The war in Ukraine is just the appetizer - not the actual goal. War between Europe and Russia is the American dream scenario here, and the conduct of Russia in this war so far clearly shows they are trying to avoid giving the suicidal Europeans enough reason to fall for Washington's warmongering. — Tzeentch
If the Americans had their way, sure. — Tzeentch
They had hoped the Russians would more aggressively push Ukraine, which would have given NATO an opportunity to punish Russia via a guerilla war and which would have fueled Russophobia and the propaganda machines. (In a cruel twist of irony, it would be Israel that fell for such a trap in Gaza)
The Russians showed restraint though, giving NATO ample opportunity to back out of escalation and sit down for talks, which is why US warmongering is only finding limited success. — Tzeentch
The situation is still dangerous, though. Economic decoupling, the spreading of war sentiment and a measure of militarization has been achieved, so there is fertile soil for another conflict down the line. — Tzeentch
The US has proven it is willing to bomb its allies' infrastructure to further its agenda, so it's entirely thinkable the US may do something extreme to create the proverbial spark in the powder keg and thus we may be closer to the threshold for full-scale conflict between Europe and Russia than we think. — Tzeentch
So how does this look? What's the war aim? Recapture Kaliningrad for Germany? — Echarmion
This theory is nothing short of amazing. — Echarmion
I wouldn't expect someone who seems still to be stuck in "unprovoked invasion" territory to really get it, but still, thanks. — Tzeentch
Why does Ukraine seek western integration? The US engineered it.
Why don't Europeans act according to their geopolitical interests? They're in thrall to the US.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? The US forced them too. — Echarmion
An American accusing me of Hollywood bias is quite rich, though. There's not a nation on earth that has wreaked as much destruction on the world as the United States. It doesn't deserve anyone's benefit of the doubt. The only proper way to view its actions is through a lens of utter cynicism, which comes natural to a realist anyway. — Tzeentch
What I find bizarre is that you keep switching between different premises.
On the one hand, the geopolitical realities are supposed to be impersonal and irresistible forces. But when you have to explain why events don't conform to these forces, you suddenly invoke very personal and contingent reasons. European diplomats are incapable of even basic solutions. Unspecified actors are influenced by the US in unspecified ways. Europeans are "acting in bad faith" or are "ignoring realities". — Echarmion
I agree with this objection but it’s nothing new: Mearsheimer too can be easily accused of such bipolar attitude. On one side he claims to describe “geopolitical realities” when he talks about Russia’s behaviour, on the other he is all about condemning “geopolitical choices” which do not seem to match his “geopolitical theory” when he talks about US’s behaviour. — neomac
What I find interesting is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was such an unusual event that even Mearsheimer's take on geopolitics - which due to being offensive should have been better able to account for it - struggles with the consequences. — Echarmion
Anyways I find it pretty interesting that Mearsheimer now claims that the invasion was essentially fake, in that it's main objective was to somehow induce a negotiation rather than a military victory. I think this idea is pretty obviously wrong for a number of reasons, but I still find it interesting to speculate why Mearsheimer is proposing it in the first place. — Echarmion
I have an intuition that it's an attempt to somehow create a plausible motivation for the invasion that fits the notion of "abstract geopolitical forces". — Echarmion
So we're forced to either conclude that Russia's geopolitical interests alone do not explain the decision (which is my view) or we must invent reinterpret the decision as something other than a committment to full scale total war. — Echarmion
Russia invading Ukraine is what Mearsheimer has been predicting since the fall of the Soviet Union — boethius
That a state will attack another state on its border forming alliances with hostile other states is exactly what you'd expect in the offensive realism point of view. — boethius
The narrative that Russia tried and failed to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine was invented simply to make some sort of standard by which Russia conquering and occupying a further 20% of Ukraine was somehow a failure. — boethius
Just like the US responded aggressively to the Soviet Union deepening military cooperation with Cuba beyond a tolerable threshold, it is completely adequate an explanation that Russia likewise would and has responded aggressively to the US deepening military cooperation beyond some tolerable threshold in Ukraine (in addition to the killing of Russian speakers in the Donbas for years). — boethius
You don’t seem to follow through your own reasoning here. Indeed, what is true for Russia, it is true for the US and Ukraine too: regardless of what you think about the US and Ukraine, “countries in our system have a right, and rationally do anyways, act in preemptive self defence. What's been referred to as legitimate security concerns.” — neomac
As far as I know, Mearsheimer never made any definite prediction that Russia would invade Ukraine. Notably he has not made any prediction on the 2022 invasion before it happened. — Echarmion
What you'd expect is that a state exploits the weakness of neighbours to gain (local) hegemony. Arguably Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine fits that bill. The problem with the 2022 invasion is that there was a huge and obvious risk it would weaken Russia's position instead. — Echarmion
By which metric (except access to resources in eastern Ukraine, which I have mentioned) has Russia's geopolitical position improved as a result of the 2022 invasion? — Echarmion
Except that the US reaction did not in fact lead to a war. A comparable decision would be the US directly invading Cuba, but that is not what happened. Instead the US responded with an aggressive but calculated move that forced the ball back to the Soviet leadership who would then have been forced to escalate the conflict into open warfare. — Echarmion
Mearsheimer literally wrote an article titled "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent" in 1993 and has predicted since Eastward NATO expansion started that continuing to do so will result in Russia invading Ukraine, which has happened. — boethius
The US blockade was just as much an act of war as Russia invading Ukraine by land, only difference is that the nature of the sea is that a blockade can first result in a standoff. — boethius
And, obviously, the US did try to invade Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco precisely to avoid a situation where the Soviets are bringing in nuclear weapons to Cuba in response to US placing nuclear weapons in Turkey. — boethius
The point is, obviously you easily understand why the Russians would get aggressive in response to Ukraine trying to form a close military alliance with a hostile great power, and you're argument is simply that the Russians miscalculated in their choice of aggressive action. Had Russia only blockaded Ukrainians ports, it seems you'd be in total support of that. — boethius
If the war is a mistake for Russia because it's not gaining in international power ... well what is Ukraine gaining in the war? Has Ukraine's power and wealth increased? — boethius
Well, no, they're trying to gobble Donbas up, switch flags entirely, call it their own, expand Russia, and have employed shamming (and :fire: more) to do so. — jorndoe
The terms of the Istanbul Communiqué did not include any territorial gains for Russia - not even Crimea. — Tzeentch
You're welcome to provide this prediction but again so far as I know Mearsheimer has never said anything as specific as "if NATO keeps expanding eastward Russia will eventually invade Ukraine". What he has said is that Russia would react, potentially with military force. — Echarmion
What he has said is that Russia would react, potentially with military force. — Echarmion
Nothing in this contradicts anything I said. — Echarmion
A comparable decision would be the US directly invading Cuba, but that is not what happened. — Echarmion
And this failed, which is an argument against this being a good strategy. — Echarmion
The insinuation that the document indicated a russian willingness to forego territorial gains completely is unsubstantiated. — Echarmion
The basic issue of contention here is your claim that somehow Russia's invasion of Ukraine cannot be made sense of, at least not in the realist point of view. So let's just note in passing that you can easily make sense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
So obviously that part of the discussion is resolved, you can easily make sense of Russias invasion of Ukraine and your only actual issue is that Russia responded with the wrong act of war. — boethius
The Istanbul Communiqué is a strong piece of evidence that points in that direction, so obviously it is not 'unsubstantiated'. — Tzeentch
No, it wasn't. It was a draft peace treaty. But here you go again, bickering over minutiae because clearly you've got nothing better.
Look kiddo, this is a philosophy forum and people here make a sport out of trying to 'win arguments', and that's what you're doing, and it's worth no one's time. You're even wasting your own. — Tzeentch
A peace treaty is a treaty that, if signed, ends the conflict. — Echarmion
I'm pointing out false and misleading statements. — Echarmion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.