Why did Putin invade Ukraine? It's not what you think.

[Yoda]

Imagine being so effing stupid that you believe that Putin was "acting in self defense" when he invaded a country that he had already invaded 8 years earlier.

Like, seriously imagine that. I can't even begin to wrap my head around the idea of being so easily fooled by such ridiculous Kremlin propaganda.

[Ferguson97]

Imagine being so effing stupid that you believe that Putin was "acting in self defense" when he invaded a country that he had already invaded 8 years earlier.

Like, seriously imagine that. I can't even begin to wrap my head around the idea of being so easily fooled by such ridiculous Kremlin propaganda.

I imagine these idiots will be saying the same thing in 2030 when China invades Taiwan. ("They were defending themselves from US aggression!!!")

[GALeftist]

I don’t really understand why people are fighting when both things can be true simultaneously. Like, I don’t get why people insist in treating this as a black or white geopolitical situation like they were in a Marvel movie.

Because it is black and white. You can whine all you want about the "geopolitical marginalization" of post-communist Russia, but at the end of the day any version of that story that tries to justify an invasion of Ukraine is incoherent. (One would imagine that you of all people, Red Velvet, would be sensitive to this given how frequently the first and second worlds have used similar narratives to colonize the third. Portugal justified maintaining its African colonies because of its "geopolitical marginalization;" France similarly justified their attempt to maintain control of Algeria; South Africa similarly justified their maintenance of apartheid and continual meddling in the affairs of other African countries.)

At the end of the day, analyses like Mearsheimer's (or basically any other apologetics for Russia) must concede that Russia has a "natural" sphere of influence, the West attempted to encroach on that sphere in Ukraine, and we are now suffering for that transgression. This is dumb. Ukraine is no more naturally part of the Russian sphere than Cuba is naturally part of the American sphere, or, to put it another way, no country is entitled to geopolitical influence abroad, period.

One final thought: I think it's underappreciated how incredibly remote the chances were of Ukraine's joining the "Western sphere" were until like 2014. People are all too happy to claim that Euromaidan was a Western-backed coup that justifies invasion, but even if that were true (it isn't), isn't it also true that eastern Ukraine would likely have remained overwhelmingly pro-Russia but for the invasion of Crimea and the war in the Donbas? How come Putin himself never receives any blame for his shortsightedly ensuring that the Ukrainian people became united in their desire to become geopolitically separate and protected from Russia?

[Senator Incitatus]

I find that Mearsheimer's analysis of how we got here is largely right and—consistent with this analysis—I'm still not going to sympathize with Russia. Nothing in it suggests American interests lie on the side of the Russian Federation, and there are plenty of good long-term strategic reasons to be on the side of Ukraine or outcome-neutral while encouraging Russian losses by attrition.

Some people want to adopt realist analysis right up until the point we start acting in our own interests. Realism is an effective counter to our own propaganda—because it is an effective counter to all propaganda, including the absurd Russian claims that they are fighting a war on neo-Nazism—but it doesn't provide a good counter to the underlying justification for the propaganda itself and therefore fails to carry the counter-propagandists' efforts.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Countries willingly choosing to join NATO does not justify Russia’s invasion and attempted conquest of Ukraine. A swing and a miss. Thanks for playing.

The invasion of Ukraine was fully justified since the 2014 coup, it remains justified and history will be on our side

You will burn in hell you evil bloodthirsty hitlerite

[BlueSwan]

I don't think Mearsheimer is even close to being right. The explanation for aggressions by Russia in recent years can all be very easily explained by Putins expansionist desires. It's really not super complicated, as it is behaviour that we've seen from narcisssistic autocrats throughout history.

Also, the official explanations are so clearly bogus that you need to be an utter moron to even begin to believe them. From Ukraine being run by nazis to Ukraine (or NATO) planning on invading Russia. Just utter nonsense.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I think Mearsheimer isn’t deranged - he’s just trying to protect his legacy. Academics who reach a certain age can no longer afford to be wrong and maintain credibility, so he has to defend his earlier theses to the death (even disingenuously) or risk massive loss of relevance. Like many before him, he’s chosen influence over dignity.

[Ferguson97]

I don’t really understand why people are fighting when both things can be true simultaneously. Like, I don’t get why people insist in treating this as a black or white geopolitical situation like they were in a Marvel movie.

This is one of the 1% of global conflicts that is black and white.

[junior chįmp]

Articles like these are a prime example of people tying to intellectualize irrational behavior. It just can't be that Russia, it's government, and people have an irrational bloodlust to dominate Ukaraine and its people due to decades of brainwashing.  Nope...must be muh West

[junior chįmp]

I think Mearsheimer isn’t deranged - he’s just trying to protect his legacy. Academics who reach a certain age can no longer afford to be wrong and maintain credibility, so he has to defend his earlier theses to the death (even disingenuously) or risk massive loss of relevance. Like many before him, he’s chosen influence over dignity.

Most academics/intellectuals are no better than the average person on the street at predicting future political events:

It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people, but the experts are being paid, and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert

Mearsheimer just can't admit, "yeah, Russia has an irrational genocidal bloodlust against Ukraine"...must be muh intellectual reasons for it

[Hindsight was 2020]

I think Mearsheimer isn’t deranged - he’s just trying to protect his legacy. Academics who reach a certain age can no longer afford to be wrong and maintain credibility, so he has to defend his earlier theses to the death (even disingenuously) or risk massive loss of relevance. Like many before him, he’s chosen influence over dignity.

Most academics/intellectuals are no better than the average person on the street at predicting future political events:

It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people, but the experts are being paid, and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert

Mearsheimer just can't admit, "yeah, Russia has an irrational genocidal bloodlust against Ukraine"...must be muh intellectual reasons for it

I think you’re even giving Mearsheimer too much credit. His fans love to say the reason his Russian/NATO arguments are hated by DC geopolitical insiders is due to speaking hard truths to the system but it’s actually because after Euromaidan the Obama administration reached out to Mearsheimer on suggestions on what to do and implemented his ideas about placating Putin’s interests in the region and all it resulted in was taking Crimea and then the Donbas. An funny enough Mearsheimer completely omits these facts whenever he writes about his NATO theories

[junior chįmp]

I think Mearsheimer isn’t deranged - he’s just trying to protect his legacy. Academics who reach a certain age can no longer afford to be wrong and maintain credibility, so he has to defend his earlier theses to the death (even disingenuously) or risk massive loss of relevance. Like many before him, he’s chosen influence over dignity.

Most academics/intellectuals are no better than the average person on the street at predicting future political events:

It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people, but the experts are being paid, and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert

Mearsheimer just can't admit, "yeah, Russia has an irrational genocidal bloodlust against Ukraine"...must be muh intellectual reasons for it

I think you’re even giving Mearsheimer too much credit. His fans love to say the reason his Russian/NATO arguments are hated by DC geopolitical insiders is due to speaking hard truths to the system but it’s actually because after Euromaidan the Obama administration reached out to Mearsheimer on suggestions on what to do and implemented his ideas about placating Putin’s interests in the region and all it resulted in was taking Crimea and then the Donbas. An funny enough Mearsheimer completely omits these facts whenever he writes about his NATO theories

Oh I give Meatsheimer credit. He did what anyone would of done...he took the money and ran. He cashed his check with the Obama administration and now he's found other ways to keep on collecting. Everyone's just scammin everyone

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't think Mearsheimer is even close to being right. The explanation for aggressions by Russia in recent years can all be very easily explained by Putins expansionist desires. It's really not super complicated, as it is behaviour that we've seen from narcisssistic autocrats throughout history.

Also, the official explanations are so clearly bogus that you need to be an utter moron to even begin to believe them. From Ukraine being run by nazis to Ukraine (or NATO) planning on invading Russia. Just utter nonsense.

Yup, though the "self defense against NATO" still isn't ridiculous enough for Russia shills and other individuals with anti-American rhetoric to be repeated time and time again. Then they bring up the fact that Jim Baker and the German foreign minister told Gorbachev NATO wouldn't expand beyond East Germany in 1990. However, this was never formally included in any treaty and was even rejected by HW Bush at the time. At the same time, Russia did sign and ratify the 1994 Budapest memorandum, granting Ukraine security guarantees for its 1991 borders in exchange for giving up Soviet nukes. Subsequent Eastern European countries were admitted to NATO in the late 1990s and early 2000s at their own request (it's not that NATO actively pushed them into the alliance). Russia didn't formally protest at the time as well, as NATO committed not to station more than 5k US troops in the Baltics. NATO always upheld these committments until Putin fully invaded Ukraine.

Ukraine's NATO membership was also off the table after the 2008 summit. Which was done at Russia's demands. So essentially Ukraine was fooled twice. In 1994 and 2008. Had they either kept the nukes or were allowed into NATO, Putler wouldn't have dared to get in.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

If Putin didn't want Ukraine in NATO, he shouldn't have invaded Crimea.

[Hermit For Peace]

Countries willingly choosing to join NATO does not justify Russia’s invasion and attempted conquest of Ukraine. A swing and a miss. Thanks for playing.

The invasion of Ukraine was fully justified since the 2014 coup, it remains justified and history will be on our side

Kowtowing to Putin is a policy stance I can’t wrap my head around.
Yeah, Ukraine has flaws, but this is genocide occurring.
So I mean, saying it was justified is pretty interesting…

There is no genocide. Even with Ukrainian diplomatic attempts, all serious organizations, all countries (even the most delusional anti-Russian ones like Poland) have not said it is genocide. Are there war crimes? Yes, I don't deny them, but also by Ukraine.

What do we call what Ukraine did for 8 years in the Donbass? I mean, you can dismiss it all as Russian propaganda, but then you have their leaders, literally caught on video, calling for literal genocide. The amazing thing about the pro Ukraine people on this forum is that they deny, ignore or dismiss all evidence of what has been going on for EIGHT YEARS in the Donbass.

Ask any of those pro Ukrainian people if they have talked to people in eastern Ukraine, if they know their views. These are people who truly believe that the Crimeans were "forced" to join Russia.

Shut up.

Shut up.

Shut the f**k up you absolute clown.

Have you talked to people from Crimea, to people from Donbass? Please, you show yourselves for what you really are. Ignorant people who know absolutely nothing about the situation in Ukraine. You deny any kind of evidence, you deny history, you deny anything that doesn't fit your hypocritical narrative. Let's do one thing, let's go to Ukraine, I have friends who would give you free accommodation in Donbass, live with the people and in a month come back. do you dare?

People from Crimea? Which people?

The Tatars who attempted an ill-fated counter coup against the Russian astroturfed coup d'tat in 2014 chanting "Allahu Akbar" and "Slava Ukraini" to stop the return of the imperialists who had deported and brutalized them?

Or the decadent Russian tourist population that thinks liking the beach makes them immune to the consequences of their actions.

Everything else you are saying is completely fictitious but I don't care enough to reply I just hope everyone else knows it is made up.

I am referring to the Russian population of Crimea, which has been a majority in the territory since 1860. It's all made up, but none of you want to go and verify it. I am literally offering you free accommodation, pay for a travel stay, but you do nothing but insult me and call me a liar.

I don't think you're a liar. Your posts make sense to me. I think there are many people posting that are pretty ignorant about this entire situation with Ukraine, Russia, the West, NATO, everything. I include myself in this because I am pretty ignorant about war. But I'm willing to learn the truth. I don't think most posters want the truth, they want to keep fighting because war is like a sport, rooting for the good guys, or the perceived good guys anyway. Some people just like war I guess.

[Hindsight was 2020]

No one is falling for this fake bit Hermit

[President Johnson]

If Putin didn't want Ukraine in NATO, he shouldn't have invaded Crimea.

The entire Ukraine conflict actually proves Putin isn't the stategic mastermind, contrary to his public image. It was a huge failure as he archived the exact opposite than he intended. NATO and the EU are stronger and more united than ever before, Finland and Sweden joined the alliance and public opinion in Ukraine has massively shifted. I think there was a poll just before or shortly after the war began (don't exactly remember) that already showed around three quarters of the Ukrainian people held a positive view of the US. Now that number certainly hasn't gone down. While pretty much the entire people of Ukraine are done with Russia. In that sense, Putin was a useful idiot for the interests of the US, NATO and the EU.

[Hindsight was 2020]

For anyone interested this is a great vid I found months ago that does a great job going into the NATO argument and debunking it’s flaws

[Hermit For Peace]

No one is falling for this fake bit Hermit

Well, it's my opinion after reading the posts here (and other information elsewhere.) You can call it fake all you want, doesn't change a thing.

[Hindsight was 2020]

No one is falling for this fake bit Hermit

Well, it's my opinion after reading the posts here (and other information elsewhere.) You can call it fake all you want, doesn't change a thing.

Kinda hard to take the claims of legitimacy seriously when you never engage in any of the legitimate criticisms of Mearsheimer‘s claims or any pro-Ukraine arguments despite you acting like you’re independently minded on the issue