I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it. There are no scientists that would provide an opposite reasoning as logical as the Mearsheimer's one.
> CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
I do not support wars. But you can't ask a question like that. It doesn't make sense.
War is a mechanism for dispute resolution. Yes, we, people, don't like such mechanisms. But such is the life. These mechanisms are used by the US all the time. The US shows the world that this mechanism can be used. So, the US can, but Russia can't? It doesn't even matter whether it's Russia or any other country.
In the case of Russian-Ukrainian war, the dispute that the war is trying to resolve comes from the expansion of NATO and military bases next to the Russian borders. No expansion -> no war.
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
It doesn't matter which century we are in. The society hasn't reached a state in which a fairly complex dispute can be resolved without a war. Right now there is no state in which war is an impossible option. To make it more clear, for example, we are in a state in which the humanity cannot travel with the speed of light. We are simply not there yet. When it comes to wars, we are in state in which a war is a possibility.
When Putin asked the US (early 2000s) why NATO is expanding, they just mumbled some bullshit in response. How can military bases across the world create peace? You can't create peace by throwing weapon around the world. There will always be someone who won't like it.
The US should've take Putin more seriously in the first place, but they kept belittling his requests to stop the expansion for 15+ years.
> I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it.
There was a logic behind Hegel. Marx believed it.
There was a logic behind Marx. Lenin believed it.
There was a logic behind Lenin. Both Stalin and Mao believed it.
There was a logic behind Schopenhauer. There was a logic behind Nietzsche. Hitler believed it.
If the 20th century taught us anything, it was to be extremely wary of fine-sounding philosophers with their arguments about "logical necessity" and "historical inevitability". Way too often it was a rationalization of evil, or at least it was used by evil men to put a veneer of "necessity" on their evil.
Mearsheimer's position may be pragmatic, but it is deeply morally nihilistic. Are you also? Can you even spell "wrong"?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Russia's missile attacks to destroy infrastructure are wrong. Russia's actions toward civilians in the territory they conquered are wrong.
Why is NATO expanding? It's really simple. Because nations on the periphery of Russia are terrified of Putin! They're terrified of Russia's "sphere of influence" being a "sphere of military operations". They've seen it too many times. Why did Sweden and Finland just decide to join NATO, after more than half a century of neutrality? Because they saw what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that's why! It wasn't because they were pushed into it by the US. They were pushed into it by Russia! They wanted a very clear sign that told Putin in no uncertain terms: "Don't try that here."
Your morals are leaving victims to their oppressors because "realpolitik". That's Quisling's morals, and Chamberlain's, and it's sickening.
> Why did Sweden and Finland just decide to join NATO, after more than half a century of neutrality?
It's a nitpick but one I believe just expands your point here, I live in Sweden and this country has been neutral and out of wars for more than 200 years. Putin has broken a 200 years stance on neutrality and forced Sweden, under a Social Democrat government nonetheless, to join NATO, something that was unthinkable and unsupported by the population barely a year ago.
Why is Russia so threatened about having a defensive alliance around its borders? Ukraine has been abused by Russia, the Baltics as well, Eastern Europe, these countries chose to protect themselves against Russia, why do you still push the narrative that Russia was threatened? No one was planning to attack Russia, they have fucking nukes, that's preposterous.
Putin is a fascist, looking for lebensraum/spazio vitale, if you don't see that you are a fucking dumb puppet.
You are on the wrong side of history, I hope you can forgive yourself in 20 years. Or probably not, you are deep in it and a true believer, you'll always think you are right.
There's a side here that's right and one that's wrong. The one murdering people, your people is the wrong one.
You stand for truth and justice, unfortunately you don't really know the meaning of that, you actually stand for nothing, you are an empty shell of morality, supporting Putinism based on some cynical view of the world called "offensive realism", you bought into that because of "logic" but your own logic doesn't allow you to see that murdering people (again, your own people) is not right. No matter what Putin wants, or warned against, it's simply and absolutely not morally right.
And you don't stand for that, what a fucking sad state of being.
I just can't stress enough the amount of US propaganda you've put in your mouth.
Chechen War has nothing to do with Georgia/Ukraine/NATO/etc. It's a different conflict.
Moldova was attacked by both Russia and Ukraine you simpleton.
The war in Georgia was the result of NATO welcoming Georgia.
Not a single country before the 2007-2008 events joined NATO to get protected from Russia. You are throwing misleading facts and misrepresenting the reality.
NATO knew that Russia would attack Ukraine because that's what they did in Georgia–for the same fucking reason. That's why the US was packing Ukraine with weapon since 2014.
The US doesn't like China's rising economy and the fact that they are friends with Russia, because this partnership negatively affects the US dollar. The US doesn't like they have less leverage in Europe, because it's the Russia who keeps the Europe warm and hooked.
You are naïve as a 5 year old.
I lived in Ukraine for 30+ years and then 10+ years in the US. I know these two countries very well. You know shit.
> Chechen War has nothing to do with Georgia/Ukraine/NATO/etc. It's a different conflict.
Yes, but it's just another example of Russia being imperialist and invading other countries it feels it has a right to.
> Moldova was attacked by both Russia and Ukraine you simpleton.
The Ukrainians were volunteers, but I guess it was a simple mistake to make, leaving that part out wasn't it.
> The war in Georgia was the result of NATO welcoming Georgia.
So you're saying Georgia was invaded because it tried to join an alliance to defend itself?. Super justifiable war.
> Not a single country before the 2007-2008 events joined NATO to get protected from Russia. You are throwing misleading facts and misrepresenting the reality.
Poland would disagree with this, Poland joined NATO in 1999, inpart at least to protect itself from Russia.
> NATO knew that Russia would attack Ukraine because that's what they did in Georgia–for the same fucking reason. That's why the US was packing Ukraine with weapon since 2014.
NATO has been providing weapons and training to Ukraine to defend itself since 2014, since Russias invasion first started.
> You are naïve as a 5 year old.
Insults like this are against the hackernews rules, please be more respectful in the future.
> I lived in Ukraine for 30+ years and then 10+ years in the US. I know these two countries very well. You know shit.
Appeal to authority is a great logical fallacy but unfortunately, even this appeal is impossible to check as you are using a throwaway. regardless though, just because you "lived" in a country doesn't mean you know anything.
Do yourself a favour and read "Fascism: A Warning" by Madeleine Albright. After that we can discuss how similar you are falling to Putinism as many other seemingly level-headed people fell for Mussolini, Hitler, Henlein and so many other fascists of the 1920s and 1930s. Seriously, just read this book and get back to me.
You don't believe in the values of democracy, you don't like wars but is supporting the side that's starting a war in name of Fascism and you don't even see it.
Do yourself a favour before you repeat history.
And once more you are a coward trying to evade a simple question: what ars your morals? What do you stand for? And I mean for, standing against stuff is an anti-model, it's meaningless as morality. So far you only showed to stand for the justification of Putin's flavour of Fascism, you're eating that and it's sad and enraging to watch.
>The US cannot simply lie about NATO's good intentions, because in Eastern Europe they are not.
NATO is a voluntary defense alliance, and countries from Eastern Europe want to join NATO due to the (don't even say it's only perceived, as history shows over and over again) risk of being invaded by Russia.
The US are not forcing countries to join NATO.
What do you think is not good about NATO's intentions from Eastern Europe's perspective, besides Russia not being able to invade their neighbors anymore?
If you stop Russia, you'll stop the war. They started it, they can also just put their tanks in reverse and get out.
This is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Nobody gives a shit about Ukraine. Why do you think the US is pouring money into this war like crazy? There was no threat from Russia before 2007. There were no events to push other countries to join NATO.
> CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
I do not support wars. But you can't ask a question like that. It doesn't make sense.
War is a mechanism for dispute resolution. Yes, we, people, don't like such mechanisms. But such is the life. These mechanisms are used by the US all the time. The US shows the world that this mechanism can be used. So, the US can, but Russia can't? It doesn't even matter whether it's Russia or any other country.
In the case of Russian-Ukrainian war, the dispute that the war is trying to resolve comes from the expansion of NATO and military bases next to the Russian borders. No expansion -> no war.
> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?
It doesn't matter which century we are in. The society hasn't reached a state in which a fairly complex dispute can be resolved without a war. Right now there is no state in which war is an impossible option. To make it more clear, for example, we are in a state in which the humanity cannot travel with the speed of light. We are simply not there yet. When it comes to wars, we are in state in which a war is a possibility.
When Putin asked the US (early 2000s) why NATO is expanding, they just mumbled some bullshit in response. How can military bases across the world create peace? You can't create peace by throwing weapon around the world. There will always be someone who won't like it.
The US should've take Putin more seriously in the first place, but they kept belittling his requests to stop the expansion for 15+ years.