There has always been clear red line; if NATO is attacked, we're starting WWIII. If a non-NATO friendly country is attacked, we'll complain loudly and declare sanctions.
Ukraine is not in NATO and we should've behaved accordingly (i.e, not sponsor a coup)
For what it's worth, what Mearsheimer is saying here about NATO expansion being destabilizing is pretty much exactly what Putin is saying in his various speeches.
But international law has a lot of influence. As a set of shared norms, it's something that most competently-run countries and polities explicitly foster in order to achieve some sort of long-term stability and predictability that ultimately benefits them all. A "realist" analysis that simply ignores these dynamics and pretends they do not exist is not very realistic after all.
Should countries be able to get nuclear weapons just because they want them?
That’s on Russia, no one else.
Recently, in so many words, Putin himself said he wanted the rebuilding of the old Soviet empire. This might have seemed like a plausible explanation during Crimea. But this is all garbage when hearing straight from Putin a couple of days ago.
"Lenin criticised this plan and suggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution.
"This immediately raises many questions. The first is really the main one: why was it necessary to appease the nationalists, to satisfy the ceaselessly growing nationalist ambitions on the outskirts of the former empire? What was the point of transferring to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them? Let me repeat that these territories were transferred along with the population of what was historically Russia.
...
"When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
...
"In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic.
"And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future.
...
"I would like to repeat that today such a centre has already been deployed in Ochakov. In the 18th century, soldiers of Alexander Suvorov fought for this city. Owing to their courage, it became part of Russia. Also in the 18th century, the lands of the Black Sea littoral, incorporated in Russia as a result of wars with the Ottoman Empire, were given the name of Novorossiya (New Russia). Now attempts are being made to condemn these landmarks of history to oblivion, along with the names of state and military figures of the Russian Empire without whose efforts modern Ukraine would not have many big cities or even access to the Black Sea."
Now “don’t arm Ukraine and we pinky promise not to attack it further”? Hmm...
HN really don’t like IR and geopolitics. Almost all the other IR centric views on other threads have been downvoted or flagged.
When their own state is the one attacking defenceless countries, the precepts of realism are their last line of defence to justify either their enthusiastic support, or their tacit consent.
When my country was destroying Libya, Iraq, and Afhanistan, I found that even those with no education in IR were able to spontaneously invent the precepts of realist theory without needing to read it in a textbook: the world is lawless and anarchic, Saddam is a baddy, if we don't stop him then nobody else will.
I try to be sympathetic to it though. When you've lived through enough of these wars (in the aggressor societies) you just get used to grimly observing how people react and I suppose it must build up a sense of righteous indignation and now here is a chance to safely vent it all without any consequences.
It's a shame there isn't more IR discussion here. I'm actually pretty surprised by the low quality of the discourse.
He's saying Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and he's getting rid of them. That's made up. The real reason in his mind might be NATO, it could also be he doesn't want liberal democracies so close to Russia, what if his own citizenry gets the idea that if their neighbors can topple corrupt dictators, maybe they can do that as well..
NATO is not a threat to Russia as a sovereign state it’s a threat to Russia as a wanna be global superpower and an empire something they have no right too.
It's a stretch but there's a basis for it... https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/538103872322289664?t=BM...
Russia has been dislocating extremely threatening weaponry right on NATO doorstep and treating it as its holy right, for a long time. The Kaliningrad region is Europe’s most militarised area, with SAM and tactical ballistic weaponry extending over most of Poland and the Baltic’s, quite possibly most of Europe in fact. Russian nuke-capable bombers graze NATO airspaces on an almost daily rate.
But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
In a 19th century Polish book (very racist by modern standards) by Nobel prize winning author Sienkiewicz, “In the desert and in the jungle”, an indigenous man Kali is being “enlightened” about Christianity. When asked to provide an example of a bad deed, he says “when someone take cow from Kali”. Asked for a good deed, he volunteers: “when Kali take cow”.
Basically, you don’t need to understand more about morality to understand Putin’s idea of statehood and leadership.
You got this exactly backwards. NATO has been expanding towards Russia and is seen as aggressive by Russia. NATO/US "graze" Russian and Chinese airspace aswell - whats your point? This is just military tactics 101.
>But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
Ukraine is a buffer state. When your buffer state is being armed and funded by your political enemies, you draw a red line. When you cross a red line and you fail a diplomatic negotiations, what do you expect to happen?
But sure, it’s everyone else’s fault!
Is it russia's fault that NATO expanded to russia's borders? The problem here isn't russia. It's NATO. The evil empire that's expanding to places it does not belong. The source of the world's problem isn't russia or china. It's NATO and the west.
Just look at the commonality amongst all the issues in the world. From ukraine to taiwan to myanmar to syria to iran to venezuela to everywhere. It's the US. We are the problem. A clear sign of an overstretched empire having to deal with little fires all over the world.
> But Ukraine thinks about joining NATO and Russia has no choice but carve out some of its territory? And it’s the west’s fault?
A dutch company selling equipment to china was such a problem for the US that we forbade the dutch ( supposedly a sovereign state ) from doing business with china. Imagine if the chinese bought the netherlands instead. Or even better, imagine if the chinese took over canada. Think the US would be concerned? That's what NATO taking over ukraine is for russia. Look at a map.
> When asked to provide an example of a bad deed, he says “when someone take cow from Kali”. Asked for a good deed, he volunteers: “when Kali take cow”.
In other words, "Free Tibet" but no "Free Alaska", no "Free Hawaii", no "Free Texas", etc. "Free Xinjiang" but not "Free Australia". It's almost like hypocrisy is essential to geopolitics? It's part of geopolitic's nature.
> Basically, you don’t need to understand more about morality to understand Putin’s idea of statehood and leadership.
No morality in geopolitics. Just interests. The ones claiming to be the most moral almost always turn out to be the most evil.
What is shocking is how passive the russians have been. Even more shocking is how passive china has been. How passive the world has been. Is everyone just biding their time? Is it money?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
As a westernised russian I could be biased. But I’m also trying to maintain a neutral realistic perspective and this view resonates with me a lot.
Do phrases like this have any meaning, in a world where politicians cut out borders through parts of the world that are traditionally multi cultural and have a huge diversity in opinions?
It boils down to the equivalent of the “It wasn’t my fault that I raped the woman, she wore a short skirt!” bullshit argument.
I understand the “this is how realpolitik works” line of thought, I really do. But it doesn’t change who’s at fault here.
US policy towards Ukraine is not incorrect, it’s working as designed from the start. They knew how Russia would react, they were just willing to throw them under the bus so they can force Russia’s hand.
