing and torturing civilians. His tactics are brutal. This is even true of how his government treats his own citizens who don't tow the line. There was evidence of all that before the invasion. If anything, the reverse was true. Countries joined NATO to protect themselves from Putin, and that has been shown to be true. Mearsheimmer is categorically wrong.
I'd say the more interesting question here is which right Putin's Russia has to dictate what their neighboring countries can and cannot do wrt. relationship with NATO.
The claim is that these countries are not doing it of their own free will, but being lured into it by the US. ... which I think is ridiculous.
That's irrelevant to Mearsheimer's point, whether countries are coerced into joining NATO or do it of their own "free will" it's still the US's choice to expand NATO, and it's going to cause a conflict with Russia.
totally agree, listened to Mearsheimer and just couldn't finish it due to his leaps over reasoning gaps.
Mearsheimer is not only factually wrong, he is also morally wrong on this issue. Wonder if he ever admits it or appologises. Nah, I know he wont.
That court jester would never admit it nor apologize. He's hitched his wagon to the inane Nato expansionist argument and he ain't walking back on anything.
Vlad, I still think the NATO threat theory is being misrepresented by most people who grapple with it.
Specifically, when referring to expansion, most people do not recognize the difference between adding a member state and the positioning of masses of NATO member nation’s troops and equipment.
Prior to the 2014 invasion of the Donbas and Crimea, NATO did not reposition any member nation equipment and personal into eastern countries as they joined NATO. Aside from small scale training, the only troops and equipment that were in these countries were native to that country.
It bothers me that people in favor or against Mearsheimer’s views seem to miss this point. Also, Europe’s commitment to its military capability during Putin’s tenure plummeted year after year while the U.S. drew down European based forces to a skeleton crew. How did this alarm Russians even if some neighbors sought membership.
This all points to NATO expansion being a political embarrassment for Putin, but making an argument that it was a military threat to Russia requires the aforementioned to be obfuscated or dismissed.
One could definitely state that Ukraine joining NATO would once and for all remove Russia’s ability to threaten force against Ukraine. However, this is not where Mearsheimer’s thesis stops… he argues that Russia would actually face a military threat from NATO.
Lastly, if any of what Putin claims regarding NATO were true, why then did he not strike a bargain with Ukraine regarding NATO membership… before or after 2014… before or after 2022. If NATO was even on Putin’s radar as a military threat, why did he risk Finland and Sweden’s neutrality. He had to know he was risking that by invading Ukraine.
NATO expansion is an embarrassment for Putin and for many people in Russia, but so is everything western that reminds Russians of what their country could be or once was. I just don’t buy the convoluted arguments that each passing decade left Russia in a more and more perilous security situation than the last.
I truly enjoy your channel and I gain a lot from you. Thank you!
exactly
My thoughts exactly. Vladimir Putin knows/knew NATO was not a military threat to Russia. What it meant though is each former Warsaw Pact member and former SSR was not going to be controllled/under Russia's "Sphere of Influence" as they had in the past. If Vladimir Putin had any desire to restore/reinvent a 21st Century version of the USSR, then the expansion of NATO towards the east (especially any former SSR) put an end to that fantasy/dream.
Yes! I thought basically that too
Thank you and pleasure always
Mearsheimer is wrong. Why? Because Russia invaded Chechnya and destroyed the capital, Grosny (killed a lot of people, too). And Chechnya had nothing to do with NATO. Russia invaded Georgia and annexed territories (killed a lot of people, too). And Georgia had nothing to do with NATO. Then Russia went in and occupied and annexed Crimea and set to work on easter Ukraine. All of this before the invasion. There was no particular reason to believe that Ukraine would have been welcomed in to NATO at that point... or even the EU, for that matter. I think it's clear that Russia does what it does for plenty of reasons other than NATO.
Reading an essay by Prof. Mearsheimer or watching him speak gives me a physical reaction, a very dry throat. He does not even consider the idea that countries (other than the big powers) have a right to determine their destiny, their future. Democracy or freedom are not categories he thinks in. Having lived for quite a while in my life in East Germany (then in relation to the Soviet Union what Mearsheimer advocated Ukraine to become relative to Russia) I can say: I was subject to the result of that thinking.
He is, of course, rather correct in his thinking *within his premises*. But his premises are immoral, and in essence nihilistic. According to his view, there is nothing but power and spheres of influence. And that is an end in itself, *it does not need justification*. There is nothing else that could be of value, because there *are* no values. There is just the brutality of the real.
His thinking is, in short, morally corrupt and deeply appalling. He is a priest of emptyness.
I think this is a common problem with 'geopolitical' thought, which often amounts to little more than a justification, in terms of Realpolitik, of why great powers have the right to bully and dominate smaller ones.
@@adagietto2523 Ya. I guess you are right. What they do is descriptive work, like looking at an anthill describing what happens. Devoid of values or meaning.
I would go as far as to say he presents his morally corrupt thinking with glee. He seems very pleased by himself.
@@Lobishomem Well, I have a similar feeling tbh. I try to let that not influence my thinking as even a morally corrupt person might have a point. But yes, I kind of agree.
He did not invent that "thinking" , it is reality dude.
Mearsheimer is a modern representative of the mindset that gave us World War I.
Excellent comment.
You’re incredibally good on discussing views in a fair and sober way. Amazing video, keep it up!
Thanks so much. This was just a quick Q&A. It's of course not a proper critique of John.
@@VladVexlerChat A proper critique of Mr. Maersheimer would be quite devastating on him.
I personally have no clue why so many people believe in him, just as they did in Steve Jobs for example.
I would add also that Mearsheimer’s position is that of a coward.
To wit: “Ah! There’s a chance something unpleasant could happen to me! I don’t want that, so Ukraine, you’re just going to have to take your lumps and get carved up a nu-19th century imperialist. You’re good with that, right?”.
Now to be fair to the old man, one of the potential fallouts from this war is literal nuclear fallout but the odds of that are vanishingly small. So long as no one invades Russia proper, there’s a distinct probability that any order to use nuclear weapons will be ignored and that’s not counting the ones that won’t work all due to maintenance failures. By some reports, Russia has between 30 to 200% more nuclear weapons than the US but spends about half as much on maintaining them. Even assuming no losses due to corruption in the Russian program and inflated costs in the US due to older, more worn out equipment, both of which are quite weak proposals, many Russian systems are going under maintained.
Way I saw Putin is he is fearful of democracy more than anything else. He was offered closer ties with ties and a path to joining but a condition was Russia becoming a democracy. This would remove Putin and this he could not countenance, nor, probably the crew now ruling Russia. I found Mearsheimer a very great fool missing the true reasons. I find Timothy Snyder far more persuasive on these things. Now I find Vlad Vexler most persuasive.
Think what you may of Clinton, but I'll never forget him talking to Yeltsin, sticking his index finger in Yeltsin's heart and telling him, Putin does not have democracy in his heart. Clinton was right and Yeltsin give him a stare with a look that he realized that to. Thanks Boris for unleashing Putin on this planet. Should have laid off the vodka a bit more perhaps you would have realized this sooner before it was too late. And perhaps no Putin dynasty.
Meirsheimar said in one of his early videos that PUTIN was too intelligent to attack Ukraine
The two fundamentals are whether we should be using a Great Powers model, ensuring neutral territory between Russia and NATO in order to keep the peace, or a Liberal Democratic model, supporting Ukraine as a possible upcoming new democratic nation state. I'm dubious that Russia really deserves Great Power status these days, other than its nuclear arsenal.
So why all this hysteria if Russia is of "dubious" importance?
Even if. The people boardings Russia exist for their own sake and if they want to protect themselves by allying with NATO, that's their right, wether Russia and American Isolationists like it or not.
Very interesting, looking forward for the follow up!
Thanks!
I saw this guy give a Ukraine War related speech recently - his opening premise was that Vlad Putin was the only national leader who never lied. I saw no point in watching the rest of the speech.
"imagine Russia becoming a deomocracy" Imagine also the skies filled with unicorns.
You guys not to really understand what democracy is. There's no country that has pure democracy. Even Russia, actually has a type of democracy. Most people fail to understand what democracy is and how it's implemented which results to different types of democracy
Slava Ukraini!!! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦from Auckland , New Zealand!!!
The thing is, I don't think Mearsheimer has to be completely right, it is enough that his argument is plausible, and it is plausible. Because I feel that official media in the west just doesn't allow this sort of thinking; and I was on with their explanation, and when I saw his lecture from 2015 that was pretty much predictive of the things to come, it made me think, really think. It's great that RUclips channels like yours are having discussions like this, but let's be real, it's niche. After I watched his lecture I watched the news again; 1 day, 2 days, 3 days... Nothing that resembles John's ideas, that deserve being heard, all pretty much saying "Putin is crazy," "Putin is an imperialist," "Putin is pretty much exactly Hitler," that just seems to me too simple, too "great men theory," and on the verge of propaganda really. Putin has to shut up his critics, and anyone calling his war "a war," that's horrible, but it seems like in the west there is no need for that, the media won't dare to say anything controversial on their own, they're censoring themselves it seems. Much more efficient. I just want to hear a discussion like yours, just - where people really see it. The trend that I see is only exploiting the Ukrainian people's misery for ratings and profits.
I can't speak for other Canadians, but personally I've always been positively disposed towards NATO - I was proud that my country was a democracy and that we belonged to what amounts to the world's strongest military alliance. It meant we were safe, and it meant we could be strong when we needed to. Admittedly, these views are the views of a very young man and not particularly nuanced, but I still find myself fighting those urges from time to time. I still WANT to believe NATO is/can be a force for good, and dictators are inherently forces for evil, but as an adult I understand how complex the reality of this situation is. I have no critique of anything you said, just offering a view. When consuming media I try my best to put the information through hard critical filters, but I'm only human and I recognize my bias. Anyway, cheers!
@@bridgeburner6859 We all have biases and it's perfectly ok as long as we're aware of them. The main thing I think is understanding that the world is complex, and seeing the different deities as "good" and "evil" is inherently subjective and probably very simplistic. So we can understandably see NATO as a force for good, but we need to comprehend that the other side doesn't see it that way and when we need to asses their possible reactions to actions "the west" takes, we have to at least try to observe their perspective.
We all could use some skepticism towards the things we see in mass media, keep it going 👌
I had a very similar experience to yours and I've been astounded at how narrow the Overton Window is on this topic. Journalists seem to be trumping scholars who've spent their entire professional lives studying the history and politics of Eastern Europe. It's amazing to me that PhD's like Nicolai Petro and Anatol Leiven are not given a greater audience when they have so much insight into what is clearly a much more complex problem than the mainstream media have been portraying.
Why would any allied country give a platform to a Hitler apologist in 1943? The well of public discourse has already been poisoned by Putin's aggression. We can argue policy after the war is won. Also congrats on one more take which robs Ukranians and Eastern Europeans of any agency.
@@stariyczedun Look, the longer this war gets the more vile Putin seems, he basically already lost and the only reason he hadn't ended it is ego, and as he loses his "solution" is to target more civilians, so yeah I'm not a Putin apologist. Mearsheimer? Maybe, I'm not sure, haven't heard him in a while. When I heard him it wasn't the impression I got. His main lecture on this topic is from 2015 I believe, after Crimea, and he basically warns the west that this war will happen if they continue with the same policies. So these are policy arguments from well before the war, I think that was legitimate discourse for the time. And in the first days of the war the question on everyone's minds was "why?" And given his argument actually predicted the war, I think it would have been beneficial at the time to bring him to the discourse, let him argue his point in the media. Now his point almost doesn't matter, as his arguments are about Russian fears and interests, while the fuel of the war now seems to be, as I said, mainly Putin's ego.
If you really wanna do comparison with Hitler 1943 isn't the right time to choose because again we're talking about the beginning of the war, not how it continues. So I think the more correct comparison would be Czechoslovakia 1937, although there are still big differences between the circumstances.
And of robbing the Ukrainians of their agency I see your point. Mearsheimer does focus mainly on the big global powers. And Putin's mistake was really believing they had no agency, and they had definitely showed him otherwise.
Vlad, I have listened to many of your videos related to Russia's war on Ukraine and have completely enjoyed your open points of view dealing with the facts of history and the present moments. Thank you 😊
As far as John Mearsheimer and his "theories", as a Ukrainian-Canadian I find Mr Mearsheimer to be biased against Ukrainians; he does not give any context of Ukraine history, or any of the long historical violence from Russia and her predecessors against Ukraine, any information or opinions of what Ukraine wants or needs past or present, and promotes Russia from the point of view of a lovesick teenager. I believe he supports Russia, not Ukraine in this current ongoing war started by Russia.
I do listen and read information from a whole variety of "opinions" as perhaps I am biased being of Ukrainian blood. I try to understand "the whole picture" before making my own judgements on topics as important as this one. I tried 3 different videos with Mr Mearsheimer speaking and it was the same rhetoric in all; blame everyone except the perpetrator; and gaslight the facts.
Wars do not just happen out of the blue. There are always a variety of factors in play that ultimately lead to conflict. Some may have contributed more than the others however one cannot blame only one and ignore the rest. Ultimately it was putin's choice to invade and start a war in Ukraine. He holds responsibility for all of the destruction and deaths that followed, including on his own people in Russia, and for the sanctions against him which affect all of us not just Russia, and for starvation in countries that depend on exports from Ukraine, and so on. He had the choice to effect change for his country diplomatically and civilized by working together with other countries involved or the choice to be the cause of a genocide. He, not any other country holds this responsibility. And he needs to be held accountable for his actions. Countries and people, worldwide that have been supporting him and his actions and continue to do so are a contributing cause of all this. The world did not learn it's lessons from Adolf Hitler; and now we have Adolf the Second to contend with.
Another wonderful video Vlad. It’s been a great pleasure discovering you’re channel recently. Thank you 😊
I get the feeling Mearsheimer would have said don't declare war on Nazi Germany just because they have invaded Poland.
And chehoslovakia
He'd try to blame the the allies for making Hitler do it.
I loved your arguments, I thought it was a brilliant explanation!
Greetings from Argentina!
Excellent response. The first point of the gap between cause & justification is vital.
So many good points here.
Two years late finding this, but thank you. I listen to a lot of Mearscheimer but there are many of his arguments that really bother me, and you've vocalised a couple of reasons why.
Brilliant analysis. Thank you Vlad!
Glad it was of value to you! The culture wars on YT about this are so infantile.
I like your approach, even when I now and then disagree with emphasis or conclusions. And you are so calm it makes it easy to think about what you are saying. You promote thought, Vladka. This is a very good thing :)
One issue with the so-called "realist" school of International Relations is that they start from the concept of "national interest". The problem is that it implicitly assumes that there is such a thing as a general interest on the level of the nation-state, which in turn abstracts away all the fragmentation and complexity of the multiple (often opposing) interests that exist among the people, individuals and groups, who live in the territory associated to that state. It could be derived on this high level, by means of this abstraction, as a "scientific" result of IR research, but it is often the perceptions of the government (or ruling institutions) that serve as a proxy for it. I believe you are correct when you question the use of "the Russians see it as a threat". This is likely coming from conflating Putin's own perception with the idea of a "national" perception.
Differentiating between explanation and justification is difficult to achieve because of the inherent uncertainty in the anarchy of international systems where there is no higher authority to turn to. It makes it difficult to determine whether it’s a Chicken Game situation or a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. And countries being concerned for their survival, will always assume the worst case scenario.
Vlad.
I listened to Alexander Stubb, former prime minister of Finland on Mearsheimer. I found it very informative.
Explanation vs Justification is one of the central flaws in Mearsheimer's logic - and the logic in Realist theory of IR in general: there is no justification. Justification is meaningless to Realists. Realism, in its bare form, eliminates all other aspects of causation but Realism's core argument: superpowers behave in a certain, self-serving way in the anarchical environment that is the international stage. Nothing really makes a difference other than than power politics. Personality of leaders is irrelevant to them, internal politics, political culture and even the internal polity of a country don't matter to them. If you ask a Realist if they think that the behaviour of Russia and the behaviour of the US are sufficiently explained by that, meaning that they will always behave the same way, given the same situation, they might just answer they do.
And that would be quite a claim to make.
Fully agree with this video. Thank you, Vlad.
Have just discovered your channel and subscribed. I feel as if I’m back in university experiencing the joy of learning. Excellent. Thank you😊
Really great question, and an excellent response. Thank you both.
Pleasure!!
This is a clash of values. We in the west see our values as eternally good, democracy ceases to be merely a form of government among many and is elevated to a principle. Mearsheimer is correct in saying that rhetoric about rights and values get one into trouble in IR. In IR Might Makes Right.
Because the mightiest country in the world has been and is a representative democracy, there's no mystery why they should seek democratic proliferation elsewhere. The problem is when you bump into other great powers and potential superpowers that hold very different values under very different forms of government than you.
IR is anarchic, there is no higher power than the Nation. Yes, the UN exists, but it holds no tangible authority over the countries except that which it is given. There's a reason US war crimes around the world have not been prosecuted, no one can ever coerce the US. The Third Reich was brought to justice ONLY after a total war and total surrender.
I would agree with you on many points of your comment. And I would definately agree that this is a clash of values. Wheather the value in question is democracy however is in my opinion debatable.
If democracy was the fundamental value in question one would have to ask why the has the West been quite happy to topple many democracies in the past especially in the Latin America and Iran to name a few examples. Also the West seems quite content in being friends with extremely repressive governments in many parts of the globe as long as they work in their favour. And related to Ukraine there was no problem for the West to endonrse a fundamentally undemoctratic regime change in 2014.
I would argue that the values in contention are Globalisation/Nationalism.
@@petteriusima4106 I’m not saying that democracy is the only value, merely that it is one of the values. He brought up the issue of Russia being worried about having a functioning democracy right next to it in Ukraine. He ignores Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. And if we are to take the sea route, Germany and Denmark as well.
Every speech by a western leader in recent days has also acted as if Ukraine was already a stable democracy and it has been independent for 30 years. That fear of a democracy seems skin deep to me. Their speech have also been full of “we believe in democracy, we believe in the international community, we believe in rules based systems,” etc. they’re almost like priestly incantations trying to call them up into existence.
Our main issue in the west is that we are completely incapable of fathoming a world where democracy and our humanitarian aims are not supreme or not contended. We run into trouble so often because large swaths of the world can indeed fathom such a thing, and they live it, every day.
@@aaronfire359 My bad. I was commenting in relation to Mearsheimers points. I misunderstood and in regards to the video I agree with you. The "fear of democratic neighbours" argument is indeed questionable to say the least. In regards to Ukrainian democracy it also seems that for some commentators it has existed only after 2014. And it is a frail thing indeed as Maidan demonstrated.
@@petteriusima4106 what do you mean by globalisation Vs nationalism and how does that pertain to the Ukraine conflict?
@@adrianthoroughgood1191
Suffice to say that anglosaxon-lead globalisation has been at odds with Russian nationalism for a number of years. Western capital domination over nation staes and multiculturalism vs. Russian state domination over capital flows and cultural concervatism. The idea of nationalism has been garnering support in the west as well as we well know.
West can not allow a single country challenge it's domination and unilateral right to decide the global rules. That would set a dangerous precedent as happened with Japan in WW2 when Japans successes led to many countries begin to question the legitimacy and power of western colonial powers even though Japan was ultimately defeated.
Ever since 2014 Ukraine has been a convenient tool for the Anglos to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe.
That is also why this fight is seen by many countries not as a battle between Ukraine and Russia but a battle between west and Russia.
A very brief reply on a subject of which much could be said about but I hope you get the basic point I'm trying to make.
Family of mine in China are saying that Russia is justified as Nato is illegally increasing its territory and that Russia is just defending itself. I disagree with that view.
Your family is right
@@starrynight43451 Nato has not got Ukraine as a member but now because of this, new members will come and I don't blame them.
The truth is simpler: NATO is not "increasing". Countries apply for NATO membership to gain security. And with good reason as we see in this war. Sweden and Finland will most likely be next. As to illegal: illegal according to which law or treaty? There simply is none.
When will Mearsheimer apper on the channel? It seems that the two of you could have a very fruitful discussion.
I suddenly realized that you look like Eminem, so Cool.
Ha ha I get that
You mean Eminem looks like Vlad...
As a 4 yr old in a Australian Country town my mother relates how I confronted a willy goat and stood my ground, never, never allow a bully to win.
Vlad I cant believe Mearcsheimer said that Ukraine not defend itself . They are taking a heavy toll for there stand , while others tremble in there collective boots .
Bravo Ukraine.
Thank you💙
How has this video only 822 likes???
Spot on. This was 100% about having a majority ethnic Russian (in Putin's eyes) democratic, western aligned, and (worst of all) wealthy country
Article 51 United Nations Charter says : Every country has the right to selfdefence i !
Thanks very much for your understanding, very enlightening.
Pleasure - of course this is not a rebuttal but a preliminary discussion.
Mearsheimer is full of beans. He talks as if the people of the former eastern block countries do not deserve have a voice just because the world needs make one man--Putin--happy.
😅 I also have take offence of these "subliminal" enforcers "specialists". They do mass mind greassing to insert decapitilism as an inevitability.
Spin fictions disguised as factual reality... thing is, when one lives in a free society, propaganda sticks out like a radioactive sour thumb.
Wow! Having recently been wowed by the good man I really enjoyed this perspective. Thank you and subscribed!
Pleasure. Do know this is my second channel - the more neatly packaged content is over at the main channel!
@@VladVexlerChat Yes I saw! Subscribed there aswell! Thank you for you!
Thank you for this thoughtful summary of Mearsheimer. He has struck me as one of the most insightful American voices on the dynamics between the US, Putin’s Russia and Ukraine. I found your RUclips voice later and your more nuanced views have contributed to the refreshing sense that we are watching a mysterious drama unfold and not just a drama of some fatalistic march toward unhappiness. This later perception is probably not Meirsheimer’s intent, but it is now my sense that his somewhat “Google Earth” view of things (as you term it) is what contributes to a sense things can only turn out one way and it is not pretty. Keep up your informative vlog!
Brilliant, and thank you for your disciplined open uncertainty, it is refreshing to interrogate the narratives meaning without foreclosure. As a non professional in political theory but as a concerned citizen in a partial democracy we need to learn to choose the best of the flawed options for action. So far I think supporting Ukraine with military equipment is important for us westerners but maybe not the 'no fly zone'.
I think you are teaching me that all future action needs to be put through the 'Nuclear Filter ' understanding escalation is inevitable with a Putin like regime in Moscow. Democracy is the threat to the current Kremlin so we shouldn't 'appease' Putin we have to stand by our belief that informationally free people should have more say in their governance not less...short of WW3!
Thank you for such a thoughtful comment!
@Ralf Matters Some countries, do not want DEMOCRACY, western style,they prefer STABILITY, thats why some, in Rusia and East Europe are nostalgic about a Stalin....western style democracy is incompatible with some countries historical and cultural development
A year on, what are your thoughts on the no fly zone now?
Vlad, I look forward already to your video addressing this topic based on more extensive study of Mearsheimer’s work. I think geopolitics have played a part in getting us to where we are today and I think the thesis that US foreign policy helped shape Putin’s view of the world deserves this extra analysis.
The logic he uses isn’t much different from an abusive husband blaming his wife for his abusive behavior because she made him mad.
I am not in love with using personal metaphors for inter state politics, but yes - it's the psychology of Empire that persists.
@@VladVexlerChat Neither am I, but it was the best one I could come up with.
Completely agree, The problem of using such ideas like Great Powers theory to explain anything, is they are just abstractions. Even worse is they are abstractions over complex systems so there is an inherent unpredictability and randomness.
abstractions can be useful if they synthesize the complexity well enough. that’s what a theory is, no?Complex systems are made intelligible by abstractions all the time, in nearly every field
@@maxbrotman1444 You're right, Abstracton is what makes the world go round. It is what us humans do best. Take my own area of Comp Science. It is one abstraction built on top of another. I'm just troubled when they're misused and I don't think Great Powers is a theory with much predictive power, that is all.
I picture Putin after hearing a Vlad Vexler analysis, asking: "So do I invade or not?"
Gosh!!! I hope the message for him is: get the hell out of the Kremlin. We may give you immunity from prosecution!
@@VladVexlerChat The immunity might actually really be a good idea! And maybe offer Elba to him, although that's maybe too big of an honor for him. In the meantime I'm looking forward to more of your analysis on the whole situation!!
There is a RUclips site with Mearsheimer's name on it, but I do not believe it is actually him, rather a Russian propagandist. It consists of a still photo of Mearsheimer with audio, usually a 2 minute clip, or a couple clips--not necessarily from same real Mearsheimer lecture or interview. The channel doesn't allow comments. Started in June of this year.
Well done Vlad! I have a BA hons in Hispanic Studies from the University of Birmingham and studied the Franco dictatorship that came about after the Spanish Civil War as part of a history module. We studied much of the Iberian peninsular's culture, language and history via the literature and literary movements that prevailed at certain times. The Spanish Civil War was one of the bloodiest and most hard fought of the last century and many literary critics agreed that the loss of the Spanish empire gave rise to a period of rising anarchy, national identity crisis, fascism, religious involvement and self-reflection that culminated in the outbreak of war. This period of about 30 years between 1898 and the outbreak of the civil war in 1936 is evidenced by the output of a group of novelists, poets, dramatists and other artists loosely banded together as the Generation of 98. I have no real knowledge of eastern european history, but similarities with the end of the Soviet empire are definitely there. The end of an empire is always a strange and confusing civil affair and requires a much more detailed analysis than Mearsheimer is prepared to offer. He repeats himself in every speech and interview I have seen, even to the very letter, and this to me implies perhaps a man with an intransigent point of view that is inaccurate at best and at worst divisive and extremely unhelpful.
Yes, his point of view is not only rigid, but oversimplistic for a professor and a scholar, and makes me wonder what makes people treat is as an analysis. It doesn't look like an analysis for me at all; more like re-stating one point of view which for some reason is so consistent with Putin's russia propaganda, which was unthinkable just 15-20 years ago.
Vexler you nail it so hard you could put those builders out of business!
Interested to learn if you have a list of recommended channels (per your mention of Carefree Wandering).
Another question on prospective Nato membership(s) from the point of view of Russia: how about Finland and Sweden? For a long time we've been Nato-ready, I guess, and at least superficially welcomed. The problem was popular support which always polled at around 20-30%. Historically, Sweden has had the tradition of neutralitet, Finland was for a long time in more imposed neutrality and had to resort to crafty maneuvring and sauna (banya) with the Ivan (Finlandization) which also gave us the false sense that we "know" Russians and could benefit from that in tight spots. So, no Nato for us when the Eastern Bloc knew Russia well enough to apply.
But now there's a sea change. YES is polling above 50% by a wide margin in both countries, bringing the people finally on par with the elites.
But the question is: should we try to make it in asap? Russia has previously warned there would be ambiguous military-style countermeasures. But are they spread too thin for long enough? And are we that critical for them anyway? We're hardly in the same cultural, political or economic sphere (although Finland quite foolishly did sign on a nuclear plant with Rosatom just after Maidan... 😰). The only interesting military aspect is that I guess we could easily help block their Baltic Sea route and they don't have a lot of similar until the ice cap melts...
You did clarify some important points....thanks again...and very importantly i wish you the best of health...
Thank you!
I'm looking forward to the follow up.
What about NATO expansion would worry Putin? Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other countries and nobody will be invading it.
NATO is only a threat in two ways:
1. it prevents Russia from subjugating and colonizing its neighbors
2. NATO generally promotes and protects democracy.
3. It derailed Putin's irredentist policy
Ah, this answers my question to you last night. Thanks.
Ukraine is not a democracy by any standard of the three global democracy indexes. It is a hybrid regime with the potential to become a democracy. Also, for Mearsheimer, Putin is not really all that important for understanding the invasion of Ukraine. For Mearsheimer, great power politics is driven by necessity and the objective of safeguarding their "empire" against other great powers. Pushing the Nato alliance to the border of Russia essentially threatens Russia from a great power point of view, as Nato is mainly the US. All other reasons given by Russia are, by Mearsheimer's account, just propaganda, not really the real reason. I think Mearsheimer's theory, to a large degree, is correct.
Mearsheimer is no way justifying the invasion. With all due respect, a lot of his lectures need to be watched, including ones on liberal hegemony. Ideally, also read his books - “The tragedy of great power politics” and “The great delusion”. A lot of things start making sense.
Not sure you are going anywhere. This video said clearly that we should complexify what it means for John to speak of any state action to be justified. I say: take that gap between A being caused by B, and A being justified by B, and for now suspend judgement about it.
I am answering a viewer's question here, and the video is appropriately tailored as preliminary. John's FA article plus recent talk were the stimulus for my comments.
Asking this dude to read a book is useless.
U can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
@@VladVexlerChat well, that's where I was going: according to J.Mearsheimer, A is caused (in part (!)) by B but is in no way justified by it. Nothing justifies wrecking a country and cruelty towards its people. John is a scientist and he doesn't resort to emotions (as he should) but does a heck of a job getting to the bottom of things. The means by which I suggested the same place where I was going could be reached is through reading the aforementioned books and watching other lecture series, including (possibly) the ones on China Rise. The issue in question including many other relevant ones are beyond sufficiently complexified there.
Peace! All the love and power to Ukraine! Stop the tyranny!
The sun painted your appartment with the Ukrainian flag that day, how wonderful!
💛💙
Nicely done!
Vlad - should we not define ‘threat’? What kind of threat(s), whether it’s real or perceived? Do we mean a military/security threat? If so, how is that possible bearing in mind that Russia has the worlds largest nuclear stockpile (and carelessly threatens to use it)? Which country would dare touch Russia?!
Mearsheimer's position seems to make no moral distinction between Russia and The West, nor does he seem to understand that the game of geopolitics is very much about coalitions and alliances that exist precisely for security purposes. Do Finland and the Baltic states feel secure with Russia on their borders? They certainly would not if they were not members of NATO (which is why Finland is now set to join after seeing what Russia just did by EXPANDING into Ukraine, even though Finland has the most impressive military in all of Europe, precisely because they border Russia and Russia has attacked them in the recent past.
With this approach to geopolitics, imagine what this perspective would have meant during WW2 - we don't have to imagine, views similar to Mearsheimer vis a vis Russia today existed as, essentially, apologists for Hitler's Germany at the time. Those views are rightly considered absurd now.
For all its faults, The West stands for Rule of Law and democratic institutions and Russia does not. There is arguably no "Russia" there is simply a kleptocracy that has seized control of the state (that it has never been a democracy in the past is beside the point because Putin had the opportunity to move toward democracy and rule of law and chose kleptocracy instead), and runs it as, at least in part, a criminal organization.
I've listened to Mearsheimer and find his views absurd. It's like listening to leftist Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky, who hate the West and can't seem to bring themselves to live in the world as it is, and only seem to offer criticism on the West when, while far from perfect, it's the best the world has to offer at the moment. It would be one thing if their criticism was constructive but it really is beside the point. They don't understand geopolitics. They have only a schoolboy's bag of ethics.
You’re much nicer/charitable in your phrasing than I.
Beautifully explained. I hope I may quote you.
Of course. I think that was a first go. I think I have better ways of putting all this now.
Awesome video as always. As a westerner I had no idea about theiner workings of russia and kind of its psycology. Thank you, Vlad
Was the follow-up video ever made?
Kotkin dismisses the NATO argument. If NATO didn't exist, Russia would still treat its neighbors like this. As they have been doing for hundreds of years.
I have watched Mearsheimer’s lectures several times. Vlad destroys his logic and reveals his justification for Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Then to say we should not encourage Ukraine to defend itself! I wondered why I had such revulsion at Mearsheimer’s ideas. Vlad explained that to me. He shares Putin’s world view. Distorted
NATO expansion = democratic expansion. In fact, if there’s something even worse than democracy is a democracy that is also a NATO member.
I don't think NATO expansion = democratic expansion but NATO expansion =/= Russian expansion and Putin is reliant on that for the political capital needed to prevent democratic expansion and maintain himself in power.
@@cd8815 and yet in reality, countries that are NATO members tend to become democratic over time. NATO expansion accelerated the expansion of democracy.
@@Ivan-td7kb Counterexamples - Poland, Turkey.
No, countries that are in NATO do not tend to become democratic over time.
@@shalcker3315 are those the rules or are those the exception? Poland and Turkey, for all intents and purposes, are still a democracy, albeit a flawed one.
And being an undemocratic nation as a NATO member is not without its consequences. It’s even written on the front page of the NATO website itself:
“NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.”
"NATO expansion = democratic expansion."
Portugal was a member at NATO's inception; sure, it is a democracy now, but not then. It took another almost 30 years for democracy to eventually arrive in Portugal. I guess it did democratise over time ;-) but not because of NATO membership. However, I take your point as regards NATO more recently, and I agree with your view as regards Poland and Turkey [I'll add Hungary] in your response to Shalcker.
Thank you!
Pleasure
Thank you Mr Vexler for explaining this in an understandable way.🙂
Do not forget also that no one was prosecuted for dropping two atomic bombs over civilians in Japan. And look about the Monroe Doctrine.
Lucas Excellent points.
Payback for Pearl Harbor.
Very good
Putin might as well say "L'état, c'est moi", because for him there is no real difference. It is his fears, and his inability to lead that have bought us here. Although Russia achieved the vertical integration of the politics and economies of the peoples around its borders by ensuring they were de facto dominions, that age is over. In reality, Russia's ability to extend its power beyond it's borders is something that will pass very soon, because it is unsustainable. Putin sees himself as reasserting this power regionally and internationally. In truth, the clock is ticking. Too much damage has been done to the economy and to the people to make such a position sustainable in the long term. Instead of protecting Russia, he by chasing his vainglorious dreams, is exacerbating its decline. And democracy would hasten his. The consequences of the economic reforms of the 1980s have not been addressed, and Putin is using the "dead cats" of NATO and the EU to create various greater stinks, to cover up the stench of his own rule. He's too narcissistic to own his failures, and so must distract, distract, distract. And Ukraine is yet another distraction from the reality of his failures. Russia is a house of cards, with a gambler playing them. Putin's become exactly what he purported to hate, and everyone else is paying the price.
He is psychopath, counterparts are narcissists.
Way to contain post WW1 Germany was to get them to pay war reparations forever and forbid them to have real army. We know what consequences were after that. Similar one are imposed also on Russia. You think is is going to end well for Europe?
I think it’s much more simple; it’s a matter of Ukraine integrating into the west with trade and defense treaties. The more integrated Ukraine is with the west, the further it moves away from its historical and future relationship with Russia.
The thing that bothers me about mearshheimer is the constant talk about ‚what Russia wants‘ but never addresses the fact that Ukraine overwhelming voted for independence from Russia when the Soviet Union dissolved. He is constantly arguing about Russian interests (because of his political philosophy, I get it) but never addresses the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation, who’s sovereignty is also guaranteed by Russia in the Budapest memorandum.
For Mearsheimer, international order and human morality, these things are completely IRRELEVANT.
For Mearsheimer, the entire world consists of countries that are wolves ("great powers") and countries that are sheep (the rest of the countries).
The wolves do whatever they want ("might makes right"), including eating the sheep.
The sheep DO NOT MATTER, their wishes do not matter, because they have no power.
According to Mearsheimer, when a sheep gets eaten by a wolf, it's the sheep's fault for not appeasing the wolf, while the wolf cannot stop itself from eating the sheep, it only does what is natural for a predator.
@@lukebandolino882 apparently you didn’t see what I wrote in parentheses. I know what his political philosophy is.
Interesting that a collective security agreement negates the power dynamic you describe.
What is the gap between "led to ,"and " Caused" ?
Vlad....
Complimenti sei un grandissimo e bravo
STRIZZA CERVELLO
MA FAMMI UN PIACERE !.
Sweden and Finland about to join NATO what a clever man is Putin.
I honestly believe that nato isn't totally innocent in all of this but putin has almost certainly lost the plot .I'm 42 a single working father and for the first time in my life I'm scared for the future
Please don't be scared too much. I think we may need to re calibrate our nuclear risk. But humans live with risk. The risk will be higher now, but if we do well we could keep it low enough.
My proposition ;)
Putin is worried about having Ukraine (and then Belarus) embracing democracy and the EU.
Putin wants the expanded borders Russia have strived for and enjoyed over the last 250 years.
Putin wants to stay in power and war is a good bed fellow.....
I want just to make some observations:
1- John Mearsheimer does not justify the invasion. As a realist in IR, he simply tries to describe the reasons behind the actions of states without making moral judgements.
2- He does not say that NATO is an existential threat for Russia, but that Russia sees NATO as an existential threat. John was clear in saying that it does not matter if NATO is a real threat or not, but what is important is how Russia perceives NATO and how this shapes russian actions.
3- Overall, I think your disagreements with John are because of a different theoretical perspective (he is a realist and you are a liberal, in IR terms), not because of empirical facts.
Point 2 is interesting - if I'm out walking, a person wandering around in a mental health crisis starts screaming that I'm a demon trying to consume his soul, then comes at me with a knife, am I obliged to take his perception into consideration? The reason I ask is because Putin seems utterly isolated and detached from reality (though still very intelligent), particularly after the Wagner rebellion. He's taken to wearing body armour under his suit whenever he appears with other people.