|
|
Post by alvinthechipmunk on Feb 24, 2022 23:13:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Feb 25, 2022 7:56:06 GMT
Strongly agree. It's a brilliant analysis by a University of Chicago prof.
I note that the presentation length is 45 minutes; the rest is Q&A.
Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 25, 2022 12:41:00 GMT
I agree on a couple of levels. I am sick and tired of the so-called (not limited to current) leaders of this country being so blind. The only good outcome so far is no troops sent. For Putin to even intimate nuclear weapons so fast is an indication how fed up he is/was with western incursion of the eastern hemisphere. The energy aspect of this will take years to work out. We keep screwing ourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2022 13:23:11 GMT
Yes indeed, very interesting lecture and well worth the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvinthechipmunk on Feb 25, 2022 19:34:33 GMT
Glad it's being so well received. Part of it, particularly near the start, reminds me of the way the Middle Eastern borders were so arbitrarily drawn after WW One. Mearsheimer is quite correct in terms of Realpolitik. I would prefer to slice the bologna a bit thinner than that, raise some issues that lie UNDER the surface. The USA has certainly screwed-up repeatedly with this whole business of "promoting democracy." Particularly in places that are way behind the curve in terms of organization, education, and simply being modern and enlightened. Years ago, there were fat-heads in charge of Latin American countries who were corrupt and ran things by nepotism. (e.g., Somoza in Nicaragua.) And there were "liberal" or "radical" people, like Ortega, also in Nicaragua, whom their countrymen embraced. But more recently, he's shown himself to be a true scuzz chewer. Corrupt, rigging elections--- or at least the VOTE COUNTING. Why do we always back the wrong horse? Because they were the lesser of two evils? That's my thinking. The US Administration never did support Ortega, anyhow... As screwed-up as we can be, the US DOES indeed stand for some ideals which uncle Vlad the pig fart sniffer scoffs at. I have posted here before in "Off Topic" about a book I've read which took my breath away regarding how corrupt, ruthless and incorrigible Putin and his tong is. They are all connected, from the local neighborhood right up to the Kremlin. All accountable to each other, further up the line. What passes for "business as usual" is literally a routine "shakedown" of anyone who approaches financial success, running a business or what have you. Institutionalized bribery and graft. Granted, it is the way MANY countries operate. Even the Philippines, where my lovely spouse comes from. It's a good place to be FROM. Ukraine is dreadfully corrupt, I've heard and read. Surely, THAT'S why the country has not been admitted to NATO already. Mearsheimer makes that point, too. Nothing in any conversation I've come across, though, mentions ANYTHING about Putin's own motivations. It seems to me he is clearly attempting to reclaim the old Soviet sphere of influence--- whether or not he takes and occupies all of Ukraine. Mearsheimer is right: just like the Confederates in our own Civil War, all he has to do is to NOT LOSE. The Confederates eventually could hold out no longer. Uncle Vlad the toe jam licker does indeed hold and control much more power and more troops that Robert E. Lee. So he can wreck Ukraine, then offer it back. Sure. I just think that the thing to do must include more than simply letting such a criminal shrew do whatever he feels like doing. Mearsheimer mentions that the Russians were leasing a Navy base in Crimea. "They were already there." But it IS part of Ukraine. Just like the Donbas. Putin the opossum french-kisser, wants to live in the past and attempt to resurrect Soviet-style power? Why shouldn't anyone affected by his machinations be assisted to resist such a scheme?  And it goes without saying:  |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Feb 26, 2022 0:17:36 GMT
I think Prof. Mearsheimer's crystal ball is a bit foggy. If the date is correct the lecture was recorded on Sept 25,2015, about a year after the Ukrainian revolution removed Russia's puppet government. He hints that Russia is helping the resistance in the eastern part of the country and directly states that Russia with wreck it (probably by supporting the Russian speaking fighters). He repeated says Putin is too smart to invade Ukraine. He says that Putin is not trying to recreate the Soviet Union and that if he was to try he would get himself into trouble. Putin is too smart to try to conquer Ukraine. Apparently not.
Prof. Mearsheimer said he preferred being in Beijine and Moscow. They have 19th century thinking. They understand balance of power. The US with its 21st century thinking doesn't. Whether its 19th century or 20th century balance of power is important. It is only when one side is perceived as being weak will the other side try to take advantage.
He said that NATO is going to disappear. He didn't really go into why but an organization that is growing is unlikely to disappear and although the professor couldn't know what was going to happen seven years later, Russia's current activities is showing member countries that NATO is more important than ever.
He had some good points but clearly drew the wrong conclusions. Putin did invade Ukraine. He cannot just set up another puppet government and leave. The Ukrainians will not tolerate it. So he is likely to have troops there a very long time.
I think the three small Baltic states are next. That will be a problem. They are a part of NATO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 26, 2022 0:31:04 GMT
Mustang, I do not believe the Baltic’s are in play. If that is the case all hell will break loose and we are in trouble. There will be no line left to cross and China will go for Taiwan. I am not sure why the speaker said NATO will disappear other than Europe will no longer be important and need to listen again. This is a mess if you are right.
|
|
|
|
Post by chang on Feb 26, 2022 0:59:25 GMT
I think the three small Baltic states are next. That will be a problem. They are a part of NATO. Not a chance. There's nothing Russian about them; why would Russia want them. |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 26, 2022 1:09:40 GMT
I think the three small Baltic states are next. That will be a problem. They are a part of NATO. Not a chance. There's nothing Russian about them; why would Russia want them. Don't think they do. Putin wants NATO off his doorstep. chang, what the news like in your part of the world? What if anything do they worry about? |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Feb 26, 2022 1:21:02 GMT
Not a chance. There's nothing Russian about them; why would Russia want them. Don't think they do. Putin wants NATO off his doorstep. chang , what the news like in your part of the world? What if anything do they worry about? Thailand has a good trading relationship with Russia, and no one here could care less about the Ukraine issue. They probably view Western sanctions as an opportunity to expand trade with Russia. In fact, EMs might get a boost from sanctions, although I don't suppose revenues from sales to Russia amount to a significant amount for any country. RSX took a dive which probably hurt EM funds, many of which own companies like Gazprom, Sberbank, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by BearMkt on Feb 26, 2022 2:32:54 GMT
This was a 2015 lecture. Nice little recent historical background. I'd like to hear who he blames for the current invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 26, 2022 3:55:58 GMT
The point was the west went to Russias’ doorstep and invited Ukraine into NATO. The US has the Monroe Doctrine warming Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Think Bay of Pigs. I suppose this incursion is the Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. After Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions I would think we would learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvinthechipmunk on Feb 26, 2022 8:16:49 GMT
The point was the west went to Russias’ doorstep and invited Ukraine into NATO. The US has the Monroe Doctrine warming Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Think Bay of Pigs. I suppose this incursion is the Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. After Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions I would think we would learn. ************* An apt description. |
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Feb 26, 2022 10:35:02 GMT
Mustang"He repeated says Putin is too smart to invade Ukraine." Not true. Mearsheimer predicted the opposite: Russia would "wreck" the Ukraine if unable to stop NATO / EU expansion there. If memory serves, Mearsheimer did say that Putin is too smart to attack NATO. But, correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Feb 26, 2022 12:20:21 GMT
I think the three small Baltic states are next. That will be a problem. They are a part of NATO. Not a chance. There's nothing Russian about them; why would Russia want them. It would unite the small part of the Russian Federation with the rest. It would give land locked Russia more access to ports. And, it would give Putin back land the Soviet Union once controlled. NATO expanded not because of Western conquest. It expanded because those countries had lived under Russia's thumb for decades. They could see the stark differences between living in the West and living in the East and they didn't want to go back. It is Russia that rules by conquest not NATO.
I didn't expect Finland and Sweden to fall into Putins sights. As far as I know neither country has changed their policy of staying neutral.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 26, 2022 16:48:05 GMT
It is interesting that it was said Putin would "wreck Ukraine". Exactly what the US did to Afghanistan and Iraq. One side uses guns to shoot down resistors and the other uses democracy as a wrecking hammer.
Sorry, I don't see Putin on some great crusade to swallow up countries. He has a specific goal here. Crimea was phase 1. The rest of Ukraine is phase 2. The risk of another WW could result from Europe wetting itself over further westward expansion. Why would Putin give up easy money selling energy?
|
|
|
|
Post by uncleharley on Feb 26, 2022 18:41:24 GMT
"Why would Putin give up easy money selling energy?"
I assume you are looking for an answer that uses some logic. Putin is not logical. His moves & motives are neither logical or predictable. Putin is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvinthechipmunk on Feb 26, 2022 19:55:40 GMT
"Why would Putin give up easy money selling energy?" I assume you are looking for an answer that uses some logic. Putin is not logical. His moves & motives are neither logical or predictable. Putin is insane. I am in sympathy with that remark, but I think Uncle Vlad the mud-f****r is a megalomaniac, working logically from his own playbook. He is the RUSSIAN President. Ukraine is not Russia. Borders and the rule of Law do not matter to him. What he lacks is restraint in any civilized form. Does he want to keep NATO from his doorstep? Of course. Does he want to destabilize Europe? Of course. Why? it will cement his own position. He is in charge of a lawless gang-ocracy in his own country. They control things by intimidation and extortion. "Meanwhile, back at the ranch," the vast huge majority of Russians live a bleak existence. He is stirring up support from his countrymen, playing the victim. Turning the truth inside-out. Just like uncle Joe the Demublican (sic) has told us. There was no faulty Intelligence THIS time, prior to the war. The one using false premises is uncle Vlad the pizzle sucker. |
|
|
|
Post by bb2 on Feb 26, 2022 19:58:45 GMT
Disagree. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgian_referendumIf Georgians, in 2008, voted 75% to join NATO, why. Why did they want protection? Without it they feared Putin. Not because of it. Yanukovych, Mearsheimer, (18:02), refers to as "The president of Ukraine." Emphasizes it. Like Yanukovych was legit. Come on. They ran him out of town on a rail, back to Russia and stripped his mansion of all it's ill-gotten gold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych"Yanukovych was initially declared the winner. However, the legitimacy of the election was questioned by many Ukrainians, international organizations, and foreign governments following allegations of electoral fraud. The resulting widespread protests became known as the Orange Revolution. The second round of the election was subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and in the repeated run-off, Yanukovych lost to Yushchenko with 44.2 percent to Yushchenko's 51.9 percent.[46] After the election, the Ukrainian parliament passed a non-binding motion of no confidence in Yanukovych's government, urging outgoing President Leonid Kuchma to dismiss Yanukovych and appoint a caretaker government. Five days after his electoral defeat, Yanukovych declared his resignation from the post of Prime Minister. In November 2009 Yanukovych stated that he conceded defeat only to avoid violence. "I didn't want mothers to lose their children and wives their husbands. I didn't want dead bodies from Kyiv to flow down the Dnipro. I didn't want to assume power through bloodshed."[47]" Far as I can tell, John Mearsheimer is an appeasing ..... Edit. So yes, maybe Putin was provoked. But avoiding conflict isn't always preferred when a dictator is coming for you anyway. See WWII. And another edit: I though appeasing megalomaniacal dictators went out in the 1930's. (Just to sum it up.) |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 26, 2022 23:49:47 GMT
One has to wonder if Putin is insane why did he have the discipline to wait until 2022? Mearscheimer is appeasing no one. He presented his educated perspective. A perspective I agree with. If acting “insane” is demonstrated by invading sovereign nations then the invasion of Iraq would be an example of insanity. Repeating the same type of act and expecting different results is insane. If the US has its Monroe Doctrine and believes in it then it seems the US would extend that courtesy to eastern countries and stay out.
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Feb 27, 2022 4:18:09 GMT
One has to wonder if Putin is insane why did he have the discipline to wait until 2022? Mearscheimer is appeasing no one. He presented his educated perspective. A perspective I agree with. If acting “insane” is demonstrated by invading sovereign nations then the invasion of Iraq would be an example of insanity. Repeating the same type of act and expecting different results is insane. If the US has its Monroe Doctrine and believes in it then it seems the US would extend that courtesy to eastern countries and stay out. , Iraq = Weapons of Mass Destruction, right? Whether the intelligence that led to Iraq invasion was correct is only arguable in hindsight. Plus, US actions including Afghan and Iraq are closely to tied to 9/11 and the reactions emanating from there. I do not see any parallels with what is happening in Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Feb 27, 2022 6:12:09 GMT
One has to wonder if Putin is insane why did he have the discipline to wait until 2022? Mearscheimer is appeasing no one. He presented his educated perspective. A perspective I agree with. If acting “insane” is demonstrated by invading sovereign nations then the invasion of Iraq would be an example of insanity. Repeating the same type of act and expecting different results is insane. If the US has its Monroe Doctrine and believes in it then it seems the US would extend that courtesy to eastern countries and stay out. , Iraq = Weapons of Mass Destruction, right? Whether the intelligence that led to Iraq invasion was correct is only arguable in hindsight. Plus, US actions including Afghan and Iraq are closely to tied to 9/11 and the reactions emanating from there. I do not see any parallels with what is happening in Ukraine. Sorry, but I completely disagree. * Remember Hans Blix and the contrived claims about WMD? It was BS from the start. * Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; Saddam wasn't an Islamist. * Phony Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify war. * Overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran set in motion the Iranian revolution. Total disaster. Actions like these contributed to mistrust of the US and NATO. Putin's invasion is criminal, but Mearsheimer correctly assessed Russia's concerns about a NATO / EU expansion. We didn't have to poke the bear in the eye with a stick. That empowered men like Putin. Not so different than the poorly conceived Treaty of Versailles and the empowerment of AH. N. |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 27, 2022 13:11:15 GMT
steadyeddy , there are no parallels. Only lessons. Again, we have the Monroe Doctrine. Our stated goal is to keep "foreigners out of the western hemisphere", but we are not able to self-police ourselves. We have this moral superiority attitude that "we" can fix whatever country we want to invade. WMD was an excuse. North Korea has them. Iran has them. China has them. Russia has them. Afghanistan was about finding Bin Laden. Iraq was for spite. "We didn't have to poke the bear in the eye with a stick". 100% right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearchar on Feb 27, 2022 14:41:12 GMT
I believe the West has seriously underestimated Russia.
They (we) seem to have believed that sanctions would convince Russia to accept NATO missiles.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised is they go low yield Nuclear just to make sure we understand how serious they are.
Beyond that, the future for the Ukraine is murky.
How long will Russia occupy it?
Will they completely close the western borders?
Will they try to Russianize the entire country?
That will take a long time resolve.
So, this could turn out to a long protracted conflict.
I don't see a negotiated settlement in the near term.
So, a huge crimp on energy prices; especially in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Feb 27, 2022 14:59:51 GMT
Fearchar , I think the sanctions are a smoke screen. The politicians are either stupid, self-serving or devious. Sanctions are a way of acting like a "big shot" without doing anything. Do you hear the president saying we will not support Putin by NOT buying his hydrocarbons and pump our own? The whole thing is a sick game and really none of our business. However, we must act morally superior and support the unfortunate Ukrainians somehow, but with no real results. The world is a tough place to live in and some of us are lucky to live here. We will all pay a price. Theirs is uprooted lives, ours is money. It will only go nuclear if the west keeps sticking our nose into others business. Putin has stated that and is fed up. What is to underestimate? Now if I am wrong that Putin does not have ambitions to keep moving west then we are talking about Europe getting panicked and WW3 starting. At that point we are involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2022 15:29:40 GMT
I'm not sure. Outside assistance in bleeding the Soviets in Afghanistan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine is going have a much larger impact on Russia. I think there is at least a chance, perhaps the best chance we've seen in recent history, that Putin doesn't survive this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bb2 on Feb 27, 2022 15:37:15 GMT
Seems to me to agree with the Mearshimer lecture, one must believe Putin would be content with the status quo after the Soviet Union breakup.
I don't think his remarks over the years suggest he would be.
Sure, NATO expansion is a clear provocation but it could also be a deterrent.
Putin isn't stable - he's now threatening the world with WMD use.
|
|
|
|
Post by bb2 on Feb 27, 2022 16:27:53 GMT
I'm not sure but is it true that on this thread, where you live is determinative of your thoughts? There seems to be an anti-US sentiment expressed, which I'm sympathetic of but I'm wondering if it's stronger from those living outside the US. Just interested if that's the case. Always good to look into what people living elsewhere think; those outside the admittedly propagandistic local media.
(My computer crashed twice this week, once while looking at a Russian website and the other with Al Jazerra. Why I have a dedicated computer for anything financial and ONLY financial. No mail, no nothing,)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2022 16:46:54 GMT
I live in Florida and I'm mostly pissed at Germany. I'm not an isolationist, but just find it ridiculous that America still has to defend countries with higher standards of living that then thumb their nose when we plead with them not empower authortarian leaders like Merkel did with Putin and Nord Stream II.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Feb 27, 2022 17:17:36 GMT
I live in Florida and I'm mostly pissed at Germany. I'm not an isolationist, but just find it ridiculous that America still has to defend countries with higher standards of living that then thumb their nose when we plead with them not empower authortarian leaders like Merkel did with Putin and Nord Stream II. Germany decided yesterday (?) to ship 1000 anti-tank missiles and 500 Stinger missiles to the Ukraine. Finally. Though, I'd rather see a cease fire than continued fighting, where nobody wins. |
|
And it goes without saying:
