Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine. Five arguments from Alexander Stubb.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- In the 18th episode of the 'Understanding the War', Prof Alexander Stubb responds to the claims of Prof John Mearsheimer about what led to the war in Ukraine.
Prof Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who recently gave a lecture at the EUI's Robert Schuman Centre, argues that Russia had no other choice but to attack Ukraine following aggressive behaviour by the United States and Europe, driving Ukraine, Georgia and other countries on the Eastern flank towards NATO and EU membership. In this episode, Alex Stubb presents five arguments against this thesis.
Watch also: 'The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war', a lecture by John J. Mearsheimer delievered at the Robert Schuman Centre on 16 June 2022: • The causes and consequ...
Read: 'In praise of reality, not realism: An answer to Mearsheimer', EUIdeas blog post by Veronica Anghel and Dietlind Stolle: euideas.eui.eu...
More via bit.ly/3lNanrs
#Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #UkraineWar #AlexanderStubb #Mearsheimer #JohnMearsheimer #USA #America #Europe #EU #NATO #Reaslism #Russia #Putin
Who wants to see a face to face debate between John and Alexander? 🙋🏻♂️
Well, we already had the Sikorski vs Mearshimer Munk debate in which Mearshimer got utterly annihilated.
@@drmodestoesq really? Only if you take populist rhetoric of someone like Sikorsky seriously. He’s a great speaker, but there’s no substance there. He won the debate with Maersheimer the way Trump won the debate with Clinton. This doesn’t mean he was right.
@@alexmood6407 Sikorski won the debate with historical and present facts.
Maesheimer simply started playing his American global chess game. Where he was throwing hundreds of millions of Eastern Europeans under the bus to fight his greater adversary.....which he states, is China.
@@drmodestoesq China? Country on which there’s political consensus in Washington will be America’s main adversary in 21st century.? You’re blaming Maersheimer for stating the obvious.
@@alexmood6407 There doesn't seem to be any political consensus in Washington to throwing Ukraine under the bus to form an alliance with Russia against China.
Indeed, there's an overwhelming political, and cultural consensus to supporting and aiding Ukraine to fight the Russian invasion.
I must admit that you are an interesting speaker.
Excuse me Sir, but I have to ask you something here. Your statement at 12:37 quote "NATO has never attacked another country" !!!
If I remember correctly, NATO under the patronage of the USA bombed Serbia WITHOUT a UN decision or resolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you and best regards.
You are not wrong, he is wrong. I am amazed at how he can utter such a statement under his academic stance. Ruins his credibility for sure. Very biased character he is, as is Maersheimer. But not surprised, given the role of Finland’s certain figures and institutions during the Kosovo 1999 crisis
and then Lybia. and then its role in Afghanistan. It looks like it is about to become an aggressive pact use to "appease" certain people.
That one statement alone loses all the credibility of his full speech😂
@@dancingduckling1435 so you are saying, those attacks on Yugoslavia and Libya weren't done by NATO but only its members countries😂 they only ganged up on those poor countries and say technically we didn't do it??😆
@@dancingduckling1435 What insane mental gymnastics. NATO invaded Serbia, not independent NATO members on their own. That's like saying Russian Federation didn't attack Ukraine. the 26 Russian Republics did.
NATO launched the military operation, using their own military, logistics, and even dubbed it as their intervention. They appointed a NATO supreme commander to run it(Wesley Clark). Your cope/mental gymnastic is the worst i have ever seen.
Can Cuba choose whom they want to be friends with without sanctions
Soviet lost 1989
The citizens of Cuba cannot decide to trade with other countries. The goberment ban's it.
And, if US were Russia, Cuba had been invaded and annexed long ago.
@@kevinfernandez6532 : No need. A weakened Cuba is what the U.S wants in its hemisphere so that it can use Cuba as an example of a failed 'commie' state. No different than a Mafia boss who humiliates an opponent. The same goes with U.S interventionism and the French sacking of Haiti, which also stands as a failed state in the hemisphere; although as a weaker state, the U.S has actually had power to depose leaders like 'Aristeed' in the early 2000's for instance and continue its usual policy of upholding a kowtowing puppet, thus keeping Haiti in a perpetual state of stagnation and poverty.
So true, Alexander Stubb's rebuttal is incredibly hypocritical
lol he didn’t even watch a full Mearsheimer talk
I think I'm wasting my time listening to this guy.. Sir. I think you are one of people who got Ukraine into serious trouble..
just read his name and hear his accent, tells you everything what this man wants
Yes, indeed. But equally tragically, one of the people who is keeping Ukraine in the current and worsening by the day serious trouble.
12:40 fake. Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libia 2011.
All it happens after cold war were ended. And it happens because USSR disappear.
your reference is taken out of context.
Not NATO! You are confusing the UN, the USA and NATO as one! Also Remember USSR/Russia had been involved previously. Not blaming anyone here but these countries mentioned do have recent prior history with conflicts.
@@ianlouden7939 It is a public well known fact that NATO bombed Serbia. Lybia was also a NATO Operation. I see no confusion on Antonio's message.
@@emunozq NATO did not invade these countries nor did it claim them as their own, it is questionable if their involvement was legal or not but as soon as the internal conflicts were over (even if not in favour of the west) they left! These conflicts should have been dealt with by the UN but as is true today the UN needs the backing of all members that it didn't get.
@@ianlouden7939 whether it claimed territory or not is irrelevant. The claim that NATO has not attacked any country is a blatant lie... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
You're trying to counter realism with idealism
Mesrsheimer is all about idiology.
@@tistelnilsson no he was the realist. Even this speaker admitted as much
@@tistelnilsson Not at all. What is logical can still be terrible. Russia is not some random drunkard, it acts rationally and logically even if it means hundreds of thousands of people need to die for it. Mearsheimer gives clear solid reasons to build a logical case to explain why things happen as they do, in which I believe he succeeds. He does so without passing moral judgement or dogmatism. Its not for everyone, most people just like to hear how right they are.. understandable. Doesn't make it true though.
Title should read: Guess if I am biased or not?
guess we can trust hardy finnish guys opinion about russian evil, waaaaay more than some american cowboys who know russia only from trumps and sucker carlsons speeches.
Spot on. But I don't think it is much of a guess.
If, in Stubb' arguments, you fill up the word America in place of the word Russia, you get an exact description of American geopolitics.
To the point. Many (not all) liberal thinking people in the West just can't admit/see how every argument they make against Russia's perceived strategic or geopolitical interest and act is perfectly mirrored by the US and its Western allies.
Someone should read about Wolfowitz Doctrine, only USA is allowed to dominate the planet as the sole super power.
And any means to subdue a rise of rival super power are justified under so called "rules based order" - the rules written by USA for others.
This includes the use of Ukraine and Taiwan as proxy to defeat Russia and China.
That is exactly what RuZZian propagandists do---They swap exactly those two words.
For instance "RuZZia attacks Ukraine!"
They replace it with "America attacks Ukraine!"
It's quick and easy!
😊omg, I entered the comments to write this very same comment.
C but u can’t, bc America is a democracy and Russia is a dictatorship
I think it would be very helpful to all of us if you and professor Measheimer have a face to face debate.
I would doubt that very much. Measheimer is too far gone.
I respectfully think that prof. Mearsheimer is at a deeper level of understanding.
@@hozlopez You would think so, but he makes too many errors to indicate that he does. My guess is that he is too wedded to his single idea of NATO expansionism to see the evidence of Putin's imperialism, which he completely ignores.
@@johnforde7735 and you haven’t a clue. This guy is expressing his opinion which is not based on the fact.
@Matthias Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, when Europe was strongly opposed to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. After the invasion, NATO and the West did nothing. Can't be blamed on NATO, but pure imperialism. In 2013, when Ukraine was looking to join the EU, Putin blackmailed Yanukovych to reverse course, so that Ukraine would be Russian, not Europe aligned. That triggered the Maidan people's uprising and the events after that leading to Putin's annexation of Crimea and starting the war in the Dombas. Even the speech that Putin used when declaring war (sorry, special military operation) on Ukraine, he set out his belief more forcefully than ever before that Ukraine is intrinsically Russian. Then there is Second Chechen War. The list goes on, not enough room here, but do some digging, there is plenty of evidence.
He says in this video “This is not a world where the big can rule over the small.” Does that apply to every Nation everywhere?
To avoid that situation, you want a republic, not a democracy. A pure democracy is majority rule. Like two wolves and a sheep voting as to what is for dinner!
It's complete bullshit. He is a liberal living in a fantasy 21st century world that is somehow fair and where no one rules over anybody. While EU export subsidies destroyed agricultural markets in Africa, while 99% of profits from diamond mining in some African states lands in Switzerland. Common. The West is still exploiting the world, from Iraq to Lybia. But it can't accept when others want the same or even, if others don't want to be exploited by the US
I know. Every century the big have ruled over the small including USA...
Of course that is a complte stupid aseveration. The european powers and USA did that every time.
Go to USA and say that. You will see what happens
Now apply the same line of thinking on Iraqi invasion and tell me to what conclusions you came.
Your trying to make false equivalences between two wars with differing goals, you’re comparing a cherry to a watermelon. You’re also using false whataboutism and finger pointing as you ignore the immediate tragedy at hand.
I oppose wars including the Bush administration’s. But even his bad administration did not aim on stealing Iraq and occupy it as America’s new territory. America went in to support an Iraqi democratic opposition to oust Saddam’s brutal and sadistic reign; and the US left when asked to … Unfortunately, Iraq was so corrupt and volatile, it would have always been choosing between two evils. New elected administrations in the US would learn from Bush’s mistakes in the Iraq war and not repeat it … Russians don’t have the luxury to vote in a new administration. They’re stuck with a corrupt dictator bent on world domination just like Adolf Hitler was. His aim in Ukraine is to destroy, terrorize and occupy the country in the name of expansionism… That’s the fundamental difference between the two wars. So it’s intellectually dishonest to bring up wars that attempted to bring democracy as opposed to wars that aimed for hostile take overs.
Whatever the conclusion, that would have zero relevance to Ukraine.
Zero relevance regarding Ukraine. But that was a nicely framed and decorated way to do some whataboutism ;-)
@@cl4re4d4ms if a group of people in a society stops following the rules, the rest of the society will do that too. rules have changed and preemptive invasions are ok now for everybody.
@@TheDynamicmarket So you are using phoney logic to justify indiscriminate killing - sounds like you are just a massive hypocrite and you probably don’t give a shit about the death of anyone. You are just a fascist barbarian.
Today is the 20th of July 2024,over more than two years since your contribution on You Tube.
Who's right today? You or the Professor?
Clearly him... Putin miscalculated and is now prisoner of his own mistakes.
I stopped at your first argument : "Russia is imperialist ... expansionist"
This apply perfectly to the USA today.
Name one sovereign nation that the USA in its entire history has conquered and planted a flag on.
You can’t because there isn’t on. Meanwhile you Russians in the past 200years have tried conquering approx 22 different sovereign nations… everyone from Finland and Japan to Korea and the aussies. Roflmao…
@@cneuhauser1 Go ahead and explain why the entire population of Native Americans disappeared. America started to expand into Mexican territories which are now Texas and California. US declared war on Iraq for having WMD. No WMD is found. Iraq is bombed to stone age. million people died. Explain that. Russia is basically doing the same thing US did to Iraq. Bombing to the stone age.
@@cneuhauser1 Good guys USA didn't conquer Japan, they just atom bombed them.
@@cneuhauser1 We don't plant flags, we just destroy countries that don't follow our dictates.
@@manashmahanta77 Well I support it as I would probably not have been born if they hadn’t . My father was part of the allied force preparing to attack Japan. It was predicted that it would cost up to a million allied soldier’s lives .
If you’re right about Putin which you’re not.
Why did he approach NATO in 2007 for membership?
Only to have the Americans refuse him.
America has never made good on their agreements.
If Putin distrusts America he has reason to.
Think Hegemony which you have not done you seem to ignore it.
Giving membership and veto power to an entity that actually despises your organization and views it as weak is an awful idea. Just like giving russia veto power in the un security council.
Putin never officially applied sbd did never meet the criteria for membership. Russia has conflicts about territory with several neighboring states.
@@TorianTammas Hi hate sounding like a broken record.
Just think Hegemony the worst Foreign Policy conducted by America.
It goes back to WWII , how many more black eyes like Vietnam and Iraq does America need.
Then there is this maggot Alexander Stubb on why John Mearsheimer is wrong.
He’s a left wing nut on The New World Order.
Here’s why I say this …. all these Davos nuts are whackjobs.
First off he doesn’t even mention the Munroe Doctrine.
The doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs.
This was part of the Cuban missile defence.
America did not like a hostile government so close to her shores.
Kennedy was brilliant but how many know he conceded by removing nuclear armaments from Turkey.
Back in the day Kennedy didn’t want this public because it was an election year.
So how is Cuba ok for America but not ok with the Russians in Georgia, Ukraine or Crimea.
It’s not.
He also neglects to reveal how the Soviet Union was dissolved.
Nor does he mention how four years of political struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev played a large role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On November 11, 1987, Yeltsin was fired from the post of First Secretary of the Moscow Communist Party.
One of the most powerful empires in world history came to a surprisingly peaceful end when the Soviet Union dissolved into 15 independent states. By December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev was a president without a country.
Stubb doesn’t mention that Bush senior weaselled out of concessions he made to Yeltsin in 1991.
Typical of the former CIA Director when Yeltsin made the deal Senior said that was with the USSR he had no agreement with Russia.
Then Stubb neglects to reveal in 2007 Putin applied to be part of NATO.
He was denied because of hegemonist dogma.
So now why does Putin distrust the west.
My last point is Stubb makes a mistake revealing how land was taken from Finland by Russia.
In fact land of his forefathers.
You don’t have to believe me check it out it’s all fact.
Stubb is typical of the Neoleft they omit part of the context to prove their Point.
@@TorianTammas This is BS. Many members of NATO have territorial conflicts and many of them do not meet the criteria. It's just an excuse, lie and propaganda.
We need a whole new set of leaders.
And this sums up why people like Stubb don't fundamentally understand Mearsheimer's realist logic. It's not about democratic or dictatorship, or about personalities or internal political machinations. It's purely about nation states in an anarchic world where there is no higher authority. This is why Mearsheimer's theories are presented in his seminal book as a tragedy, because no matter what time in history, what form of government exists, or how technologically enlightened nations become, this dog eat dog world will always drive states to act in their own interests at the expense of others, sometimes barbarically
No, we need to get rid of all the leaders
@@richardloach610 nah, this nigga is completly wrong on all sides. There is a moral superiority ans it lies in the West. Russia is wrong, dude, because Putin is a fucking dictator
@@richardloach610 We understand his logic, we just categorically refuse it as a method of justification for war since it would drag us all back to 19th century imperialist conflicts where borders shift and massacres are commonplace because "its in our national interest to do so".
@@stephenjenkins7971 Then don't provoke. Don't go into the other's playgrounds.
Prof. Stubb completely misrepresents Mearsheimer's thesis from the start.
Mearsheimer never said "Russia couldn't help itself". What he has consistently said is that Russia felt threatened by the expansion of NATO on its doorstep and that it stands to reason at some point, after repeatedly warning the US that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, Russia ultimately invaded Ukraine. That makes perfect sense. And there's no question that the United States was pushing the expansion of NATO to Ukraine which still continues. Mearsheimer has consistently said that ultimately, Russia's invasion was predictable because they view an additional NATO member on their border as a security threat which is perfectly rational just as we in the US would consider a military alliance with Canada or Mexico or any nation in the western hemisphere as a security threat to America. Any Russian leader would come to the same conclusion. Putin's personal beliefs are not the key to understanding why Russia has taken this action. Mearsheimer has never said that the Russian invasion was justified. The opposite is true. Mearsheimer has said he thinks the invasion was wrong, a mistake and also unwise despite being predictable. Prof. Stubb is creating a straw man here by misrepresenting Mearsheimer's very clear, very cogent and very reasonable conclusions about what led to the war. The US kept pushing the Russians (not just Putin: this was never about Putin no matter how much Prof. Stubb wants to focus on personality over what the entire Russian foreign policy establishment believes). By pretending this is all nothing but Putin's dictatorial personality is unrealistic, ignores the objective facts and is an argument that allows people who want to personalize everything like Prof. Stubb to pretend that states don't have permanent interests that any government led by any personality would try and protect.
Unlike Stubb, Mearsheimer acknowledges that the state of Russia has interests that exist independent of Putin's personality. He never says Putin's personality plays no role, but he does accurately point out that his personality is not the primary reason he unwisely chose to invade Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine is intended to destroy the value of Ukraine to the west and seize more Ukrainian territory that is occupied primarily by Russian speakers in order to create a larger buffer between Russia and the west.
It is self evident that the US' aggressive pursuit of the expansion of NATO was provocative and it is no surprise that by overthrowing the Russian friendly elected government in 2014 and installing a US friendly government that the US was daring the Russians to defend their interests. The US support for overthrowing the Ukraine government was not disguised. Everyone knows the central role the US played in getting rid of the former government by violent means led in large part by the followers of Bandera. Likewise, it is no secret at all that many in the US government wanted this war in order to harm Russia in the long term. Likewise, the Georgian war vs Russia was in part provoked by George Bush's empty promises to defend Georgia so Georgia was more contentious in its relations with Russia but the US had no intention of defending Georgia's hostile moves to Russia.
Explain this then, written in 1993, six years before there was any “NATO expansion” for him to blame:
“Most western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake. A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons”
- John J. Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66
Exactly
Prof. Strub either misunderstands Prof. Mearsheimer intentionally or otherwise.
No he understood him as well as I did! Russia could have coexisted with NATO and anybody for that matter. NATO is military rule based organisation. Russia is a bully and an expansionist Putin wanted to expand Russia and revival of the USSR so he saw NATO expansion as his competition
Clearly misunderstand. He did not know the root cause of war in ukraine. Also he said that nato did not attack other country, i think this professor should investigate first the history.
@@danilolim4831
Nope. He understands Mearsheimer completely. Mearsheimer is simply mistaken.
@@danilolim4831 No, he had what's called a different opinion on the causes of the war in Ukraine.
@@danilolim4831 He knew, he knows, he doesn't care. You see, if Russia did nothing, and Ukraine committed genocide on Russian nationals in Ukraine, and expelled most of them from Ukraine - he and the likes would pretend it never happened.
Similar event already happened, in Croatia. Croatia expelled half a mil of its citizens, because they were Serbs, and wanted independence. What NATO said about it? Nothing. They pretend it never happened. So, Russia learned from history..
Stubb:
"NATO enlargement took place because the countries that had been soviet satellites during the cold war wanted to get extra protection - and for fully understandable reasons - but that expansion was not aggressive: NATO has never attacked another country. Its mere existence has been a guarantee for peace. Now, Putin has used NATO expansion as an excuse." (this video 12:23)
Mearsheimer:
"There are a good number of people in the West who say that it is not an existential threat, that NATO's presence in Ukraine does not threaten Russias survival. My response to them is: I don't care what they think, the only thing that matters is what Wladimir Putin thinks, and if Putin and his lieutenants think that it is an existential threat, then we should be very careful in dealing with him, because he has 10.000 of nuclear weapons." (at 2:14 in video "John Mearsheimer responds to criticism of his Ukraine theory")
Bravo
This idiot is told what to say by the big boss USA or CIA
If I was living next to a neighbor who had a habit of just randomly kicking in peoples houses, killing their occupants and making up with their stuff and he had a gang that helped him do it I wouldn’t give a good goddamn if he swore he was only defensive alliance. I’d be increasingly fucking worried that he’s taken over more and more houses and now I’m right next-door to him.!
@@Mortablunt Now imagine being Ukraine - who is allied ostensibly on good terms or even friends with many of those people in the gang, actually. And your next door neighbor lives in a giant plot of land, with tons of people at his command, and historically he's made a point of doing the exact same thing as that gang, and the gang kinda dances around him a bit because the guy keeps threatening (like constantly) to burn the whole neighborhood down and everyone in it and has the potential power to actually make good on that threat.
Now you're in your much smaller house, stuck between a gang that has a lot of problems, but at least you're buds with enough people in there to be more or less fine with them...and a big mansion with a madman inside that over a bit of time has decided he just kinda owns parts of your house and land, and is constantly at least sabre rattling about taking more and more of it...pointing at the Gang being kinda friendly with you and maybe wanting to invite you into their gang for protection from the big madman, but can't really do it because the big madman keeps laying claim over your house and causing problems in your house.
So you can't join a "Gang" that at the very least is against literally burning the whole neighborhood down because the guy with the mansion and a bunch of power keeps threatening to burn the neighborhood down if you join the gang.
Seems like there's a far greater evil here and perhaps allowing them to just do what they want might cause more long term problems than it's worth. Cause they said they want a lot of the houses next to you, too. They aren't gonna stop with you. They used to own a huge chunk of that neighborhood, basically, and they've explicitly said they want to take it back.
So while the NATO Gang may suck a lot, they usually don't burn entire houses down and threaten to burn the neighborhood down if they don't get their way, at least. Also, it's not just ONE fuckin' douchebag with a stupid amount of power because a while ago he invested a lot in like fire bombs and shit.
This analogy is getting out of hand.
@@nonyabiznaszh148 Your analogy is totally off. NATO overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 and formented Nazism for years to do it. Russia has never say they want it back, Big Boss even explicitly said he DOESN'T want it back.
NATO doesn't demand their way? Have you seen their attempts at "diplomacy" the past 8 years? "GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT OR ELSE!"
Have you not heard of the Middle East? Once upon a time, there was a country called Iran. It held elections and elected a Communist. This made NATO overthrow its government, install an absolutist dictator, and preemptively work to do so to the rest of the Middle East.
And once upon a time NATO's biggest member had a president who wanted to make his friends richer, so he invaded iraq, killed about 2,500,000 people over the next 18 years, and plunged the region into chaos with no strong secular governments to contain the religious insurgent movements left.
What does this guy say about the Monroe Doctrine of the USA, NATO is so peace loving that they destroyed, and I mean totally destroyed, Libya, and please don't start me on Iraq. Before the conflict Russia stated that it wanted Ukraine neutral, not part of Russia but neutral, I wish someone could make my country neutral instead of America's base against China. Another guy who wants Ukraine fighting to the last Ukrainian, he looks fit, maybe he should put into practice what he thinks and go and fight, have a look at the democratic Zelensky is doing, sacking powerful people in Ukraine's government, barring media etc, he isn't democratic. I can see there being another coupe coming, that's right he didn't call it a coupe in 2013 but it was.
I'm glad many ppl. In the comments are awake to the BS these propagandist bastards like to promote. I'm here after I saw the Ukraine Gov. Call the good professor a Russian propagandist. We are literally living in the world of 1984 by George Orwell. These "journalists" and "historians" on the globalists side are the ministry of truth. And will hide the truth whatever it takes. These ppl are psychopaths and elitists. God speak anon.
Codemning Russia doesnt mean supporting US.
Moronic whataboutism at its finest.
@@Kokozaftran but certainly means DOUBLE STANDADS, if you dont mention the other site, which is the hallmark of HYPOCRISY...
@@fanismoutos Correct. It's no good castigating Russia for its supposedly antiquated references to spheres of influence without mentioning the Monroe Doctrine. Moreover, what is the U.S. doing in the Western Pacific, if not denying China's ability to exercise hegemony over its own sphere? Whether they are right to do so is beside the point; what *is* relevant is the fact that the U.S., no less than Russia, operates within a certain geo-strategic frame of reference.
Putin never wanted and planned to stay on borders of North America. The "NATO expansion" has nothing to do with Putin invade Ukraine -- when Finland, with 1100 km border with Russia, enters NATO, what Putin does? He withdraws all capable troops from the finnish borders and sends them to Ukraine. The only reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is to take it over and annex to re-establish the USSR/Rus empire.
Prof Mearsheimer still plays Putin's game with far obsolete stuff even now, after it's been proved that the Z army is sh*t and when the Ukrainians destroy military air bases, munition depots and railways in sacrosanct Crimea:
"And given that the consequences of escalation could include a major war in Europe and possibly even nuclear annihilation, there is good reason for extra concern. www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine
There is no escalation that Putin can do anymore. Putin is waging the war at the max possible escalation since 24 Feb 2022.
*Alexander Stubb is today...as of March 1, 2024...the President of the Republic of Finland.*
"Surviving WW2"? ... Interesting interpretation of "Joining Hitler forces and taking part in Leningrad blockade - killing few millions russian civilians"... And yes, "Every country has a right to choose a club".. APART from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lybia..? You sir have should at least have your facts straight at least...
Russia attacked Finland in 1939
NATO have never attacked anyone. But facts are obviously not important to you.
@@tistelnilsson you see how you used “attack” word. You are not saying “Russia survived pre-war era by moving boarders away” right? Attack. That was my point.
@@tistelnilsson I don’t think I said NATO attacked anyone ? But NATO member countries sure did. Why is this different btw?
YOu're the one who doesn't know the facts! Russia first invaded Finland in 1939. Then Finland lost the Winter War. Then when the Germans invaded in self-defense they joined with Germany to get their lost provinces back. Then they stopped and didn't go deeper into Russia. Then when Russia started winning they negotiated peace giving the USSR part of their territory which the Russians keep till today.
Good morning
My feeling : lacks substance.
Facts i judge absolutely essential like
- the Maidan event was actually a 'coup'.
- Russia reapeateadly emphaized that Nato in Ukraine would be an existential thread
- The brutal Kiev's policy against his own 'russian speaking' population
- The plan from Kiev to launch a major offensive towards Crimea and Donbass (and frankly this one is for me the spark)
- The 20+ biolabs and all the US pollicy in Ukraine
(to name a few)
where just omitted.
Mersheimer looks more convincing to me.
I have a deep sorrow for people on both sides that suffer and die from the ideas and concepts other people quietly discuss.
@North Korea Is Best Korea but in fact it is: weapons, instructors, manuals, training, intelligence data.
Jacques Pirard, to describe the Maidan event a "coup" is wrong. here were two forces fighting about the political direction: the pro-Russian president and the pro-EU majority of the parliament. The demonstratores in Maidan helped the parliament to win this battle, and the president escaped to Russia. The U.S. and UK backed the people in Maidan financially and politically, but also Russia tried to have an influence in Ukraine.
Kiev's policy towards the Russian speaking people was not a very constructive one, but after the provinses of Donetsk and Luhansk had started to rebel, the response done by the Ukrainian army was justified.
I am not so sure about Kiev planning to launch a major offensive towards Crimea and Donbass in 2022, this might well be just pro-Russian propaganda. It is true, that NATO countries trained the Ukrainian soldiers and also some weapons were sent to Ukraine, but not a big amount. To me it sounded like that the Ukrainian government was worried about a possible attack from Russia during the last three years or so. If Russia was worried about the possible attack from the Ukrainian army, only sending some 30000 extra soldiers to Donbass with tanks and artillery would certainly have stopped that Ukrainian plan to be carried out.
There were several biolabs in Ukraine. They tried to develope new better vaccinations. Those biolabs, where they developed biological weapons, were naturally not placed near the Russian border, but in the U.S. or perhaps in Canada.
@@vesakaitera2831,
Thanks for that measured answer.
I would like to have the opportunity to discuss that with you in great detail, but it would conduct us to hundreds of posts and infinite tree. The 'chat' form is improper for a serious detailed and nuanced dialog.
I just intended to highlight some points very conveniently left out of sight by the presenter. And of course each point is tainted with my own interpretation.
Take care
@@YouJJJ1, I agree with You, that this kind of message writing is a bit troublesome for a detailed dialog.
So first 2 minutes he already spent one of themsaying "my opinion is good because of my experience and the fact that I met Putin in person"...
Damn it is so hard to watch! He justifies everything psychologically, then sais any free nation can join any club, forgetting the little soviet cuban missile crisis...
B*** please
What a joke NATO never attacked another country? just to name some: yogoslovakia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.
"yogoslovakia"
Countries in nato being in a country =/= nato being in a country. By your logic NATO landed men on the moon. And the balkans and Libyan interventions were both UN mandates given to NATO, Russia couldn’t stopped them from happening with a single veto. Compare that to russias wars against Chechnya and Georgia and Ukraine
When listening to his point number 1 I thought he was describing the USA or France
He is giving his opinion without really knowing what he is talking about. He should read history
That is whataboutism. Even if you think that the US and France are expansionalist imperialist powers, that doesn't discredit the argument that Russia is those things.
@@somerandomguy6028 There are instances where " whataboutism" is relevant and should be used used to call out the virtue / moral signaling bodies because they are still doing and won't stop doing what they want the rest of the world to condemn. They must lead by example.
@@xena6894 Except that this isn't a conflict between "always innocent Russia vs. Big Bad USA". Rather, this is a conflict between Russia and the rest of the world. Thus, it simply isn't relevant to talk about the flaws of US foreign policy. Since the alternative to Russia isn't the US. The alternative to what Russia is doing is the entire rules-based international order that the world agreed upon post-WWII.
@@somerandomguy6028 i get your point. Except that it's not Russia against "the world" . It's Russia against the West (Nato). If you follow some international news with independent analysts , national analysts , they are continuously debunking this concept of " the rest of the World" . What you mean is Nato/Europe or the West in general. I hope you know what's the current position of India, China, Africa , Brazil , Mexico , Middle East , Caribbean, etc... on the Russia- Ukraine conflict. Analysts says more 3/4 of humanity is encompassed in those geographic areas . Do you still think its" the rest of the World "?. Even news MSM channels are using less that wording with time.
I respect your opinion but do not agree with your assumptions. Personally I believe J. Mearsheimer is correct.
"Russia couldn't help it". Mearsheimer makes no such claim. He merely states that Ukraine is a vital national security interest for Russia. That's a fact.
Otherwise they wouldn't have attacked. This is backed up by testimony by a great many US diplomats, most prominently, the current CIA director William Burns. To dismiss that is ludicrous.
As a Ukrainian why should I and my fellow citizens must suffer for the reason Russia sees my country is “a vital national security interest”? What makes Russian national interest more important than Ukrainian national interest??
@@corporatem7120 Here is reality for you - the world IS NOT FAIR. Asking for a reason why you and your cuuntry may be handed a bad hand of cards is quite stupid. Reality is what it is. THAT SAID: Because you VOTED FOR IT. The Trans Clown Elynski brokw the Minsk accords. Which would have avoided it all. Signed by your government, in fraud, betrayed by your government. Why Aare YOUR interests more important than the live of the innocent russian origin UKRAINIAN citizens in Donbass and Luhansk that YOUR govermnment has been killing for years, in nice Nasi tradition of ethnic cleansing. THAT IS WHY.
@@corporatem7120 the same reason why it is in the US' national security interest to have Canada and Mexico as allies. The same reason why it is in Canada's and Mexico's national security interests to have the US as an ally.
@@Arshahan Which question of mine did you answer? Sorry, I am not clear.
@@corporatem7120 your question was: why should Ukraine "suffer" because Russia sees your country as a "vital national security interest"? My answer is: the same reason why Canada and Mexico "suffer" to be in US's "vital national security interest".
I don’t think this poor man has heard of Victoria Numan .( Nuddleman) or Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea , Libya, Syria 22:00 , Iraq, Rwanda etc.
What do you expect.. he is petrified of Russians and a good example of the modern transformer 🤣
He's her buddy!
Everybody has heard of the Nuland call. But only brainless Russian simps believe everything Putin says so it’s not worth bringing up
What does Rwanda have to do with this?
Have you? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, except having seen some Kremlin propaganda that Victoria Nuland is some kind of supervillain, which she obviously is not.
It's easy to say than any country has the right to join the club they want (as if NATO was some kind of golf club...), but by the same account, why the west (U.S. and their acolytes) had to intervene in Ukraine for a change of regime?
They didn’t? Ukraine had a revolution as a directly result of their heads of state betraying them by going back on their one promise to join the EU and tying the country completely to Russia
@@ravenblood1954 Didn't they? Well, it seems to have been admitted by V.N. herself. That why it is called a coup, not a revolution. That is not to say that the previous regime was an example of integrity, but let's call the things by their names.
I object to your premise. You seem to minimize the action of America when it comes to Cuba,
which to me is the total contradiction of what you're claiming is the correct rules-based world order. Why is it that the consensus is that what America does is permissible in its own sphere of influence. And there's no doubt that America feels it has a sphere of influence and exerts its will on the smaller Nations within.
"It is about international law it is about sovereignty, it is about independence" you really must be joking. Either you're completely blind or you living on another planet.
Fully agree with you
The guy is just out of touch of reality and pretty arrogant in a stupid way
Guy's have many times was your country attacked by neighbour, that is by words of your commrades, peacefull and haven't attacked anybody in their lifetime?
Just asking you know, last time russian come to frew us, and protect us. They forgot to leave for another 23 years. And we had to make a revolution and than forced them to leave.
He is living in Finland :0)
It is not very reassuring to know that European countries are being led by people who are so shockingly uninformed... or so brazenly untruthful. Either way, the fact that he is the ex-Prime Minister means that the people obviously elected him out, which is a good turn of events and offers some hope for the poor European people.
Was it not Biden who cut off the diplomacy for avoiding the war? Your take on sovereignty re Iraq, Libya, and Syria? How do you understand Biden's comments "Killer", "Thug". The aggressive expressions of contesting China? The armed actions at the Maidan that led to regime change? Would like to hear Stubb's theory as to why Russia went into Syria
Putin is a killer and a thug. Fascist as well, its like the only thing Biden said that was correct.
Syria had a civil war which was completely separate from Nato
@@sababugs1125 What happened in Ukraine, the Maidan, the same happened in Syria, three letters: CIA.
@@annerajakontu4865 yeah CIA , they live Inside your walls
@@sababugs1125 Maby
What is missed is a historical overview since minimal 1989.
Way too simplistic. Disregarding important background events. How many military bases outside its country Russia has compared to the US? Who is imperialistic then? This is propaganda.
You mix up the US and NATO. How many military bases does NATO have outside NATO member states?
@@sampohonkala4195 You're hairsplitting or just plain naive. What you mean is that the US has nothing to do with NATO.
@@pencilchase4920 No, that is not what I wrote. But you are obviously referring to NATO military bases as US military bases which is simply wrong. Moreover, your definition of imperialism is odd. Countries join NATO, a military alliance, for their own safety. They are not conquered or forced by the US to join. That is not imperialism. It is arguable if it even increases the power of the US, as its obligations to defend other countries is on the rise which actually limits the actions the US can or can not take.
Half truth is equally or more dangerous as the outlie lies
outright lies, you mean.
Goebbles said as much, but in his case as a nazi he saw that as a good thing.
Ukrane has attaked russians first 😅
Totaly agree
@@abdel57quaddi80pure bullshit Russia annexed crimea in 2014 the Ukrainian army was too weak at the time. ask yourself why would Ukraine endeavor to join NATO
Nato attacked Yugoslavia in 1999. You are wrong on that statement
Not from sick expansionist desires, however. Rather it was to stop a genocidal regime and an active pogrom. Or have we already forgotten about Srebrenica?
@@AtanasNenov German documentary "it started with a lie" It's on youtube to watch for free. Srebrenica was not a genocide. It was a terrible massacre and a crime against humanity. It is only genocide if you look at the Hague definition of the word - a court from which the US is excused. Under that definition, US has been committing uncountable genocides since WW2. Reason Srebrenica is not a genocide is because there were multiple documented attempts by the Serbs to evacuate civilians out of Srebrenica so the Serb forces can go in peacefully. 2 years prior, Naser Oric (Bosniak) was assigned to massacring surrounding Serbian villages in the most brutal fashion which was a big part of why the massacre happened (unjustifiable still). Dutch documentary "Srebrenica a town betrayed" goes into other vile details that involves interviews with Bosniak survivors of Srebrenica including the Srebrenica chief of police to whom Izedbegovic openly said that he needs to sacrifice Srebrenica for the Bosniak cause. Cherry on top is that Naser Oric didn't even defend Srebrenice and was released from the hague. The guy is now an instagram influencer.
@@AtanasNenov Srebrenica occurred in 1995, four years prior to NATO's bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia.
If you want to know why that particular NATO operation was flawed from the start, please read Michael Mandelbaum's essay " A perfect failure", from the October 1999 edition of Foreign Affairs.
@@scottbuchanan9426 Srebrenica was one of the many indicators that Serbia had intentions to commit a *second* genocide in Kosovo, hence why NATO stepped in...so the actual genocide could not come to pass, there is plenty of evidence that shows Yugoslavia's intentions.
@@alekzgavriel-russo7453 Sorry, that's unjustified. You don't engage in military action because you *think* another genocide *might* occur in future.
Again, I can only recommend you read Mandelbaum's Foreign Affairs essay to see why the operation was flawed.
"NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO."
-- NATO's Final Declaration, Bucharest Summit, April 3rd 2008
And if you’re Russia, this would mean an army of 4 million anti-Russia fanatics with two axes of attack directly into your heartland.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
NATO is in the hands of a small minority who is intent on destroying Europe through mass migration and having Eastern Europeans attack Russia so they can control the world.
@@Mortabluntlol no
This guy did not convince me at all, in fact he made me think Mearsheimer knows more about the history than this guy who lived a tiny part of it.
Have yall notice this man deliberately ignore 2014 coup and the constant shelling of the donbass region
A coup is when the military takes power, in Ukraine in 2014 they held democratic elections. As for the conflict, the same day that the newly elected parliament convened Russia seized checkpoints and took control.
I have indeed noticed how he conveniently does that. In my lengthy reply to his argument I did not mention that additional fact, but it is revealing.
Except, that "coup" is already confirmed debunked.
The rules you spoke about around 10:00 of international relations don’t exist. And they would exist, its not just Russia neglecting those though. I don’t trust anyone who speaks just for one side. Both sides are wrong!
So you think Ukraine deserved to be invaded?
As of today, 11 July 2022, Ukrainians are bombarding Russian ammo and command and control sites in occupied Ukraine. Those attacks, being accomplished with the help of Western intelligence, and Western material support, are seeking to enforce those "rules" you claim do not exist. The Ukrainian government have communicated with its citizens in occupied areas such as Kherson to evacuate because of an impending offensive to re-take occupied areas; assuming those offensives take place, they too will constitute efforts to prove the existence of such rules by enforcing them.
It is certainly true that rules only "exist" to the extent that people are willing to enforce them, but a major point of Stubb's talk is that, Putin severely miscalculated in presuming that NATO and the West would not seek to enforce the "rules." Helping Ukraine to crush Russian occupation is precisely what that is: seeking to enforce the rules.
We shall see whose enforcement turns out to be final, but unless Putin resorts to the use of nuclear weapons (in which case, no one will "win" anything), his prospects do not look particularly promising at this stage.
You mean that you do t want them to exist because you have a debt to settle with a group of people. Lol Real mature…
@@brucemcmanaman5364 Did Ukraine live up to the terms of the Minsk agreement?
@@kenneth.topp. Not according to Putin, but what is he doing in Ukraine in the first place violating borders of a sovereign nation?! Criminally annexing Crimea. Arming and setting up puppet states...
Lots of Russian sympathizers commenting. He must have struck a nerve.
John Mersheimer has 30M+ views. Looks like the saltiest mofo is you alongside this dbag here who's speaking shit bout JM rather than debating him
When it becomes obvious that mainstream media is parroting government messaging, you are forced to look elsewhere for the truth and when you discover that the reality is completely opposite to that which you were fed, you become cynical, untrusting and more sympathetic towards those you were told were the enemy. You begin to dig deeper and learn how Billions of dollars of propaganda funding has demonised leaders, nations and alternative views to the One World Order agenda, all for the purpose of making it possible to justify actions like sanctions, insurgencies and wars. You also learn how that funding is used to justify the existence and growth of organisations like NATO and it's ever more aggressive role in conflicts outside of Europe, how the American Military Industrial Complex requires a constant stream of conflicts and wars and how NATO is part of this. More and more people are digging deeper, that would explain the growing band of Russian sympathisers world wide. I hope I have struck a nerve that could lead you to also dig deeper.
Are you guys able to debate without calling names?
@@jutsu1 I think you must have misdirected your comment, there is no name calling in these replies. If identifying organisations is what you refer to as name calling, then how can you accurately discuss a matter.
@@sportsfanivosevic9885" Russian sympathizers" is name calling, used to shutdown debate.
Prof. Mearsheimer was right in almost every point.
He didn't mention that time half a dozen other reasons why Russia shouldn't allow Ukraine to join NATO.
Well now Russia has forced Ukraine into natos arms so great job
@@L0kias1 look up the 2008 Bucharest NATO meating, George W. Bush's announcement, the phone conversation between Victoria "F... the EU" Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt *before* the "Euromaidan" and the coup in 2014 and learn.
@@L0kias1
I would say that Ukraine is probably not feeling too comfortablle in NATOs arms.
They were promsed , all it takes "as long as it takes".
Now NATO is loosing the Ukrainian war and will soon stop sending money and weaposns
Classic NATO move. The proxy nation is soon on their own.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dead ,because NATO demanded that Ukraine keep on fighting ,even after Ukraine had negotiated peace with Russia in Istambul.
There are many ways to be in anothers arms. Sometimes the one that is holding you will brake your neck.
NATO is braking Ukraines neck.
NATO is not a organisation like many think ,it is the European branch of the US army.
Finland has no say in what is done. Their role is to take orders. Same goes for all European countries.
That is why this akademic is only spewing the US fake narrative and nothing else.
There are few things that irretate me more than a academic that talke lies for political reasons.
It is the role of politicians to lie. Akademicks role is to be truthful.
@L0kias1 Ukraine is not a member of NATO and despite bullsh*t promises of NATO membership at some point in the future it will never happen! US Congress won't even release $60bn to save Ukraine at this critical time, also EU €50bn is being withheld by Hungary's veto. So the idea Ukraine is on a path to NATO membership is nonsense, exactly the opposite is happening and everyone not brainwashed can see it clearly
@@zoltanbarath7371Precisely. People somehow act, as if now "Putin", (and always singeling him out as if the entire Russian elite does not support him) has pushed Ukraine and Nato together. As if that wasn't already happening.
The truth of the matter is, the West and Ukraine, were constantly flirting, disregarding the warnings from Russia. And I love how Mersheimer puts it, if the situation was reversed, and Mexico was flirting with an alliance with Russia, you can bet the farm that the US would have invaded Mexico. These people's "world building" of Good and Evil, painting the world in black and white and then preaching, is so naive, I find it unbearable. Can't even listen to western news anymore, and this coming from someone born and raised in the west!
Invite John to your program to debate if you are not afraid to get humiliated publically. You start off by saying that Russia has imperialistic ambitions but don't provide any evidence that they have the money or the world political influence to become one. Russia is not the Soviet Union, it is relatively a poor country compared to most industrialized countries. John has mentioned countless times that Putin might want to recreate the Soviet Union but it is simply not possible and Putin knows this.
I think you're correct that mr putin knows he cannot recreate the ussr. However he can create a light version of it with land grabs. Or at least suppress his neighbors that are democratic leaning, but not members of a military alliance. This is based on his pattern of previous actions. In addition we know that mr putin abhors the chaos of democracy based on his heavy handed domestic oppression and downright murder of those who will align with his views. All of this points to the imperialistic, almost instinctive defensiveness displayed by russian leadership thinking poor, poor russia, everyone wants to invade them or take their resources. This simply isn't true.
I trust Mr stubbs analysis because he has personally experienced dealing Mr putin while Mearsheimer is an academic. All of us whove been around a while know that academia and analytics have their weight, but there is no substitute for experience.
💯
And that’s exactly the problem. Russia seems unable to come to terms with her own irrelevance. She wants to be a “superpower” in Europe in the XXI Century. A bit late for this kind of things. Unfortunately the guns she has are as destructive as the XIX Century’s ones were.
So personally I believe Putin went in the wrong direction with all those natural resources he could have built the world's greatest education system and transportation system the the borders of Russia are so huge that the transportation problems are gigantic I mean he could have done a lot of money put a lot of money into you know what's called ultra super fast trains etc etc instead of it's well documented that they took a trillion dollars out of the economy putting it in his oligarchs and followed the money to themselves...
@@nunyabusiness863 You can't be an imperialist country with small land grabs. On the other hand, the US has immense control around the world through military operations including NATO, Western media/culture, and neoliberalism, and thus is a modern imperialist country. China is the only country that can challenge the US in terms of a future imperialist country as it is having political and economic influence in many developing countries.
Is it up to Cuba to be sanctioned by USA since 1960?
Why do you lie?
@@tistelnilsson lol he not lie
The US can chose to trade with anyone they wish or NOT TRADE with anyone they wish. The US is not attacking Cuba, but Russia IS attacking Ukraine.
@@dfsdffvdsvsdfdsfsdfillegal sanctions is an attack on the freedom and sovereignty of Cuba..
"NATO has never attacked another country." Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Russia and Yemen. Facts matter, get some.
You confuse countries being in an alliance and declaring war on someone, with the entire alliance declaring war on someone. Nuance matters, get some, propagandist.
Thats right… also Sarajevo did NATO attak. Just because Finnland is jojning NATO, Finnland shoud not look for pro-NATO arguments, claiming to be a only Defensive-Allliance
@@matthiasmoor5180
By the way: Hitler and Stalin were allies in 1939-1941 when they both attacked Poland to start WW2 (Molotov-Ribbentrop).
I fundamentally disagree with Alexander here. The argument I would put forward is hypothetical in nature but nonetheless serves to illustrate Russia´s behaviour. Imagine that Canada or some geographically connected state to the US decides to abandon liberal democracy in favour the alternative. Say that China, it being the fastest growing superpower, creates an alliance of members on the basis of "defense". However this alliance has done things like bombed another country without international approval from an international institution which could present itself as not being really defensive. Canada views the beneficial relationship with China and decides to enter into its alliance at the dissaproval of the US. Now Canada can house Chinese militarized equipment on the border of the US. Do we seriously think that the US would NOT respond? We can also highlight the real world example of the Cuban missle crises where both the USSR and the US were in an arms race. The US had put missiles on the border of the USSR and in response, the USSR did the same in Cuba... It was ok, to the US at least, that they have missile on the border of the USSR because every state should be allowed to self determine; it wasnt ok however, that the USSR do the same and in fact the US made a huge fuss about it... eventually it sizzled down and we avoided a serious catastrophe. The point is, Russia isnt this state disimilar from the US... In fact, provided similar circumstance, as pointed out in the hypothetical scenario, the US is likely to act in a similar capacity when it feels it is in direct threat to external entitites. Even if you argue from the "well putin wants to maintain power as an autocrat" you still find yourself in a realist scenario where achieving those ends would have to entail the engagement of power politics. So no matter the scenario, Putin is engaging in power politics whether it is meant to protect the state, his status, or some other interest. I think a lot of people deflect the expalantory power of realism in international relations because they want Putin to seem like this otherwordly person who is bent on destruction rather than just being another state engaging with other states in the international arena without any higher authority. Additionally, mentioning the Maidan without acknowledging the phone conversations with Victoria Nuland tries to frame it as an act that occurred naturally rather than being backed by the hegemon. Id imagine if Russia backed a coup in Canada, then the US would view that as an external threat also.... He also ignores how the US has fundamentally broken the "rules based system" on numerous occassions yet it doesnt receive the same backlash as Russia has despite Russia not nearly being as aggressive internationally. The US was behind Kosovo, Syria, Libya, several regions in Africa, the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and on and on the list goes... yet somehow Russia is the worst of them all. Im sorry but I cannot buy what the arguments put forward by Alexander.
@rcsverige, but we Finns can buy the arguments put forward by Alexander Stubb, and so elected him to our next president in last February. Keep in mind, that we Finns have been neighbours of the Russians for 1200 years and over 100 years from that time an autonomic Grand Dutchy as a part of Russian empire. There have been some good years between us, and the statue of tzar Alexander II is still standing in the best place of Helsinki, in the middle of the Senate square. But on the other hand threre have also been 34 wars between us. So we have to sleep with a rifle under our pillow all the time. And with Putin's aggressive and imperialistic politics this situation will certainly not improve quickly. Glory to Ukraine ! Glory to the heroes !
Since when has NATO become a Club?
Since day one…
Mearsheimer is right
I'm just two points in, but I'm shocked by the weakness of these first counter-arguments.
You can look up the Bucharest Declaration and see that signatories agreed to language that "Welcomed Georgia's and Ukraine's Nato aspirations"
European critical thinking has really gone downhill 🤦♂️
Or due to American Coercion.
@@HerkBrianH Europe are America's lapdog
@@manashmahanta77 anything supporting American hegemonist nonsense is an American lapdog or whipping boy.
Same thing in Syria with supporting the rebels.
For the love of God do we loathe Russia that bad.Stubb is a typical Davos Whackjob he neglects to mention the Munroe Doctrine which was the basis for the Cuban missile crisis.
Somewhere here I have chronicled the events. To ignore them you would have to be stupid or blind perhaps both.
I listened to Condy Rice the other day how disappointing to hear her support this hegemonist dogma.
You know you hear this Deep State thing it’s alive and well that’s how ingrained hegemonist rhetoric is in America Foreign Policy on either side of the aisle.
@Aditya Chavarkar abey sutmarani, baperor koti mar toi
@Aditya Chavarkar It should be clear to anyone that Liberal Hegemony was a failed American foreign policy.
Guys like the good professor here believing in the WEF are followers not leaders.
The great reset is also nonsense.
(1) Begins with a straw man argument. Mearsheimer has not claimed that Russia 'had no choice but to attack Ukraine' nor that it 'could not help itself' - simply that it was a red line for the Moscow elite that was well known in Washington and that the Russians view Ukrainian neutrality as existentially crucial to their national interest. That is not AT ALL the same.
(2) Continues with a simplistic and chauvinistic smear against Russia and Russian history.
(3) Hilariously he goes to on to describe not the psyche of Russia but that of the USA - which is endlessly paranoid about 'external threats' - which has led to ceaseless violent meddling and invasions of other nations for 70 years!
(4) Then another straw man argument - Mearsheimer never claimed that Russia was 'defending itself from Ukraine' anymore than the bay of pigs was about the USA defending itself from Cuba - but from long range NATO missiles on Ukrainian soil.
(5) Then a circular argument - he references his own straw man argument as evidence that Russia 'had absolutely no reason to attack' - not even allowing Russia to have its own legitimate perspective that deviates from oven ready western assumptions.
(6) Another straw man argument - again Mearsheimer never claimed that Putin was making rational choices - simply understandable and predictable ones that were not made alone but with the full support of Russian elites. Thus Mearsheimer blames the west for a wholly avoidable disaster.
(7) Another circular argument that for the most part relies on highly questionable assertions. Stubb deceitfully muddles both the case actually made by Mearsheimer and deliberately invites the listener to blur 'rational' with 'moral'. Slippery!
(8) You cannot have 'irrational outcomes' - what on earth does that even mean?
(9) Now typical demonization of Putin.
This is truly trash. 6:27 was enough for me.
People who want to believe this Trumpian nonsense will. Those who think about for a few seconds will laugh.
and this guy was Prime Minister?
You haven't watched the presentation he refers to. But losers and lairs like you still comment.
I also bailed, at about 5 minutes, talk to a Finn for 5 minutes and they will start propounding strange racial theories about the Russians, it's a national tick.
Your right about the straw man, it's worse than that, he misrepresented John's argument, he is a politician after all.
I hoped for a coherent rebuttal of the realist argument, as I would like to hear a valid alternative, this fraud of an academic could not supply it. Thank you for your dismantling of his thesis.
Criminal like of likes, here's one at least.
While Stubbs is very pro europe and therefore biased, Mearsheimer is quick to blame the usa and the west because his view is without emotion or morals. He is biased as well. That type of thinking is in a bit of a vacuum and omits that mr putin and the russian people have emotions(read the comment section and you'll easily see this). He has a great sense of pride and legacy as all leaders do. This view is also not as considerate of the citizens of ukraine and what they want to do, therefore almost justifying putins actions.
To think that this was all avoidable is foolish. Was the westvsypposed to give in to putins demands, essentially retroactively rolling back nato membership and their privileges. Stubbs said the 'finlandization' narrative is almost offensive to him because it essentially means neutering your nation. Some peoples find this unacceptable. I've never had a neighbor who was a bully so I wouldn't know, but I tend to trust his testimony because he has experience. As opposed to an academic thousands of miles away who has analytics. There is no substitute for experience.
@@nunyabusiness863 I reject the Finland comparison too, Russia has not wanted anything from Finland since WW2. Ukraine was in a different position. However the current Ukrainian government has pursued a course which has made war almost inevitable. Russia interest in Ukraine would be eternal as long as Russia wants to be a great power, how to balance that? The west has lead Ukraine on, but during this war they have not given Ukraine the help they need to actually win the fight, and they will not help them directly. What to make of that? My reading is they understand Ukraine will lose, but they intend to make Russia bleed for it. It's a game and the Ukraine will be ripped apart under the pressure of the two powers. A more intelligent leadership would have seen the trap and tried to maintain good relationship with the two camps. It is a tragedy the Ukrainians living in now.
I will just say I do not support or condone Russian actions, I see them as an illegal land grab. But I will also say the US and certain European countries pursued this course even thought they new what might happen to Ukraine, careless, thoughtless and stupid.
@@nunyabusiness863 What your view lacks is context and pragmatism. Russia is an economic and military superpower - one of three in the world. If you share a land border with such a superpower then a degree of pragmatism is called for.
The USA would not tolerate a Chinese or Russian military alliance on its borders in any circumstances but has tried to bring Ukraine into a military alliance despite being well aware that Russia would not stand for it.
As impossible as it seems to the self congratulatory western narrative - other nations do not share the view that NATO is a defensive organisation or that it can be trusted.
All Russia has ever asked of Ukraine is neutrality - but Zelensky took a belligerent stance towards Moscow, has brought catastrophe upon his nation and risks nuclear war.
Mearsheimer merely puts the blame for this disaster where it belongs.
The morality of it rather depends on who gets to set the narrative and claim the crown of the good guys.
I see no good guys here - just two gangs of Mafioso using Ukraine and its brave soldiers as a proxy and sacrifice zone.
Neither side should be awarded the moral high ground and I weep for the suffering of Ukraine.
How do you feel about the US invasion of Iraq, et. al
I feel the Kuweiti people were very happy that Iraq was kicked out of their country
I am sad that the USSR invaded Finland, Estonia, Lavtia, Lithuania, Iran twice, Afghanistan, Hungary in 1956, Chechoslovakia a bit later
no response bc according to this professor nato ain’t never invaded nobody
@@a55tech please point out ONE square mile of territory annexed by a NATO member during a NATO invasion....
Russia is not just invading Ukraine but also ANNEXING their territory.
Try to deny the Crimea annexation.
No. No. I said no! I did not ask for a justification! I only asked you to deny Russia has annexed Crimea
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 bro I will give u 1 shot to show that u not a troll. Annexation of Crimea is a simple fact that nobody denies. But if u stop there then u kinda naive. Do u know how Crimea was ever part of Ukraine?
And more importantly, the question is about attack not just annex. NATO knows how to annex without officially annexing. It's not black and white. U think NATO members are as independent as non-NATO? Not quite. But it fools those who don't pay much attention to international relations.
@@a55tech truth does not scare me, but if that surprises you, then you misjudged me. The simple truth is that it was gifted, as a gesture of good will from Nikita Chrustev to Ukraine, maybe because of the Holodomor that happened under Stalin who ruled right before him, and maybe due to his Ukrainian wife.
But whatever the reason, a gift is not a loan...
And if you want to claim it was still part of Russia, then why did Pravda wrote this: "Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."
Either they spoke the pravda and it was a gift that could not be taken back, let alone violently, or they were just printing as they were told and are likely to do the same today
If gifts can be taken back, then might I take back violently the knowledge that modernized the Russian fleet under Peter the Great? Sure, Russia build more on those foundations, just like Ukraine build more in Crimea on Russian foundations. You took back the Russian foundation plus everything the Ukrainians build on it, so we would like the entire Russian fleet that was build on tje foundations we laid for you. You can sail them into any Dutch port.
You got one thing right: Nato countries are not as free as other countries. Take Poland for example: if they had not beem Nato, they would have sent their airforce and army into Ukraine months ago. Good luck explaining Nato holding back Poland as agression....
Listened carefully. But Mersheimer is way more convincing.
No he's not. Mearsheimer is a Kremlin stooge.
@@Azdroc96No he is not, this guy is a US stooge.
See what this name calling get you?
.
Alexander points out that Russia is historically imperialist, but at the same time misses the fact that the West and the United States are at least as much.
NATO is expansive, and not always so peaceful-minded, and has its main opponent in Russia/Soviet Union.
From a Russian perspective, therefore, there is cause for some concern.
from a finnish perspective he is of course understandable.
Alexander sees the Euromaidan coup as something completely unproblematic and fine, but at the same time forgets that large sections of the population in the south-eastern parts of the country opposed that development. It is these contradictions that have lain dormant for eight years, and which also form the basis of the invasion itself.
It is seldom the fault of only one party that conflicts arise.
It's not so complicated. Saying 'NATO attacked noone' is an obvious falsehood and no one in NATO should wriggle round that way, lest you be like Lavrov the lapdog, or similar.
NATO is not expansionist in the way that Putin/Dugin's 'Greater Russia' is. Not even close. It is defensive in intent.
The biggest problem is that you have to be really un-PC, almost George Bush level un-PC (but not quite since you can be this way and not be a trigger happy guy) and say that there is no equivalent between Soviet fought wars (of which there are many) and Western fought wars (of which there are many)
This is the actual truth.
Look at how in leaked documents from the CCP, Xi Jinping said that China should use the same tactics as America in defeating the the Chinese version of the War on Terror, as soon as he experienced Islamic extremism himself.
Yes, Xi Jinping, a man from a Soviet family, talks of waging a Western type of war. Although he doesn't talk about it the same way, he is talking about a 'war of freedom'
He says that extremist Muslims need colour in their lives, to do art and play sports and talk about interesting topics rather than thinking of the most stone age gods and how to act like stone age characters from a book.
Xi Jinping is talking about fighting for freedom, exactly as the West does.
The issue is that Soviet countries live inside their own system, so it is harder to grasp that nearly everyone sees the Soviet world, in exactly the same way they see the extremist Islamist world, as a faeces, vomit and puss filled toilet, which they would never choose to live in.
This is because they learned the freedom of speaking their mind, and will never go back to King's and Tsars. They will break the skulls of dwarves like Putin, should he ever try to achieve his 'Greater Russia'.
Now, this isn't to say that NATO should have no self-awareness. Obviously I am saying the opposite of this.
NATO must acknowledge that approximately half of the world doesn't, and can't, think logically and empirically (not that there is no metaphysical side of life, just that many people chose the most stone age spiritual ontologies)
Russia is in this category as it places small, runtish dwarves, with true metaphysical belief in their divine power, who were elected by blowing up the apartments of his own people, to superhuman status.
To reiterate, NATO is not expansionist in the way that Dugin/Putin's 'Greater Russia' is. Therefore, you must merely hope and make every assurance that NATO matures, going forward, and uses its vast resources for understanding the world around it.
It is not un-PC to say that half the world has stone age, arcane beliefs which creates the need for simple in mindset, extremist hard men.
But NATO needs to develop all the tools, yes all the tools, for dealing with these people, from diplomacy, to building alliances around the world, to building parallel structures where autocrats threaten democracy, to creating pockets of truth and understanding and discussion around the world, and many more things before warfare arrives, as the last option.
If this requirement of defensive warfare comes, and if the Soviet tries to create its 'Greater Russified Soviet empire' there can be no PC around at that point. At that point it becomes necessary to crack every single skull which believes in creating Alexandr Dugin's fantasy world.
NATO is not expansive. Russia is expansive. Russia send soldiers and annex land. This is the way how ou become part of Russia. But NATO is growing. Country hahve to ask to become part of NATO and can be refused. Do you understand the difference?
Probably you read more into this conflict than I do?
I try to avoid speculating on Putin's possible future plans for a Great Russia country, and instead limit myself to Mearsheimer and Stubb arguments.
Both are understandable from their own point of view, but I think Stubb forgets a lot.
He does not understand that Russia may feel threatened by the main enemy the United States rattling with weapons on the other side of the border. At least he downplays that argument, and turns it into a pretext for Russia to finally attack, and start its expansion.
I oppose that reasoning.
I also think that the Donbass conflict has been given too little space in the discussion. Has Ukraine treated the Russian-speaking people of these provinces in a way that befits a country that we in the West elevate to a democracy?
To downgrade their language and culture, and to ban the political parties from operating, is hardly something that makes them love the more Western-oriented forces in Kyiv that Stubb advocates.
All this leads to deepening divisions, and will also make it extremely difficult to win over them on their side if they were to win the war.
So assume that Russia loses. What is the next step? Will Crimea and Donbass be obediently incorporated into the new western-oriented Ukraine?
I don’t think so.
As a Ukrainian from the East of Ukraine and a direct spectator of processes there I can genuinely say that you have very limited understanding of what was happening in Donbass region and public opinion back in 2014. Euromaidan was partially supported in Donetsk city moreover there were massive demonstrations supportive to the Euromaidan in Donetsk (as well as the opposite demonstrations) and it would have ended in some sort of agreement with a piecefull solution but... Russians special operation forces intervened leaded by Strelkov/Girkin and on April 12 he with few dozens of loyal russian saboteurs entered a few towns in the northern part of Donbass and captured administrations by force, started to recruit local poor people, beggars and to pay them some decent money and to equip them which led to an armed conflict and war (he admits all of this himself by the way).
@@T1mm_UA I know that, and I do not defend the separatists' initial actions. And above all, I do not defend Putin.
On the other hand, I think they had a much broader support than you describe.
Are you yourself ethnic Russian, or ethnic Ukrainian?
Do you have Russian or Ukrainian as your mother tongue?
The majority of people in the southeastern part of the country voted for Yanukovych. Is it not logical, then, to think that the majority did not support the Euromaidan?
Sorry Mersheimer is spot on
Spot on totalitarian socialist hating democracies, just like most social- or political science professors.
"This is a war of propaganda" John Pilger
I have great respect for Pilger, but I belive his position on Ukraine is colored by his beliefs more than by facts. This IS a war of propaganda too, but I think Stubb is right, and that Putin miscalculated grossly the response of Europe and the USA.
@@nissene1 👍🏻👏
John Pilger sitting this one out I guess.
John Pilger is a lackey for Russia and China, he produces English-language anti-Western propaganda and has for years
All wars are wars of propaganda. And Russia is still the fascist aggressor.
This man invests extreme energy to make us forget what was really happening. The whole post is based on prejudices and opinions. John Mearsheimer pinpoints the key events that gave rise to new events, the relationship between action and reaction. This man does the opposite. The mention of Peter the Great and Stalin throws dust in the eyes and underestimates anyone who followed the events
@bodg- concur, what do you think his ultimate goal/ agenda aims at?
I think you are mistaken. The discussion Putin opened at the end of 2021 about NATO was a carefully planned plot to enter a situation that would give Russia and Putin a semi legitimate reason to invade Ukraine - "as you did not want to guarantee that NATO will not take new members, I had to invade Ukraine to guarantee Russian safety". That was total bullshit, Putin had already decided to invade Ukraine. The tactics was pretty much the same that Stalin used against neutral Finland in 1939 - as Finland did not agree to exchange territory with Russia it was obviously a hostile reaction and therefore the USSR had to invade Finland to guarantee the safety of the country.
Absolutely...& besides him being full of shayte he deliberately trows emotional & buzz words smoke grenades hoping to get at least couple of idiots who could fall for his pretentious attitude & his haircut...
@bogdancrnokrak1589, You are forgetting, that Vladimir Putin has several times told, that he believes himself to be another Peter the Geat. But Putin is forgetting, that Peter the Great had only Sweden and Turkey against him, Putin has against him an alliance, which produced 55% of the total GDP of the world in 2023.
@@ngkeam9491Becoming president of Finland, and he did it!
THIS GUY IS CLUELESS. He is watching too much CNN, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, SKY, ABC and BBC.
He Watches Yle!. Sorry liar.
Please compare your argument with the actions of the US on “tiny non-nuclear Cuba” which is still under harsh sanctions - reason the Cuban missile crisis. You want Putin to allow missiles in huge nuclear capable Ukraine. Now tell one US president who did not have a “war on his hands". Your history needs updating.
But US didn't invade Cuba
@@donaldhysa4836 1961 - CIA / Kennedy supported Bay of Pigs Invasion
@@sivaniam That was not the US army doing that invasion they just supported it
@@donaldhysa4836 That what they say once you have lost. Give me a US President without a war in his hands. The US has destroyed the peace in Europe and has placed the whole world in a climate of recession.
@@sivaniam lol sure thing. Where are you from? India? You must know a lot about european geopolitics
NATO never attacked another country.
Didn't NATO attack Serbia and Libya?
Hypocrisy of the west has reached an all time maximum :)
No. NATO dod not. Educate yourself.
@@tistelnilsson You have to be joking right? Bosnia 1995, FRY 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libya 2011.
I know ignorance is a bliss, but you are pushing the line there xD
@@pmakins95 All your examples are preceeded by UN resolutions, the world, in all your examples decided that something had to be done against an intolerable situation. Hence it was not NATO, but the world that intervened in those conflicts. I know it sucks being a Serbian trying to get your way with your smaller neighbours and *everyone* tells you that you can't. Putin only understands power and he will keep pushing until he is stopped. I think the play here is to have the russian federation collapse into smaller countries so they can't threathen anyone anymore. That will shut up Maersheimer and his opinion sitting safe in a couch 6000 miles away. Just too bad Ukraine will have to suffer immensly for that to happen.
@@tistelnilsson You are western troll. NATO attacked many countries including Afghanistan children.
"NATO is a peaceful alliance." - where were the people making this arguments when NATO was invading and destroying Middle Easter countries for 30 years and many other countries for many more years earlier before that?
"The world needs to see rule of law and that big cannot rule over the small." - Again, where were these people when far-right extremism was prosecuting Russian minority in Ukraine for decades? Where were these people when NATO was destroying smaller countries world over and taking over their resources?
"Putin sees himself as a global powerful Russian leader and the protector of Russian culture and values." - well that's simply protecting ones culture, values, and people. And ever wondered how Russians inside russia would perceive Putin if he can't even protect/ support the people who were literally Russians just a few decades ago? Would Americans/ NATO continue to back their leaders if they abandoned their core values?
"The EU was doing business with Russia. Hence there was no malice on their part." Business is fot mutual economic and other benefits. They were not doing charity or any favor. At a time when oil prices were soaring, EU sought out an economic option to control energy costs.
Pretty weak arguments by the presenter if you ask me.
NATO as an entity deployed in Afghanistan-nowhere else in west Asia. Afghanistan is a long way from west Asia
Britain and France (not NATO) intervened in Egypt in 1956.
A few European countries took part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq-not NATO.
You obviously don't understand NATO and what it does
"NATO has never attacked anybody". Hail Yugoslavia.
Why are you lying? Oh, article 5 was not used.. therefore it was not NATO... But brainwashed liars like you do say things like that.
Also he says NATO has not attacked other countries. NAYO attacked Serbia, Libya and Iraq. I do not remember if Iraq was an official NATO operation but many NATO countries participated.
WRONG
Serbia:
NATO was invited by the UN and the UN security council to protect and to have a no fly-zone above Yugoslavia. Since the regular UN PEACEKEEPING forces were either under attack or unable to protect innocent civilians. They accepted the invitation. Let's not forget, the Serbians were slaughtering innocent civilians, which has been labeled as a genocide.
Libya:
NATO worked together with the Arab League and was part of a much broader alliance to do the same in Libya. Other Arab nations who were heavily involved consist of Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Other Arab nations such as Qatar, Somalia, Egypt and many other provided logistics. The ambassadors to the Arab League, European Union and United Nations have either resigned or stated that they no longer support the government. Libya was attacking it's own people and ALL arab countries asked and worked together with NATO to protect innocent people. Not to mention, during the second Libyan civil war, Russia was an important partner during the operation.
Iraq:
IRAQ has nothing to do with NATO. NATO as an agency, never started or attacked a country. Separate NATO countries can do things on their own. NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance. There is a difference. Most NATO countries were against the invasion of Iraq. Belgium even prevented the logistics of US/UK troops and materiel through their country and their sea- and airports.
And if you cry about dictators that kill their own people with chemical weapons and who commit genocide, then I know what side of history you are on. THE WRONG ONE
@@FragLord FACTS ☝️
@@FragLord THIS.
@@FragLord Complete BS! You have bought the Western liberal narrative on this. The Serbia attack was 100% NATO overreach (and I say this as a Croat who has nonlove for Serbia). The brainwashing of these commenters is beyond belief!
Lol, the fact that you say Western liberal narrative is so cute. Nice try you revisionist Russian troll ^^
As it if is a sin to be liberal. Oh no, i want to live in a country where there is. 1 Democracy, 2 freedom of speech, 3 freedom to protest, 4 freedom of press, 5 human rights... Russia has none of these things.
Operation Deliberate Force was a sustained air campaign conducted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in concert with the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) ground operations, to undermine the military capability of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), which had threatened and attacked UN-designated "safe areas" in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War with the Srebrenica genocide and Markale massacres, precipitating the intervention. The shelling of the Sarajevo marketplace on 28 August 1995 by the VRS is considered to be the immediate instigating factor behind NATO's decision to launch the operation.
The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1 April 1992 and 14 December 1995. After popular pressure, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was asked by the United Nations to intervene in the Bosnian War after allegations of war crimes against civilians were made. In response to the refugee and humanitarian crisis in Bosnia, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 743 on 21 February 1992, creating the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). The UNPROFOR mandate was to keep the population alive and deliver humanitarian aid to refugees in Bosnia until the war ended.[citation needed]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force
You can lie all you want, the truth is just there on the internet to find. So no, you are wrong you imperialist, revisionist troll.
On 9 October 1992, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 781, prohibiting unauthorized military flights in Bosnian airspace. This resolution led to Operation Sky Monitor, where NATO monitored violations of the no-fly zone, but it did not take action against violators of the resolution. On 31 March 1993, in response to 500 documented violations, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 816, which authorized states to use measures "to ensure compliance" with the no-fly zone over Bosnia. In response, on 12 April, NATO initiated Operation Deny Flight, which was tasked with enforcing the no-fly zone and allowed to engage the violators of the no-fly zone.If you are so against western liberalism, then why don't you get yourself and Croatia out of the EU and NATO. So you can go back at being poor and oppressed. You can leave NATO after 10 years and the EU whenever you want. Unlike the Warsaw pact countries, who were invaded if they wanted to go a different course.
I'm not buying anything except the truth and to be frank my dear. Nadia Sullivan doesn't sound Croatian to me :D :D
You prefer to buy into neo-fascism and prefer to defend murderers and people who genocide hundreds of thousands of people and displace more than a million people in a region. Right in the middle of Europe. If that isn't a reason to intervene, then that says more about you. Than it says about me...
You parrot Putin’s justifications for wars of empire-building. They contribute to revisionist history, dismiss the horrors of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and embolden international aggression and irredentist agendas - not just against Ukraine but other vulnerable European states.
Although Russia has used the Kosovo precedent to justify its interventions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and today, Russia’s current invasion and NATO’s Kosovo intervention in 1999 are polar opposites.
One may disapprove of US global militarism, but it is imperative to emphasize the difference between a limited, third-party intervention amid a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing - as was the case in Kosovo - and a calculated, full-on territorial invasion of a sovereign state for geopolitical purposes - as in Ukraine.
While the Butcher of the Balkans died in prison before his crimes could be displayed in court, it is thoroughly documented that Serbian government’s forces killed more than 8,000 civilians and expelled around a million Albanians from Kosovo, now admitted by some Serbian officials. Despite this, the West was desperate to safeguard Balkan stability by refusing to take sides.
In other words, when NATO finally intervened in Kosovo in 1999, it did so in the aftermath of decades of state-sponsored discrimination and systematic violence and ongoing ethnic cleansing that could only be rectified by sovereign rule. I know the truth is hard to deal with for some people.
Nato and western countries gave it every chance to not to have to intervene. But the Yugoslavs and particularly the Serbs preferred to go on a mass murder and rape spree:
The United Nations Security Council had imposed an arms embargo in September 1991.[92] Nevertheless, various states had been engaged in, or facilitated, arms sales to the warring factions.[93] In 2012, Chile convicted nine people, including two retired generals, for their part in arms sales
According to the ICTY, Serb forces from the SAO Krajina deported at least 80-100,000 Croats and other non-Serb civilians in 1991-92[107] and at least 700,000 Albanians in Kosovo in 1999.[108] Further hundreds of thousands of Muslims were forced out of their homes by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[109] By one estimate, the Serb forces drove at least 700,000 Bosnian Muslims from the area of Bosnia under their control.[110]
Survivors of the ethnic cleansing were left severely traumatized as a consequence of this campaign.
Others have estimated that during the Bosnian War between 20,000 and 50,000 women, mainly Bosniak, were raped.
The Serbian troops drove thousands of ethnic Albanians from their homes and were accused of massacring Kosovo civilians.
In October, NATO threatened Serbia with air strikes, and Milosevic agreed to allow the return of tens of thousands of refugees. Fighting soon resumed, however, and talks between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs in Rambouillet, France, in February 1999 ended in failure. On March 18, further peace talks in Paris collapsed after the Serbian delegation refused to sign a deal calling for Kosovo autonomy and the deployment of NATO troops to enforce the agreement. Two days later, the Serbian army launched a new offensive in Kosovo. On March 24, NATO air strikes began.
In addition to Serbian military positions, the NATO air campaign targeted Serbian government buildings and the country’s infrastructure in an effort to destabilize the Milosevic regime. The bombing and continued Serbian offensives drove hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians into neighboring Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Many of these refugees were airlifted to safety in the United States and other NATO nations. On June 10, the NATO bombardment ended when Serbia agreed to a peace agreement calling for the withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo and their replacement by NATO peacekeeping troops.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force
It would be more honest and useful to expose your views before John Mersheimer, so that a discussion could take place. This kind of dogmatic
monologue with no opposing opinion only leads to confusion and a feeling that you are not ready to stand your ground before a professor with Mersheimerˋs academic credentials.
Did you express your views before him when he came to the European University?
ηλια χτυπησες κεντρο
LOL it's youtube :D :D :D :D :D. You come to youtube to watch debates? :D :P
Mersheimer came to the European University not for a debate, but to give a lecture. I take you never been to university, since that's not how it goes... And I rather not have professors discussing eachother during lectures...
You can hear both stories now and make up your mind. Is that not good enough for you? Or do you only want state propaganda like in Russia that tells you what to think...
Thing is mearsheimer made his accurate prediction so many years ago and this guy didn't. It's easy to do what he is doing now looking for counter arguments. If he had done it at the time that mearsheimer made his prediction maybe we could have awarded some merit but no, he is just making it up now.
@@sword7872 He's making counter arguments now because it's relevant now. That's what happens in academia... If you would be either intellectual, educated or remotely went to university you would know this...
Mearsheimer made some accurate predictions, but many people made that prediction. But not with the same arguments or outset. There are many more academics warning about that this would happen, but not that it's the fault of the west regarding NATO, the EU and whatnot. But by the west not making and taking a firm stand.
Churchill and Chamberlain were in total agreement that a war with Germany should be avoided at all costs. The difference between them was that one was for appeasement and the other wanted to show force. And history has learned us that you can't appease a brutal dictator.
And that's the fault that the west made. Not NATO "expansion" or Ukraine choosing it's own democratic future. Drawing that very caning historic comparison, one could argue that the west wasn't hard enough on Putin after annexing Crimea. Just like the west wasn't hard enough on Hitler after Rheinland, Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia... If the west would've stood up to Hitler after Sudetenland, we could have averted WW2 and the holocaust. Any historian, me included, made this prediction... Especially since the arguments of Putin and Hitler are one and the same. Uniting the homeland. One country, one language, one leader. Protecting countrymen in other countries. Those come straight out of mein kampf.
And if the west would've showed some balls, which it is doing now but too late, it could've averted the war in Ukraine. Not by selling off Ukraine as a token to appease a dictator that outright annexes land whenever he wants to. But by showing force and saying no passer an. You will respect territorial integrity, international law or you will not trade with us. Same goes for China. It's time for the west to show their true metal, the jig is up. Trading with dictatorships only fuels dictators. It doesn't inhibit change.
Also what baffles me is the great ease people have with shedding off Ukraine as a token between superpowers. Everyone but the people of Ukraine suddenly can decide what to do with their country.
Who are you, Mearsheimer or Putin to decide what way Ukraine goes in the world. Only the people in Ukraine should decide their destiny.
And on NATO "expansion". countries join NATO, it doesn't expand. And most countries join out of fear for Russia and Putin's rhetoric. He scared Sweden and Finland into NATO.
With every worldcup or election many people predict who the winner will be. Them being right don't make their arguments valid or right.
I like it this way, it is in video, and permanent, and John Mersheimer has every oppertunity to watch it and respond. I can bet you my life savings that this will reach him, and, this is the point, it reached ME which wouldn't have been the case if it happened in some other way. And, probably, it would be really hard and time consuming to, send a letter to look him up "Hey, do you have time for a debate? Yes, a debate regarding some opinions you held publicly in regards to the Russian Ukrainian conflict". "Oh. Where and how? Do we meet in person, or zoom? I'm not even sure if i have time, nor want to" Yeah these were just the small complications i could come up with thus far in my own head.
And Mersheimer may even find it beneficial to have Stubb's opinion laid out in this way so that he can scrutinize it for himself, in private, before coming back at him.
Let's see if that happens.
I heard Alexander stubb 5 arguments against Mearsheimer's analysis of this debacle in UKR, and I just heard a politician talking in his echo chambers, sorry not convinced by Alexander Stubb
he is pushing for Russophobic agenda like every finnish politician. Finns are extremely russophobic.
This guy is delusional, or a stooge of Washington, and rational person can see Mearsheimer's well though synopsis .
Stooge of Washington & London. 100%. For evidence one can listen to this pitiful argument once again
Yes. One gets the impression he is one of the two. But as they are not mutually exclusive he could also be delusional AND a stooge of Washington.
My advice just read John Blumenstiel's detailed comment hereinafter which comprehensively counters and disassembles Professor Stubb's opposing take on Mearsheimer's arguments vis a vis the Ukrainian conflict and its genesis. As it succinctly unpacks the flimsy, inaccurate and at times wholly anecdotal approach adopted by Stubb in presenting and prosecuting his case in opposition to Mearsheimer’s thesis.
Which inter alia is focused on the premise of apportioning blame to Putin and Russia in the unfolding and escalating tragedy in motion that Ukraine now represents, whilst completely ignoring and conveniently side stepping the key elements of Mearsheimer’s arguments. That in itself is disappointing, because one would expect more from someone in Subb’s lofty position, and in tandem sadly in my view on reflection is just the same regurgitated unipolar diatribe tediously and consistently discouraged by the Western geopolitical cabal and their regurgitated by their mainstream media vassals.
Furthermore although Stubb talks albeit somewhat reluctantly about importance of the free exchange of opinion in the realms of the theoretical, academic and/or practical, but he concludes by warning of the dangers of “us the audience” listening to the wholly incorrect opinions of others, i.e., like Mearsheimer’s, so what happened to the ancient principle of “Audi alteram partem”, "let the other side be heard as well", which a balancing and pivotal pillar in scientific, legal, and democratic discourse and advancement. In fact the real danger is people like Stubbs steering “us” away from contrarian opinions which are divergent from the mainstream, unless of course what he wants is blind homogeneity of thought, which was the main reason I tuned into his presentation, because I was interested in hearing a divergent view, which I did.
George Orwell, said it best in his masterpiece,1984, “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”, like most other free thinkers I wish that was a fantastical notion, rather than the all-pervasive reality it has become for a huge part of humanity regardless of geographic meridian they inhabit.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a supporter of Putin, Russia, and or for that matter any of the indirect and direct protagonists involved in this heart-breaking conflict, and humanitarian disaster just a simple open individual trying to better understand what is really going on and at play in this complex and deeply disturbing situation, who has been on this planet long enough to realise that war seldom involves either angels and demons.
This horrible conflict in Ukraine is not “Star Wars”, “Narnia” or the “Lord of the Rings”, or some other real or imagined chronicle where good is pitted against evil, which in this instance according to Stubbs was precipitated solely by Putin on an egotistical whim, and to suggest that it is both facile and deeply patronising, and wholly inappropriate given the appalling and harsh realities faced by all of those involved in the Ukrainian theatre since 2014, and the 25 odd years prior that led up to that point during which time the West had innumerable opportunities to conjoin Russia under the Western umbrella, on a whole series of levels, i.e. EU, NATO, et al which successive Western administrations studiously did not.
If the Minsk agreements had been adhered to and backed by America/NATO instead of encouraging right-wing groups in Ukraine to foster trouble, Ukraine and the West and Russia would be better off.
Coukd you please give a link to the comment you're referrig to (J.Blumestiel)?
Nato never attacked Yugoslavia? Lol
NATO attacked Yugoslavia, but because Yugoslavia could not guarantee the security of other countries, especially NATO countries.
Crazy revolutionaries of the 1968s were too influential in this region with their projects to destroy Western countries. Especially the USA and Great Britain. To reduce them to some kind of large proletarian camps.
Even Milosevic could not deal with such people and West considered him responsible. If he does not solve the problem, they will, in their own way. Which is what happened in the end. Kosovo was just a wanted occasion.
Before that Sanctions were also obtained for the same reason. War in Bosnia and Croatia was also just a wanted occasion .
@@banerankovic4688"it didnt happen"
yes it did !
"Ok but let me tell why its good it happened"
You can always find a justification. Soon you'll be defending the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.
@@Shayrin2
It is part of wider agenda and continuation of `68 revolution . There were different influences here in Yugoslavia and Serbia . Ones wanted normality and economic prosperity which is in collision with interests of others that made people go to communist concentration camp Bare Island (Goli Otok ) and tortured and robbed others . Those torturers wanted to hide their past and origin of their wealth and stay on position of power. That is why they needed new global revolution and destruction of the West , making western countries look like society described in Soylent Green . They never wanted to really provide better life to their subjects but to destroy what others achieved . For that purpose they incorporated cults , sects ,terrorism , old racial , religion or nation clashes for global anarchy and that is what they are doing now .But they also tare trying to play humane peace lovers so that they could deceive ordinary people for support . They see those people as easily manipulated morons . They are like that pig from Animal Farm of George Orwell . From all that they planned to emerge like new rulers of the world but since their opposition is too strong they hope to make a deal for themselves . Like that pig/swine/hoag. All these wars are part of that and greed or fear are often used to make some agree to go to war.
@@Shayrin2
Irony is that Milosevic which was accused as war criminal was for economic prosperity and they declared him as American spy and traitor and they were the ones that support and protection from lobbies from the West.
So they set up and planned bombing along with their partners from abroad and they had connection with Al Qaeda before September 11th and they were involved in Iraqi training aircraft modification to UAV but with nerve gas for attacking Israel . But at the same time sabotaging that with other side. Brokerage as a policy . That was Non aligned movement also and probably this new B.R.I.C.S.++ .Get the picture .
Quiet, ignoramus.
A year after this video was made, turns out Mearsheimer was completely right.
RIght about what?
@@patched8789 Everything. How the war started, how the war is gonna go, who will win.
He was right 10 years ago already.
@@illomens2766 No, he was wrong then, and he was wrong now! The war started as a blatant Russian landgrab. That's the only reason!
this is about the third leg of the Monroe doctrine as its applied to the russian state REMEMBER the US threatened hostilities when this happened in Cuba
the US didn't invade Cuba though..
Yes they did. They armed and trained Cuban “dissidents” to attack cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and had the CIA fly air support for them. It failed miserably and was the very reason why Kruschev agreed to provide Castro with nuclear missiles.
@@andyjackson2901 No. That wasn't a full scale invasion like this. Kennedy didn't support them ..
No! It was the Soviets that actually PUT missiles in Cuba (which was an ally of the Soviet Union) NO one put missiles in Ukraine!----Besides now the technology is much better---it is not necessary to have missiles right next door!
Don't forget the RuZZians lie, lie, lie! The attack on Ukraine was planned well in advance. I am certain that they had planned to attack once the North Stream2 pipeline was completed (it need not have been in use, only operational) just in case Ukraine were to destroy its pipeline to Europe. Putler got his army in place but because the North Stream2 pipeline was delayed Putler postponed the strike till 2022 just after the completion of the pipeline!
@vbank- third leg. third pillar?
Sir, when you said Putin wants one language and one religion I started to doubt whether your other statements are true. You know about Kadyrov and that he and his people are Muslim? Even Russian propaganda always covers this subject in a good way.
What kind proof is that?
Kadyrov is a useful idiot for Putin, why the hell should he alienate him by shitting on Islam?
As long as Kadyrov is in line, there is absolutely no reason for Putin to push the issue.
You know, Bush also wanted one religion and didn't shit on Saudi Arabia because of that.
😂😂😂 this guy is biased af
Finland is also one of the countries that was most opressed by Russia, second to Ukraine. Russia took Karelia, which was originally Finnish, in the 1920s. That is, an area of land roughly as big as as Finland today.
Anyone claiming that Russia's defence interests and lessening NATO's input are crucial for peace, should look at why so many people in Finland sre in army reserves for the above-stated reason.
Russian imperialism is far, far older than even the concept of NATO.
I wish a reference for comparison been made to Cuban missile crisis. Was that was justified and what is the difference? Hypocrisy is not a virtue and is dishonesty
The Cuban missile crisis actually happened in the sense that Russia positioned real nuclear missiles in Cuba - so not analogous to Ukraine in that respect. Further the solution to the crisis was found through Kennedy and Kruschev sitting down for a chat and coming to a mutually acceptable agreement where they each did things for the other. Nobody started killing or invading anyone. I think that illustrates the difference.
@@catparka7698 the difference is that Kruschev and Kennedy sat down and negotiated while in 2021 USA said that there will be no negotiation and USA dont give a f about Russian defense concerns.
@@catparka7698 Cuban missile crisis happened after USA put its Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy and refused to remove them when the Soviets protested, as a response, the Soviets put their own in Cuba. In other words, there would've never been a negotiation if the Soviets didn't have Cuba as a leverage against USA's national security
@@catparka7698 "the solution to the crisis was found through Kennedy and Kruschev sitting down for a chat"
The solution to this crisis was NOT found through Putin and the Threat of Sanctions sitting down for a chat.
While Biden was busy sending weapons to Ukraine, vowing to fight to the last Ukrainian.
What's your guess on what city (in the domino) falls next?
@@catparka7698 Before the war Zelensky started talking about Ukraine building nuclear weapons. There was no objection from NATO. The Cuba analogy might be closer than you imagine.
Today is 11 Jul 2022.
America has been stockpiling arm weapons in Taiwan and training Taiwanese military. So let’s see if there’s an “expert” who came out with the conclusion: China invaded Taiwan unprovoked.
Provoked by being provided with the means to defend? Hmmm.
Who cares whether it's provoked or unprovoked? China shouldn't invade Taiwan.
@@ianross225
Do you know that in both China’s constitution and Taiwan’s constitution, that both Mainland China and Taiwan Island belong to the same country “China”? The PRC claims both entities belong to the PRC, while Taiwan claims both belong to the ROC. The PRC is recognized as China by 180 countries including America and the ROC is recognized as China by 13 countries. The ROC has no more embassy in America, UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. The ROC used to own China, but the ownership has changed hands to the PRC.
If the DPP of Taiwan change the constitution and give up its claim of Mainland China and declares independence, then it’s similar to Barcelona seeking to breakaway from Spain, or Scotland to breakaway from the UK. Which in both cases are their domestic problem. What has that anything to do with a third country? The current situation is like China saying: “If UK stops the independence of Scotland, we are going to put weapons in Scotland, train their army and support their fight against England”.
America has been arming Taiwan and training the military. How will America react if China arms Hawaii and trains the military?
@@Quester2 educate yourself:
Do you know that in both China’s constitution and Taiwan’s constitution, that both Mainland China and Taiwan Island belong to the same country “China”? The PRC claims both entities belong to the PRC, while Taiwan claims both belong to the ROC. The PRC is recognized as China by 180 countries including America and the ROC is recognized as China by 13 countries. The ROC has no more embassy in America, UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. The ROC used to own China, but the ownership has changed hands to the PRC.
If the DPP of Taiwan change the constitution and give up its claim of Mainland China and declares independence, then it’s similar to Barcelona seeking to breakaway from Spain, or Scotland to breakaway from the UK. Which in both cases are their domestic problem. What has that anything to do with a third country? The current situation is like China saying: “If UK stops the independence of Scotland, we are going to put weapons in Scotland, train their army and support their fight against England”.
America has been arming Taiwan and training the military. How will America react if China arms Hawaii and trains the military?
@@zeissiez Yes, China is recognized as having sovereignty over Taiwan. But of course, the US and many other countries don't want China to take control of Taiwan and will use the military to prevent that.
Weren’t the 1991-2001 Yugoslavia intervention and the 2011 Libya war NATO actions?
Professor Stubb said NATO hasn’t been involved in any wars.
It is a defensive pact and article 5 have only been used 1 time. 911. So, no they have never been involved in any wars as you claim liar.
In many conflicts, Nato nations were acting as a coalition as it were. I do not believe they acted as a whole. The same nato nations have individually acted to aid ukraine, not as a whole. Kind of like the little green men.
@@tistelnilsson They were just defending someone that didn't want to be defended by them....the irony.
Well, I watched "The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war. A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer". By the way it is also interesting to learn that Florence, in my country, is the place of "The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies".
I promise I'll watch this video on the five arguments "Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine" again, in order to single out some points for discussion in a future editing of this comment of mine.
However just to give you my first impression, the thesis of John Mearsheimer seems to be more logically convincing, than the five points explained in this video.
P.S.and disclaimer: I like Alexander Stubb's crystal clarity of the language and his logical flow of thoughts and the way he presents his lecture, even more than John Mearsheimer's. So when I say that John Mearsheimer's thesis appears to me as more convincing, it is not a question of emotional liking of the person, or of the presentation, but just the evaluation of the sheer concepts.
I knew it was going to be all BS from the first few minutes.
If anyone pays attention ...Mearsheumer is absolutely on point. His argument is apolitical, logical and as free from emotional bias as I have heard.
@robertoro- glad to notice some readers having an antagonistic views!
talking head reiterates that NATO is a peace-loving nation of defense rather than offense? guess there are lots of cynics of what he claims here!
after the cold war, no requisition for NATO to exist, yet it is reluctant to dissolve, after breakup of Russia, it poses no threats to EU.
NATO joins US in its offense against Iraq and Libya, its conspicuous proof that NATO is belligerent, self-absorbed with its own agendas, yet this talking head is in straight denial!
recalling the Cuba crisis during the '60, US considers Russia setting up a missile base in Pig's Bay is provocative and belligerent, yet this detractor disavows its not a provocation for Ukraine to attack Eastern region of Donetsk, appear he is double speak on this context.
add oil.....
his guy was wrong at least in 2 things, 1. Putin doesn´t hate the West. He was trying so hard to integrated more with the European Union, and even makes an intention to Join Nato in Bush Administration (something that Lt. Colonell Wilkinson who works in the D.O.D. by that time has confirmed in the past) even a former president of my country, Juan Manuel Santos Knows personally Putin, and talked about the future of Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. So This Guy, ¿what Putin did he says he Know?
The second One, is where he is talking about his familiar Trauma of his GrandParents in Carellia, ¿why do you talk about your personal and familiar hate with the Russians, and still talking about Russia is the 100% guilty at all? at least, save your personal traumas in order people doesnt get you are on a Bias.
Mearsheimer more logically convincing? At one time, when he wants to excuse Russia, he says it would be under an existencial threat if Ukraine joined NATO. Then, when his point is convincing that Ukraine has no chance to win (and it should just give up and try a compromisse by delivering territories and signing some promisse of never joing NATO and EU), he goes all the way on "Russia is unbeatable, cause they got nukes, infinite ammo and personnel and can weaponize gás supply. Wait a minute: if this country is that invincible, how can it have felt an existential threat?
Nothing is more simplifying than "Putin bad."
It being simple does not mean he isn't really bad. Sometimes things are exactly as they appear.
What about Victoria Nuland in Ukraine before things getting bad
@@Fuzzybeanerizer Yes it kind of does. It shows zero depth to his analysis...a conclusion that can be drawn by a single viewing on CNN. Mearsheimer provides context, and never "agrees" with Putin but understands, much better than Alexander here, what drives geopolitical confrontation. Putin did not wake up one day, spill his coffee and vodka, and decide to invade.
@@frankdepino4035 The deliberateness or "long game" aspect of Putin's actions do not mean his actions are not evil or unjustified. You are not making a logical point there.
For that matter, the quality of Stubb's analysis has nothing to do with Putin's actions being bad or good, either. Putin can be bad independently of anything Stubb says or thinks.
@@frankdepino4035 Putin's whole "NATO made me do it" argument is based on the idea that Putin at minimum believes (whether it is true or not) that NATO is some trigger-happy aggressor organization. Yet almost every day Putin reveals through his actions that believes exactly the opposite to that. If NATO were so unstable and dangerous and threatening, Putin would NEVER have invaded Ukraine. If Putin did not believe that NATO is sane and conservative and predictable, he would not tempt fate by threatening to use nuclear weapons on almost a daily basis. Actions speak louder than words, and Putin's actions reveal that Putin's words are lies.
I listened to Mearsheimer. I thought that he applied the standard "wife-beater" defence to Putin's war; look what you made me do, US and NATO. It neatly avoids any culpability on the part of Russia.
Your wife made you write the comment???
😂😂😂
It was the sexy clothes Ukraine was wearing,
@@DEvilParsnip Well, that is so. The sexy clothes are freedom, democracy and economic success. The jealous husband Putin does not want that on his doorstep.
I think what mr. John M is saying is the ukrainian husband was beating his ukraine russian wife and her big russian brother came to touch the ukrainian husband how to treat his own wife.
That what John mean, not the vice verse.
@@mikeandersson7962 so you are saying the the wifes sovereignty was compromised and she was sleeping around. Which makes it OK for the big neighbours to intervene. What was the Georgian husband up to... I missed that episode.
Mr Stubb, you stated at 12:39 "NATO has never attacked an other country..." Could you tell us then more about the attack and bombing of Serbia by NATO coalition in '99?
I think he means for NATO expansion purposes vs Russia expansion purposes. You made me look it up, I remember it having something to do with muslims in my head for whatever reason.
Like Mike said, I think the context was that NATO never attacked another country for expansionist reasons, since in the same sentence mr Stubb is talking about NATO's expansion post cold war, when post-soviet states joined NATO willingly, mostly for protection from Russia.
As for NATO's intervention in former Yugoslavia, I'm not necessary saying it was right, but the situation is not in the slightest comparable to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Unlike Donbas, there was an actual genocide happening in Kosovo, which had to be stopped. NATO officials specifically warned Serbian government, that they will intervene if war crimes won't stop, meanwhile Russia to the very last day lied that it does not plan to attack Ukraine, and that buildup of Russian forces was for military excersise only. NATO's intervention lasted less than 3 months, there were no NATO troops on the ground and once bombing ended, NATO withdrew and UN forces were send instead for peacekeeping. Contrary, Russian "Special Military Operation" is a full on war, with hundreds of thousands troops on Ukrainian soil, it goes on for a year now with no end in sight, and Russia shamelessly annexed 4 Ukrainian regions and is openly claiming they will remain part of Russia forever.
He means for loot and conquest. Maybe he should be more clearer for those who are not proficient in English such as yourself.
@@flopoz2575 you are right there was a genocide but it happened on both sides and NATO picked to attack the country associated with it's geopolitical competitor Russia, who at that time was extremely weak and couldn't do anything about it.
@@flopoz2575 oh and about the duration. Russia only really attacked to force negotiatioms imho which they tried to have for literally 7-8 years and literally begged the west to find a solution. and now it came out that Merkel and poroshenko lied about minsk II (they both admitted in Interviews that they only did the Minsk II peace to buy time to build up Ukrainian military for a war). So in other words, the west was never interested in a solution but pursued this war. And very practically: there was a peace treaty on the table at end of March/early April that the Ukrainian and Russian delegation had freely negotiated in turkey. I'm the interviews I saw both delegations were hopeful this could end the war. But the Johnson visited Ukraine, probably promised Zelensky support and weapons and then Zelensky said "there will be no peace, we seek victory on the battlefield". Okayyy? So the 100.000+ soldiers dying since then you can blame on Zelensky imho. Russia said like every month they are open for negotiations but Ukraine has literally made a presidential decree forbidding negotiations with Putin (Google it, if you don't believe me) so yeah that's why the war is ongoing and didn't end after 3 months. There is another factor, NATO just bombed everything to pieces. No electricity after a few days. Russia however didn't attack energy infrastructure for months, didn't even attack train networks in first weeks, which all fits into my narrative they wanted to force Ukraine to the negotiation table, not have a drawn out long war. But since Ukraine forbid itself negotiations Russia has increased warfare intensity too
He said " I would like to take issue with Mearsheimer". That says it all. Funny guy. Even a baby can understand what's going on and Mearsheimer 100% correct.
That sounds like a sycophantic perspective but ok
most of Putin excusers have no clue of their surroundings, but surely they have a cue about the war
Mearsheimer is wrong on everything
Looking from the Asia , NATO is as responsible as Russia in triggering the Ukraine conflict. The reckless expansion of NATO poked the Russian bear too strongly and they responded with brutality.
That poke the bear cliche
And now NATO became even stronger....I guess poking the bear wasnt to bad for NATO.
@@opporancisis5834 NATO is an useless alliance as they provoked Ukraine and ran away. Turkiye might leave NATO if Finland or Sweden joins as these two countries refused to hand over Kurdish militants to Turkiye despite promise
NATO is a defacto US military organizations and all other members of NATO except Turkey are useless, weak and are servants of US administration. US is NATO and NATO us US
Russia is revisionist and imperialist but why hasn't it attacked nations behind it? I mean nations like Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc...
Because our nation (Armenia) is already being attacked by “Western ideals and values”.
Seems to be two options to choose from. Have a leader sympathetic and supportive of Putin, like the countries you mentioned. Or, face military action and occupation like Georgia, Chechnya, and Ukraine. You chose, either way you lose(unless you're the leader of one of the friendly countries).
Chechens and Georgians might have a different opinion than you do Julia
@@gregorymilla9213 they tried to join NATO. At least Georgia did
Hmmm NATO was bringing Peace to Libya...
Ohhh yes countries can make Thier own choices right? Ask the south Americans and the CUBANS...
I wonder what they will think about Prof. Aleks acertioin of countries rights..." I heard some one says .. in our backyard"
This guy is full of emotional craps. His students attacked prof John mearsheimer after his seminar at this institution emotionally. No wonder where they inherited craps from. In terms of thinking in a leveled scholastic head, this guy falls behind remotely
How would you argue against someone who believes that the European Union is an imperial project, the same way that the Soviet Union is? Both of them seems to be an Universal Empire.
The US has over 1000 bases deployed around the world and Russia has one base outside Russia. China has one base outside of China.
I'm sorry....who is the EMPIRE? Which nation is the Imperial Project; and spends 15 times more on Military than Russia.? Which nation controls the "Imperial Project" called NATO....and the EU?
Why does everyone "sink their teeth" into the b.s. propaganda promoted by these moorons in these stupid videos.?
@@DavidWilliams-on9bu Russia is worse than America. Easily.
Damn I was very much looking forward to some counter-arguments to Prof. Mearsheimer as I am against any kind of war in the 21st century and hope this one comes to an end. I'm pretty dissapointed in the presented arguments to say the least:
1) The arguments are mere opinion, much less factual than I expected in a sophisticated counter argument, especially by a Professor.
2) Second there are some clear mistakes or shall I say lies?:
So NATO never attacked anybody? So what happened in Yugoslawia in 1999? What happened in 2011 in Lybia? One can go back and forth and argue the legitimacy of NATO attacks in those cases---but to say NATO never attacked anybody is a mere lie, unworthy of a Professor discussing these topics.
3) He says that Putin/Russia is against liberal democracies and attacked them in the past and then gives the following examples: Syria and Chechenia----First I thought I misunderstood him but it is indeed what he says. I don't know if he simply does not know about those countries but they certainly never qualified as liberal democracies. Very suspicious to lie like that.
4) He argues that all this is mere imperialism by Russia and Putin. That certainly begs the question that if indeed true---if Putin always had the intention of acting imperialistically and swallow Ukraine and form a greater Russia---why did he wait until 2022 when Ukraine had built up it's army quite a lot in comparison to 2014? Why didn't he attack Ukraine right away in 2014 or in the following years? Why let the US train and equip 10000 soldiers every year for 8 years? Makes absolutely zero sense to wait almost a decade until you have to face a much stronger force.
It is worrying when an academic like Professor Stubb makes a presentation with clear lies in it---especially lies that anyone with some slight historical knowledge recognizes immediately. For the people of Ukraine one can only hope that this war comes to an end, but presentations like these are of no help.
Nato did not attack in Yugoslavia in 1999 - that was a peacekeeping response after the Bosnian Serbs attacked the Kosovo Albanians - NATO had a really hard choice to make: they could either sit back and watch thousands of civilians being murdered, or they could intervene. The UN Security Council were the only ones who could make it legal, but as China and Russia vetoed that, there was no choice but to continue unilaterally. As it was, all that NATO did was start a bombing campaign with comparatively little effect. To try to compare that with the actions that Russia has taken involving completely levelling entire cities in Syria and Chechnya is a completely false comparison. You have to be very careful with words. The term "attack" in this context implies that a sovereign state resorted to force to resolve a problem which was otherwise peaceful. in those terms, Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, and (albeit by proxy) way back in 2014, but NATO did not attack Serbia, until Serbia had already started attacking the Bosnian Muslims.
I'm reporting you for posting misinformation!
100% agree with you NATO is very dangerous organisation against peace in the world, isn’t an peaceful organisation as this propagandist wants foolish dumbest peoples over here, now NATO want move to southern China seas is another provocation .
@@christianevanherck6023 I'm doing the same for you! And I'll add something more!
@@markusbieler5384 Report me for what? I'm not the one who's posting Russian propaganda lies.
And what is it about US aggression around the world since the Second World War?
Good point. American aggression is always in the spirit of spreading democracy and freedom. I don't see it unfortunately. Putin probably felt the walls closing in on Russia and the US controls NATO so i think his strategy was the best defense is a good offense. I wish there was more compromise in an effort to end the war. Give a portion of eastern Ukraine to Russia? Commitment for Ukraine to remain sovereign and agree not to join NATO?
What about the US? This video is about Russia?
USA did bad stuff, so Russia can do bad stuff? Someone killed someone on the street so I can do it too? 😵💫
@@MrThatwasepic no, this video is about the thesis of mearsheimer that the US involvement/aggression/ whatever is a reason of this war an stupp is trying to counter his argument. So the question about the us involment and what price (for them ore for others) they are willing to accept to reach their goals is right in this context.
Listen to "The Duran","Redacted",Geopolitics in conflict shows" and "Multipolarista".They shows the much bigger pictures to help you see the real truth.
I guess you right,
I’m surprised Stubbs didn’t mention this, written by Mearsheimer long before there was any NATO “expansion” for him to blame. He sure seemed to consider Russia an expansionist & revanchist threat back when such thought challenged the dominant policy. Excerpt:
“Most western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake. A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons”
- John J. Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66
As one who changes their dress-size often, isn't it normal to mature and change one's ideas! Or do you just stay in your closed mind for decades???
@@lorrainepaul5928 inconsistency in logic is not the same as a change of opinion or waistline. My “closed mind” doesn’t make excuses for genocidal authoritarian dictatorships because I want to profit from contrarianism. The Russians are so threatened by NATO that they’ve removed their SAMS & most their forces from the borders with Finland, Estonia etc & moved them to Ukraine. They aren’t threatened by NATO, NATO’s never set foot in Russia..but all the countries bordering Russia clamoring for NATO membership have seen Russian boots. It’s a load of BS & those who buy it don’t understand the real reason Putin invaded:
Both could be ways to prevent the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Nuclear armed Ukraine - no war.
No nato expansion - no war.
Maybe bevause at that time all we know of Russian or rathr USSR was that iw was aggressive, so Mearsheimer assumed that Russia could be aggressive aswell. And now when time went on and we could see Russias behaviour and statements it was possible to see that the earlier view was incorrect.
Idk if Mearsheimer has changed views though. Maybe he still views having nukes as being good, even if Russia isnt expansionist.
@@muradlekov3679 - "No nato expansion - no war." - Moldova says otherwise.
Prof. Alexander Stubb , You tried very hard to stay objective right until episode 17. You were excellent and we enjoyed your presentations. This episode, you overstretched yourself with biases, revealing your true self.....a common run of the mill politician.
I like the Professor in you, the Politician stinks.
So one episode ruined 17 that were flawless?
You better not have any flaw yourself dear sir, or you will be retching the rest of your life, as soon as you are near yourself...
"He [Putin] rejected [liberal democracy] in Chechnya,... Syria."
Apparently, he didn't reject it in Libya and Iraq. See how those cases turn out.
This dude has lost all respect from me.
He, like the others, has no argument against NATO's aggression. So, he meanders around it.
What "rules" is he talking about? The "rule" that was applied in Iraq?
Go back to doing politics. You have just unveiled yourself.
By liberal democracy he means liberal beheadings
How many countries had been invaded and destroyed by NATO.? The biggest joke this guy said is NATO is for peace keeping. . 🤣🤣
You lost control ? 🤣🤣 no one cares
Russia never ever gonna be superpower in fact it’ll going back to stone fucking age 😂
Summary of the content:
I believe this and that...no good arguments followed:
1. Russia has always been like that....historic fallacy
2. I met Putin...biased hobby psychoanalyst's fallcy
etc. etc.
Still much better than the "they had to do it because NATO" bs nerrative.
@@Dkamenev
Nuh. Not if you care to open your eyes and ears to the factual details (you can look'em up yourself) John Mearsheimer refers to repeatedly.
@@Torrriatenuh. If you care to open your eyes and analyze the acts of Russian leadership it will be apparent that the current war is not about NATO expansion.
@@Dkamenev
I mean concretely such details as recurring written assurments that Ukraine would join NATO within the decade made at various summits. The concrete details that foreign forces have been partially clandestinely training Ukrainian forces explicitly to deal with Russia for almost a decade now and that Ukrainian forces were involved in many military training operations, concretely such as Operation Seabreeze, etc.
Which concrete details of Russian leaders and their behavior - other than pseudo-psychoanalytical nonsense and other fallacies are you referring to?
@@Torrriate that all might be true, but how does it relate to the war in Ukraine?
If the motivation is to stop/weaken NATO and Ukraine, then the war is counter productive.
Any serious Geo political analysis prior to the war would have shown that.
Let's keep in mind that prior to the war NATO was a decaying organization without a justification for its existence.
The Russian moves basically gave it a new life.
So there are 2 options. either you are telling me that Russian leadership is completely oblivious to Geo politics, which I know they aren't.
Or that the goals of the war have nothing to do with NATO.
And by the way, the fallacy is on your end here, because none of the facts you mentioned to does not point on causation.
I doubt the healthy sense of this man.
Stubb's blatant political bias vs Mearsheimer's academic rigor. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
John Mearsheimer is a neutral commentator while this clown in a NATO supporter.
@@manashmahanta77 , mearsheimer knows nothing about Europe as he is an American.
@@anthony64632 And you know nothing about your wife, so shut up.
@@manashmahanta77 nothing about Mearsheimer are neutral.
@@tistelnilsson That's just your opinion sutmarana
Pretty strange that most countries that have historically been under Russia’s “tender” care have moved to join NATO at the first opportunity.
but some neighbors have been strategically neutral for 70 years.
Yeah wonder why that might be so.
@@odiferousmusky1299 And now wanting to be part of NATO for fear of a murderous psychopath.
It's all about the money 🤑
@@kaizer7568 Always was and always will be no matter who runs the show but what is the point you are trying to make.
Salaam, Sir,this "rules based order that you mentioned,could you please provide evidence of this "list of rules" you mentioned.The UN charter and international law you mentioned,are the sanctions Finland instituted against Russia in compliance with the charter and international law?
How about Article 1 of the UN Charter:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and *self-determination of peoples* , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
I've marked the breach by Russia which legitimized any economic action against Russia in bold letters.
@@NLTops what about the self determination of the pro Russian people in Crimea and Donbass? Don't they also have a right to leave Ukraine?
@@corradoroeper7092 There's a 100% legal way of "leaving a country". It's called emigration. Ukraine is a UN member state. As such, the UN does not recognize the annexation of its territories. So you can talk about "self-determination of the pro-Russian people in Crimea and Donbass", but since they've had to kill and displace pro-Ukrainian people in those areas in order to "leave Ukraine", what they did was unlawful. Conquest by a different name. Does that answer your question? Where are you from?
@@NLTops are you aware that the Ukrainians killed about 3000 pro-Russian civilians prior to Russia's invasion. These are UN sources. Donbass and Crimea are predominantly Russian. What I am trying to say is that it's not only Russia's fault, but Ukraine's as well. There is effectively a civil war going on in Ukraine. I'm from Italy, by the way.
@@corradoroeper7092 Yes. I'm aware. But what wasn't "prior to those citizens dying", was Russia arming and funding separatist groups in the Donbas, who took up arms and took control of government buildings. Over those 8 years 3000 civilians died. Are you saying they all died by shelling from Ukraine? What was in the artillery of the separatists then, confetti?
Tell me, what would Italy do if a foreign country funded an insurgency in Italy? Would you throw them a big party? What would Russia do if one of its "subject states" wanted independence? Is there ANY country in the world that doesn't respond to an armed insurgency with a military response? Most countries don't even recognize the right to secede peacefully. As far as international law goes, whilst it's well on its way to declaring migration a human right, declaring independence is not one. If they wanted to be Russian because they're a minority in the country and no longer feel at home in a pro-European Ukraine...they are free to move to Russia.
We might argue that Crimea was at least a bloodless annexation. But those referendums weren't open to neutral observers. But lets say we accept their results as legitimate, why was the same bloodless annexation not possible in Donbass? Perhaps not everyone was as enthusiastic about joining Russia as Russia wants you to believe? That's why that 8 year long conflict already internally displaced over a million people (don't recall the exact number).
In any case, they can call referendums and proclaim it's the will of the people all they like, but since they had to chase people out of town and kill them to get there, it's nothing but conquest by a different name. Ergo the international community will never recognize it. It would be too easy of a loophole. Migration would become a tool for conquest, instead of a tool for individual opportunity (with risks). All of Ukraine belongs to all Ukrainians. These borders can't change without the consent of all of Ukraine. THAT is international law.
Oh, and Russia doesn't need more land, it needs more people. Yet it's sacrificing people (and over a million emigrants and counting) for land. If Russia, the largest country in the world and the 21st least densely populated country in the world, needs more land, then every country in the world would need more land. And it turns out, land is finite and has already been distributed. So if anyone wants to gain any, they'd have to take it from someone else. Which inevitably leads to violence, death and destruction.
This is a well constructed argument. It is unfortunate that at best it is based upon false assumptions and prejudices. It is a description of a world that doesn't exist. I'd be interested to hear what you believe now, thirteen months after you posted this argument. How do you feel about the stability of the NATO alliance, the EU solidarity, the stability of European governments, the motivation of the US, the position of the world outside the West on this war and Russia's prospects?
Seems your discarding all references to The Cuban Crises
i want to hear same analize about Iraq, Afganistan, Lybia . In this time its so more often to remeber some bulgarian sayings - First take a look of yourself before judjing others. and The thief shouts: STOP THE THIEF! .
Mearsheimer is simply saying it's better to have a buffer between superpowers armed with huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.
No he is saying more then that. Hell at recent talks he has been saying that Russia has not been completely competent in how it’s going about the war. He is putting forward opinions on Putins motivations personally and the military strategies and tactics of Russia in the war. That’s beyond his his scope of knowledge.
NATO is a defensive military alliance.
@@davidradtke160, You are probably quite right. Mearsheimer has good knowledge about the interational politics, but he is misjudging Russia and Putin, and he isn't an expert about wars.
Ivan, what superowers you mean? Baltic countries? Poland? Do they have nuclear weapons? Am i missing something?
And these small countries dont know how specials and peacemakers for the global sustain just for being an neutral land. And they stupibly go to choose the side and look what happen now? the global crisis.
Alexander Stubb talked a lot about his values, and what Russia should or shouldn't do. Unfortunately, Russia does not act following Stubb's values or Ukraine's rights. I feel Mearsheimer's views make much more sense to me.
Mearsheimer takes into account Russia’s imaginary security concerns while disregarding Ukraine’s real ones
Ukraine will never be the same after this conflict.
Russia hopefully won't either.
@@brexistentialism7628 Ya, it'll be much bigger!!!