Stephen Kotkin makes a lot of sense to me - start ~ 12-13 minutes in
Last edited:
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Stephen Kotkin makes a lot of sense to me - start ~ 12-13 minutes in
Looks like Obama shares the same opinion
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/#3
The mistake was Biden Admin sticking to Trump's timeline and not conducting a more measured withdrawal.
Thanks for an explanation. I am no historical or geopolitical scholar, so I have no expertise to offer in this area. I am not sure that the fact his theories are simplistic are good grounds to dismiss them though. We are often drawn to simple theories that offer good explanations and predictions, this is more or less a staple underpinning of how physics progresses for example. But I appreciate he could be wrong and that states can be argued to be complex groups of stakeholders rather than single power hungry units that act uniformly in the interests of expansion and domination.
I think it's hard to predict what war will do (more resentment and hatred than before and less concern about being Nazis or being called Nazis if it promises revenge).
On reflection, Putin is playing a dangerous game and any success that Ukraine or Azov have in this war could feasibly translate to political success for extremists in the immediate aftermath, if Ukraine survives in anything resembling its current form.
Last edited:
Yep, agreed.
Very true
First, the fact that people, especially the uninformed, are drawn to simple explanations is not a good or positive thing. It's a horrible thing that makes it easier for conspiracy theorists or hucksters to peddle their wares. Just look at that the ridiculous explanation an American football star gave to counter evolution theory in the US politics thread. That type of simple explanation might appeal to some people but that's 100% a bad thing, nothing positive about it.
On Mearsheimer himself, his outlook ("blame the US for the crisis") doesn't appeal to me because its conclusion ignores a lot of basic principles, both moral and functional, especially the one that people have a right to self-determination. Being in Russia's so-called sphere of influence should mean nothing in regards to whether Latvia or Estonia wishes to increase their ties with the west and eventually want to join NATO or the EU. That's not some out-of-control "NATO expansion", it's people having the right to decide the own fate of their country. They should have the right to shape their own nation free of the influence of an authoritarian dictator for a neighbor. That's the major thing but there are lots of other details I think he gets wrong.
On an analytical level, his work is far too reductionist and IMO, lazy at best. @Raoul already listed a handful of other analytical frameworks that offer better lenses to analyze and view situations like this, especially when taken in conjunction with other frameworks.
This should be the case but in reality it isn't. Take a look at the map and you will find scores of countries that have no right to self-determination or maintain that right at a terrible cost (Cuba is the easiest example). The Cubans had a right to self-determination insofar as they were happy to determine themselves along the lines set out by Batista, a US-backed fascist (the same was true of the Iranians under the Shah and the Iraqis under Saddam until Saddam went rogue). They lost that right as soon as they overturned the Batista regime and attempted to shrug off American proxy status. That is how the world works and it's been that way in the Western hemisphere since the Monroe doctrine (before it, too, except it was European states which dominated).
Well I was thinking more along the lines of Relativity than Creationism, but point taken.
I do think again, as some other poster said the same sort of thing in another post, Mearsheimer is completely disregarding of what Russia should do, he is describing what they will do and he did this 8 years ago and seems pretty on the money, which has to buy him at the least an audience for his thoughts. 'People having the right to decide the fate of their own country', well yes of course, in an ideal world. You don't need to dig very far back in history to see example upon example upon example of this rarely happening though. I think Mearsheimer's '19th century" view of the world deserves more credit, we've got countless examples in the past of how powerful states behave. I'm not really interested in what some sociology major thinks is a fair outcome, I'm interested in what states actually do. And in terms of a 'better lens', I don't know enough about this subject, it's conceivable there is a better lens. If it's just one that's based on what would be a nice thing to happen I'm not really interested though, because that's just not how powerful states act, and I don't really expect it to change any time soon. I said I would take the US as the global hegemon all day long, do we really believe they are this wonderful, benevolent state though? Rubbish, they rule the world by interfering in the politics of other countries and are happy to invade other countries and topple regimes when it suits their aims. If you think it's because they're just so keen to 'help out' then in all honesty I just find that laughable. THere's a reason Machiavelli's The Prince sells year after year, because it's an accurate description of what effective power looks like.
This sort of thing is probably happening at scale in most European countries and beyond.
In relation to the current situation: Former Soviet Republics want to be more prosperous and not bound by the constraints of the previous decades so they modernize and get closer to the west. They change their systems of political economy, modernize, and build ties with the west. It's logical and pragmatic for states like Estonia or Latvia to then want to join the EU or NATO. It's also mutually beneficial to integrate these nations into the globalized economy in a way that offers greater benefits for everyone involved in the transaction. Of course, a country like Ukraine and the west, in general, isn't going to just accept that Ukraine has no right to self-determination in these circumstances.
Russia could have done this as well and completely avoided this current reality had Putin been, as people have mentioned, more of a technocrat/modernizer instead of being such an ego-driven mercantilist actor. And incidentally, I look at Putin economically as being motivated by a mercantilist view of the world. I don't buy that Putin is invading because he was threatened by NATO and thus "it's NATO and the US fault." Using my estimates of his perceived payoffs in game theory, I think he's far more driven by A) his desire for a legacy for Russian Empire, B) control of Ukraine's natural resources, and C) he doesn't want a liberal democracy next door irrespective of whether it's in NATO/EU or not. The NATO expansion line is just PR cover.
It's why I see the Mearsheimer view as less than convincing. Mearsheimer suggests if Ukraine were a liberal democracy, modernizing with close ties to the US and western Europe but not flirting with the idea of being in NATO/EU then Putin would not have invaded. I think the evidence at hand disproves that notion.
None of which three factors can be isolated from the reality of NATO expansion. If it's A, then he has to take control by pushing back against the de facto NATOfication in the West. If it's B, he has to secure those resources by pushing back against the de facto NATOfictation in the West. If it's C (and you get the point).
Ukraine juggled between West and Russia for 23 years or so before Maidan (which was supported by the US). There were tensions from 2000-2010 but no hint of war or annexation.
Someone said above "Mearsheimer may have been wrong". How exactly? He made a prediction in line with academic consensus which turned out to be entirely correct. Constructivism has to take structuralism into account before it gives its individual view of the world. Also, the point regarding Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and the entirety of Latin and South America at various stages has not been addressed. From those case studies (forecast in the Monroe doctrine with respect to the Western hemisphere) we know that a state's desire to choose its own kind of international relationship is the ideal scenario but not the reality. It isn't the reality in Cuba and it isn't the reality in Ukraine.. I'd say each should be condemned but Mearsheimer simply accepts it as the way of the world within his calculus (though he doesn't justify it, he simply sees no point in moralizing).
People say Ukraine should be allowed to choose its own military and bloc alliances. I agree. But so should every state bound within the orbit of greater states and such is not the case. Mearsheimer's view is validated by US actions in the Western hemisphere and around the world, where it has denied smaller states the right of autonomy and "agency" for nearly two hundred years, before you even take Russia into account.
I see what you're saying. We live in the world that exists and we can't 100% divorce different potential realities to test theories the way you can in a science experiment. But I think Mearsheimer's assertion that in an thought experiment world where Ukraine modernizes, becomes a liberal democracy, establishes close ties to the west but just doesn't take the step to join NATO or EU that Putin would not have invaded is just asinine. There is no evidence that his counter-factual example to prove his rational is the correct analysis.
To counter that I would say all of Putin's actions are rooted in a mercantilist economic view. With that as a foundation of Putin's worldview (which I think his actions bear out as accurate), Putin would have invaded Ukraine with or without any "NATO expansion" because he is taking the actions that benefit him the most. He is not solely reacting to any perceived or imagined threat from NATO, he is acting under his own worldview in a way he thinks advances what matters to him the most. Just look at his false flags about Donesk and Luhansk. I don't think its compelling to say without "NATO expansion" he never would have invaded.
The irony of course is that if he himself had modernized and made Russia more attractive as a partner in ways other than just resource exporter, then the former Soviet republics would have had far less incentive to pursue EU/NATO membership in the first place. So, that whole "NATO expansion" angle is just a chicken-and-egg thing. If Putin had not been who he is, then nations would have had far less reason to want to join NATO. So even in that view of NATO expansion (which I don't see as convincing in any way), Putin can still be said to be the primary one responsible for his actions to invade not the US/NATO.
Tons of people make predictions that turn out correct but these isolated incidents don't prove their methodology is the best methodology. Nostradamus has predictions that came true. Or more recently, people with very different economic views, even directly contradictory economic views, "predicted" the financial crisis of 2008. I mean Tom Holland predicted his future in an interview years ago, that doesn't make him psychic.
The thing is, without NATO expansion he most likely would not have had to invade (if Maidan didn't happen). Assume a mercantilist view of Putin. OK, but you only invade (in the respective positions of Ukraine and Russia) if you are losing what you already have, de facto (this was Crimea in 2014; in 2022, it arguably had more to do with the extent to which NATO had solidified its position in the West without committing to rule out Ukrainian entrance, and, in an individual sense, Putin's reaffirmation of his own position within the Kremlin: you can add constructivist points upon a structuralist base).
I think it is compelling because it's a rerun of what happened in Georgia with Putin's response in 2008. That's where Mearsheimer begins his argument. Putin invades to retain Russia's sphere of influence and because of territorial disputes it also renders said countries' capacity to join blocs null and void.
You can always improve on methodology but it would be disingenuous to state that Mearsheimer was a kind of soothsayer without methodological substance. It wasn't just Mearsheimer, either. Heads of intelligence agencies, military figures, foreign policy experts, and social commentators from left to right predicted the exact same scenario as early as the 1990s.
If these illegal refugees can't enter the UK legally, where is the place they can legally stay for awhile?
I don't agree with that at all. I think he 100% would have invaded because of the three reasons I mentioned and even without countries like Estonia and Latvia joining NATO and Ukraine contemplating it, he wouldn't be able to get what he wants without invading Ukraine. It provided a pretext sure, but as Donesk and Luhansk show, he would have invented a pretext to get what he wants anyway. None of the three reasons I mentioned are reliant on NATO expansion. NATO expansion is a not a necessary condition of Putin's actions. Mercantilist imperialists certainly did not only invade countries for reactionary reasons, they did because they saw resource acquisition as directly related to increasing their power projection. They did it because they can, and so is Putin, at least in his view before it happened he believed he can.
It's disingenuous to validate his point of view simply because he got one prediction sort of correct. It's not even like he fully foresaw the way things are playing out either.
I certainly don't always agree with Douthat but I think he has this one spot on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opinion/ukraine-russia-invasion-west.html
Last edited:
He would've invaded Ukraine at some point because he's seeking to build an empire. The only reason the invasion didn't happen earlier is because he didn't think the circumstances were right for him to realistically pull it off.
Quality material for Russian propaganda right here. Would be like if Iraq started making wmds during the US invasion.
What evidence exists that he would have still invaded a neutral Ukraine? Isn’t it just opinions based on guesswork about how the Kremlin thinks and operates? I think it’s only logical to believe that removing a key trigger for the invasion would reduce the likelihood of an invasion.
It's hypothetical but I think NATO played a part however big or small that part was in the thinking of Putin. Kennan was warning about the inevitability of a conflict prior to Putin if NATO continued its current path. I don't think NATO was a pure pretext, or Donesk/Luhansk as each is home to a significant Russian majority that has been funded by the Kremlin but also has organic dislike of Ukraine post-Maidan.
I don't think he had to prior to Maidan because he had de facto control of all the things he wanted (all three options listed above). He also has to know that Russia's economic base is far too small to build an empire and sustain the kind of military action that would require.
Yeah, it was a dumb move on the Ukrainians' part, it just feeds into Putin's genuinely false pretext.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...tcliffe-released-leave-iran-anousheh-ashouri/
In other news, Iran have freed Ratcliffe which hints at nuclear talks having gone well.
In other news, Iran have freed Ratcliffe which hints at nuclear talks having gone well.
Firewalled, how is that possible?
Edit: got around it. Sanctions would be more of a double sword, all our supply chains have some linkages in China.
Sanctioning China as Russia has been sanctioned is not a credible option. It would make previous market depressions look like a dip in comparison. The only reason 2008 wasn't as bad as it could have been is because China largely offset the worst case scenario with its rising middle class and cheap source of labour. Europe gets raw materials and energy from Russia, it gets everything else (exports and imports) from China.
Daniil Medvedev told he will be banned from Wimbledon unless he denounces Vladimir Putin
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/...-told-will-banned-wimbledon-unless-denounces/
Getting a bit silly now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/...-told-will-banned-wimbledon-unless-denounces/
Getting a bit silly now.
He's been playing with neutral colors. Not representing Russia.
Because Putin's actions and statements have led to the opposite, countries more willing to want to join NATO (see Finland) and pushed Ukraine further away from Russia for generations and increased the desire to join NATO/EU. His own statements about Ukraine being a creation of the USSR and his actions of quickly targeting positions deeper into Ukraine don't conform with a goal of just trying to prevent NATO expansion. He could have made decisions in how to conduct the war that would have been more likely to achieve that result. His words and actions comport with a mercantilist imperialist motivation.
Even if we were to grant NATO expansion as a supplemental factor, it can't just be blamed on US/NATO as Mearsheimer does because again, Putin's own actions push countries to want to join NATO/EU. Putin's created a self-fulfilling prophecy there. So either he's an incompetent realist or he has other end goals. I think the latter is more likely. Also, the NY Times article is spot on because the realists fundamentally misread the situation Ukraine. They might have predicted some conflict but they got the nature of the conflict wrong and misread Putin's actions. A poly sci like Mearsheimer can sit back and say Ukraine doesn't have the right to self-determination because they are in Russia's sphere of influence but the reality on the ground is that Ukrainians are willing to fight like mad to defend their right to self-determination.
Yea it’s more him having to make some public denouncement to be eligible to play. Seems a bit silly and over the top.
Anyone that says this about a nation of people can feck right off, they are at best a imbecile and at worst a complete and utter piece of shit.
Mearshimmer is a dinosaur in the age of mammals. Realism itself is on the rocks because it is increasingly limited as an explanatory tool in IR.
I've only seen snippets of what's been posted on the caf but yes he seems stuck in 19th century great power politics.
I agree with a lot of the points you make (especially self-fulfilling prophecy) but Mearsheimer isn't saying that Ukraine should have no right to self-determination vis-à-vis choosing a military or political bloc, but that they do not have unfettered rights to self-determination. He's dealing with the reality, not the ideal. Ideally, Cuba would not be under an embargo, Venezuela would not be under sanctions. What's the difference exactly? One is that neither Cuba nor Venezuela are associated with a foreign military bloc but the sanctions/embargo persists because the US sees them as existing within the American sphere of influence. You have to meet the reality of these situations before you talk about the ideal (no one would disagree with the ideal, whether it relates to Cuba, Ukraine, or Venezuela)
I know you have all discussed this in further detail in the meantime, but I wanted to get back to this point since it's been repeated quite often in this thread. My point is that Mearsheimer predicting the event is not all that interesting in and of itself; he may have happened to have gotten it right for entirely the wrong reasons. And I do think that's the case here to some extent, cause I think Mearsheimer's projections are based on very incomplete arguments, and that e.g. @oneniltothearsenal's complementary reasoning is much more comprehensive.
"Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression."
These are the words of John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputed international relations theorists of the 20th Century.
He articulated this argument, however, way back in 1993, for the journal Foreign Affairs, in a paper titled, "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent".
Keep the nukes or be damned. Man knew what he was talking about.
These are the words of John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputed international relations theorists of the 20th Century.
He articulated this argument, however, way back in 1993, for the journal Foreign Affairs, in a paper titled, "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent".
Keep the nukes or be damned. Man knew what he was talking about.
Until someone can answer the Latin/South American case studies (which are current), Mearsheimer's 19th century conceptual style convinces me (what's the difference between Cuba and Venezuela today, Chile in 1971, and Ukraine?). Ukraine was being NATOfied de facto, Cuba and Venezuela have no allegiance to foreign military blocs hostile to the US. The only difference is that Cuba/Venezuela are considered by the US to be within the US sphere of influence under the logic expressed as far back as the Monroe doctine and carried forward to the present day.
Don’t you admire Castro for his defiance of the US though? Yet you seem to think Zelensky should capitulate.