Russian invasion of Ukraine

[roubaixtuesday]

My view on this war is the same as that of John J.Mear-sheimer. In fact, in the country where I live, the vast majority of people hold the same views as Mear-sheimer. Of course, I also know that this viewpoint is in the minority in Europe and America.

This illustrates the diversity of the world, perhaps.

Mearsheimer contends that the war is the West's fault, and essentially, that Ukraine should suck it up and accept Russian domination.

Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

For years, the political scientist has claimed that Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine is caused by Western intervention. Have recent events changed his mind?

www.newyorker.com

Publications - John Mearsheimer

I have produced a large number of books, articles, op-ed pieces, and unpublished papers. They can be accessed through the links below.

www.mearsheimer.com

It's fair to say that he's come in for a lot of criticism

Opinion | They Predicted the Ukraine War. But Did They Still Get It Wrong? (Published 2022)

What Putin’s invasion has revealed about realism and idealism in foreign policy.

www.nytimes.com

America’s leading ‘realist’ keeps getting Russia wrong

Mearsheimer’s oversight is no accident. Domestic factors are irrelevant to his theoretical model.

www.google.com

He's often reported as predicting the invasion in a now famous 2015 lecture.

He actually did the exact opposite.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

In his famous 2015 lecture, Mearsheimer dismissed the idea that Russia would ever try to “conquer Ukraine” — arguing that “Putin is much too smart for that”. His view was that the Russian leader would stick with the goal of wrecking Ukraine as a state, to prevent it aligning with the west. Today, Mearsheimer is still arguing that Russia never intended to conquer Ukraine — an argument that seems hard to square with the columns of Russian tanks heading towards Kyiv last February.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Which acts of genocide are you talking about?

The acts of genocide that Russian soldiers have been committing on Ukrainian civilians since February 2022, such as Bucha

Are you suggesting that hasn’t been happening?

 

[SPIDERBOY]

Russian Air Defence active Dzhankoi,Crimea.

Slava Ukraini.

 

[CTID1977]

Mark Sumner Update: Ukrainian efforts across the Dinipro...

Ukraine Update: Action along the Dnipro is becoming more serious

It’s been less than a year since Ukraine liberated Kherson. Kherson was the largest city and the only regional capital occupied by Russia following the 2022 invasion, and months of hard fighting made it difficult to imagine how Ukraine might liberate...

www.dailykos.com

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The acts of genocide that Russian soldiers have been committing on Ukrainian civilians since February 2022, such as Bucha

Are you suggesting that hasn’t been happening?

No it was the specific atrocity I had in mind, but we are now talking about acts of genocide or war crimes not a genocidal war.

Russia wanted to assimilate Ukraine back into it's orbit not murder a large percentage of it's civilians once it held territory.

It's possible that brutal mass murders don't fall within the definition of genocide, the My Lai massacre by US soldiers is not considered a genocide. In terms of numbers and brutality it's also comparable to Bucha.

Perhaps there might be a different term that better encapsulates the events.

That isn't to say that it makes much difference to the seriousness of the murders carried out, Russia had no business being there and there are numerous crimes against humanity for which the mad dwarf bears ultimate responsibility.

Democide - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Genocide in Ukraine is not widely recognised

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The word genocide is also used at the political level to escalate military involvement. Which is probably why Macron declined to use it and Biden did.

 

[old-boys-YYF]

Mearsheimer's theory of offensive realism is a very useful tool for explaining various wars that occur in the world, especially when they involve the United States, Russia, and China.

Some criticisms of him, I think Mearsheimer's theory places too much emphasis on 'safety interests above all else'.

Yes, his theory is easy to explain war, and there is never a shortage of war in the world. But he overlooked that peace is also a part of human nature.

Another mistake is that he takes the existence of hegemony for granted. For example, when he talks about China, he is very certain that China is trying to become the next hegemon.

In my opinion, a hegemonic country like the United States is more like an accident, caused by specific historical and geographical factors. For example, industry revolution, colonial expansion, world war, technology revolution.

Human history will not always change as rapidly as in the past two hundred years, and development will tend to stagnate, waiting for the next breakthrough new discovery. The existing technology will spread and the gap between countries will gradually narrow. If a country tries to compare itself to the United States in the 20th century and become the next world hegemon, it will almost certainly fail because all conditions have changed.

 

[old-boys-YYF]

Back to the old problem: who is the good guy? who is bad ?
I believe it's 50-50.
In international relations, there is the principle of "security is indivisible". I believe that when a tragic war occurs, especially a complex event such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestinian Israeli issue, responsibility is also indivisible.

 

[fulabeer]

Back to the old problem: who is the good guy? who is bad ?

Probably the nation that is targeting non military targets?
The one stealing children?
The one taking land that isn't theirs?
The one changing it's mind for the reason for the invasion almost by the minute?

Do i need to go on?

 

[Metal Biker]

Back to the old problem: who is the good guy? who is bad ?
I believe it's 50-50.
In international relations, there is the principle of "security is indivisible". I believe that when a tragic war occurs, especially a complex event such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Palestinian Israeli issue, responsibility is also indivisible.

It's not an old problem; in this scenario Russia is exceptionally bad, Ukraine is good.

Ukraine hadn't been getting involved on the world political stage. They announced an intention to join the EU and to join NATO. They asked to have their sovereignty respected by the Russians. The Russians responded by invading, murdering and bombing innocent Ukrainian civilians and cities, inventing a narrative that Ukraine was a Nazi-run state as justification and they were there as 'liberators'.

 

[old-boys-YYF]

It's not an old problem; in this scenario Russia is exceptionally bad, Ukraine is good.

Ukraine hadn't been getting involved on the world political stage. They announced an intention to join the EU and to join NATO. They asked to have their sovereignty respected by the Russians. The Russians responded by invading, murdering and bombing innocent Ukrainian civilians and cities, inventing a narrative that Ukraine was a Nazi-run state as justification and they were there as 'liberators'.

Russia's desire for territory is infinite, and this is not a secret. Ukraine is not innocent either. You need to consider some realities, such as extreme nationalists, color revolutions, and civil wars in Donetsk and Luhansk.

NATO's eastward expansion is extremely reckless.

In my opinion, yes, the United States should indeed bear the primary responsibility for the entire incident.

US: 50

Russia: 25

Ukraine: 25