Reacting to Mearsheimer's Awful Video That EXPLICITY Defends Putin & Russia in the Ukraine Conflict
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- 🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#Russia #Mearsheimer #Ukraine
"Russia was spooked when people drove war things near to them!" As a European, lemme tell you, Russia does that shit *constantly* to literally everyone with a North Sea coastline.
Constantly! Any kind of border will do. It's more news-worthy if they don't invade anyone's sea- or airspace.
If being spooked is enough for you to start a war your country shouldn't be a nuclear power
Low-key convinced if this guy existed in the Star Wars universe, he’d be blaming the Rebels for making the Empire build the Death Star and using it to blow up Alderaan.
It's pretty telling that you view geopolitics as "good guys and bad guys" with evil empire Russia vs sanitized good guy rebels. This is why people in the west have all became Ukrainian nationalists in the last month.
Just like movey ha ha
Funnily enough that was the rationale a alderaan stormtrooper used to justify his continued support of the empire in a book
Love how he mentions the planes flying near Russia while Russia does this all the time to other countries including the UK
Russia doesn't just fly close they fly inside the countries airspace
Don't forget the U.S. as well. They fly bombers near Alaska from time to time.
and the US, Norway, Sweden... actually pretty much every country near Russia.
Yep, they did it in my country as well. They did it in Turkey too, and i actually I laughed out loud when they blew their shitty jet.
@@reviewtechussr hell - they fly shit over Canadian airspace and nuclear subs not flying flags violate have been violating our arctic waters for about 15 years now.
30:03 "...we are encouraging the Ukrainians to resist"
Today I learned: if you resist when someone invades your country, YOU are the wrong one.
He does look like a Borg drone "resistance is futile"
He didn't say ukranians are wrong for resisting, you need a deeper understanding to get what he is trying to say
He didn't say it was wrong, he's saying we're prolonging the war by flooding the country with weapons and military support.
@@titsvt When someone is a professor and public figure, it's incumbent on them to speak clearly to ensure people understand what they're saying
@@titsvt He said Americans are encouraging Ukrainians to resist. As if Ukrainians need encouraging for that and don't do that regardless. You don't need deeper understanding to get what he is trying to say is turd.
The analogue to Mearsheimer saying "of course nato is responsible, Russia has been saying that for years" is like saying "of course the bolsheviks are responsible for hitler's expansionism. He's been saying that for years"
An even better comparison for the tankies who buy Mearsheimer's arguments would be "of course communists are responsible for the US's attacks on Vietnam, Cuba, etc. The US has been saying that for years." After all, those types will twist themselves into pretzels if they can justify defending Russia, but wouldn't for a single second defend the United States.
It sounds more like the shit enablers say when their friend abuses his girlfriend in public, and they'd all do the same thing if they were in his shoes.
If your argument is just comparing everything to Hitler you should probably get a better argument.
@@danielshepard1449 IMO reflexively dismissing an argument just because it involved Hitler is worse than making an argument involving Hitler
@@georgesprat9697 Nah I disagree, I mute everyone who compares any modern conflict with a "bad guy" country to Nazi germany.
"Why did Ukraine even walk around there at that time of day? Was it maybe dressed suggestively? Was Ukraine maybe asking for it? Why was Ukraine not married to Russia for protection? Did Ukraine maybe climax when Russia entered it? You know, Ukraine really tempted Russia, and you know what they say: Russias will be Russias haha"
I always feel certain vibes with these Putin apologists, can´t quite put my finger on it tho
It's like an ex that doesn't take no for an answer/(Ukraine) was best girl till her friends put ideas into her head that (Russia) was bad/if (Russia) can't have you no one can, and is abusive beats you up while screaming how it's your fault this happened.
Look what you made me do....
@@jontobin5942 I really thought Ukraine wanted it too...
Yes! I was thinking exactly the same thing.
This is absolute gem
"If you didn't resist and haven't tried to seek help I wouldn't have beaten you that bad" very basic abusive tactics.
Yeah pretty much, great powers are abusive, it's called hegemony, welcome to how the entire rest of the world has to live.
There is a disturbing train of thought among Russia apologists and that is that if a bigger country invades a vastly smaller one, the smaller one can’t win and should therefore stop resisting to “avoid suffering”.
If that isn’t open support for neo-imperialism I don’t know what is.
Its also being completely blind to what "winning" is, we used to think it was seizing territory, but since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Balkan conflict in the 90s, its clear that occupation is a thing of the past. The US defeated the Iraqi and Afghan states very quickly, and very easily, then the occupations started and things went to shit. There's no way we can look at either case and say "This was successful". Man-portable arms have considerable power today, the internet is battleground unto itself in any conflict, and the complexities of modern supply chains and economies all mean that insurgency movements have a lot of advantages over conventional forces. Considering that occupation of a foreign territory in some form or another is basically the entire point of imperialism, neo-imperialism is basically ignoring everything we've experienced, learned, or discovered since WW1 and deciding its totally viable to disregard NATO/EU and resurrect the Triple Entente.
@Pawwel Mussial Yes, the USA is a bad imperialist hegemon
@Pawwel Mussial Find anyone here that'll say the US didn't engage in imperialism in Afghanistan. That they ruined that country doesn't justify Russia doing the same to Ukraine
@Pawwel Mussial "neither am I" LOOOOOOL you're calling people hypocrites for being more critical of Russia and not being critical of the US, as if you know enough about "all people" and their stances on this issue. Just stfu and stop painting the imaginary people you invented in your head with such broad strokes. Either you think people should be more critical of the US, which is a completely irrelevant issue (and if it IS relevant, then you believe it's because the US and NATO are entirely responsible for what is going on in Ukraine rn) and whataboutism, or you think people should be less critical of Russia's violence (maybe you genuinely believe Russian propaganda and their "peacekeeping" mission against the non-existent threat of "neo-nazis" in Ukraine lol). You're either a useless distraction of whatboutism or a neo-imperial apologist.
No buddy he doesn't want them to "stop resisting" he wants them to make a peace deal, which should of been done before the invasion, but now will be have to done after.
“For a long time we thought Russia had the second strongest military in the world but in reality they have the second best military in Ukraine” will never cease to be funny to me
Shades of the Iraq war
Third strongest in Ukraine Ukrainian farmers are the 2nd strongest military in Ukraine
China, Germany & France all have better militaries than Russia
@@conorflynn6666
Damn. You win. This is infinitely better
Russia is governed by massive propaganda. Second strongest military ? No way. Number of tanks and fighter aircrafts and helicopter might look impressive but this war proved that only a small portion of its hardware inventory is ready for combat.
The socratic method really works here.
Why is Russia invading? Then why did NATO reject ukraine? Then why did Ukraine want to be part of NATO?
Every single event occurred from the acts of the russian government
No, I think you're just marinating in the views of one side. You're not seeing what was actually going on, on the ground over there prior to Putin's invasion. All was not well in Ukraine and bad things were happening, well before Putin invaded.
@@manofsan yes, bad things were happening before the invasion. Unfortunately you marinate only with the Russian narrative, unaware of the Russian collusion and political manipulation they carried out that led to the referendum and fighting with Russian-created “separatists”
Also I’m not as stupid as you are to even believe a single claim from Russia, THE most well-known manipulative government on the planet. Taking any claim made by them should bring doubt because of the shit they pull.
@Aditya Chavarkar - no, I'm not endorsing Putin's invasion, which I feel has compounded the problem - but I'm saying that Ukrainian govt was committing serious injustices, including death & suffering, even before Putin's invasion. The fact that you only care to notice human rights abuses from Putin is rather telling.
@@manofsan Considering the civil war in the east of Ukraine was started by Russia for the sole purpose of seizing more territory for Russia... those events are on Putin's head.
Except you can't use NATO rejecting Ukraine as an argument. That's a straight up lie.
The issue here is this isn't a "crisis". That exculpates Russia of responsibility, it's an invasion. Ukraine isn't storming Russian towns.
Agreed crisis kind of insinuates mutual blame
it's like calling israeli imperialism "the gaza conflict"
It is both a crisis and an invasion. Also Russia can be to blame on the most direct level AND nato can be to blame on a more indirect level.
The likely reason Mearsheimer focuses exclusively on the latter is that the former is obvious and goes without saying.
Think of an automobile accident in which both parties are to blame. One obviously so, but Mearsheimer is arguing the other party did something that triggered it that could have been avoided.
@@bl1398 But nobody does that. Like yes, the direct cause of the accident was that the driver at fault decided to go on a bender, but indirectly the drunk driver got pushed to high emotional conflict because their significant other was very mean to them and made them feel upset.
@@bl1398 Right just like the 1939 "poland crisis"
"we're encouraging the Ukrainians to resist" that's such a telling moment, this guy straight up thinks Ukraine should let Russia decide their future.
Yup, it's spoken by someone who has never lived in a country under threat of being invaded by someone else, ever. He has had the luxury of living in the US, a country that has always had natural and artificial barriers to keep it from ever being put in a situation like Ukraine is in now. It's easy to say shit like what he's saying because he knows he'll never have to suffer the life he's telling other people to suffer.
It's all garbage. Pretending that Ukrainians are completely incapable of having their own agency and are just American pawns is the rotten cherry on the shit sundae that are all of Mearsheimer's takes on this war.
@@VMonkies It's wild. The US is the most militarily secure country on the planet. A land invasion is suicide, an air invasion bumps up against the most sophisticated and well-funded airforce in history, our naval presence dwarfs every other country in the world, and as unfortunate as it is we still have thousands of ready-to-launch nuclear payloads. Any invasion of the US is guaranteed to end at minimum with *heavy* casualties and failure, and at worst nuclear winter. If the US ever mobilized again for total war it would be devastating for the world.
@@VMonkies literal ivory tower crap
It remains to be seen, but if Russians actually will break through then all we did is cause Ukrainians to bleed themselves dry and end up with trillions in infrastructure destroyed by Russia
They might hold thoug...
Not to mention he’s straight up lying about what happened in 2014. Yanukovych promised to fulfill the Ukrainian peoples desire to have a closer relationship with the EU only to immediately change his mind after he was already elected. He then tried to forcibly take control of the country, basically to become a dictator, and issued violent crackdowns on anyone who criticized him until he was finally chased out. It was later uncovered that he was being bribed and propped up by Russia. The fact that a man like this, who is supposed to be an expert on this subject, is this ignorant and blind to the situation is embarrassing. He’s either an actual tankie lying and simping for Russia or a total idiot who doesn’t actually study his own subject. And he does this all from his safe and luxurious home in the US while thousands of non-combatants are deliberately bombed by Russian forces in an invaded Ukraine. The fact that he completely disregards the people actually being affected (The Ukrainians) and what they think should tell you exactly what kind of person Mearsheimer is: A Tankie elitist prick.
Why do so many Putin defenders act like NATO is some independent sovereign country that has a government that can move armed forces around? It's a voluntary military alliance. The USA & UK like Russia & China have military alliances, pledge to defend allies etc. It's so annoying how these people talk about NATO.
I can only speak for my fellow brainwashed Russians here: people project. People here understand that if Russia led some alience akin to NATO, Putin would exploit the f out of it, making everyone in it a pupet state. So it seems to them that US does the same thing and assume that NATO will do anything US wants it to. The concept of soft power is foreing to Russian mind, you are either a complitely independent or a slave to the US, there is nothing in between.
@@Garelay "The concept of soft power is foreing to Russian mind" True! I can't stress enough how true this is. Some of them can't even comprehend that there are conflicts - even military ones - within NATO itself.
It's pure imperialism, really - smaller countries should obey big ones and self-determination is treason. Belorussia is good, because Lucashenko is on a payroll, Ukraine - and most of the Eastern Europe for that matter - are bad, because they're choosing their allegiance for themselves. It's like Boris Nemtsov said, when quoting Thatcher: "Britain managed to come to terms with being a fallen empire, Russia would have to do it as well".
But, I guess, our fellas are in for a pretty rough awakening.
@Blood Satellite
No, the NATO is nothing like that. But even with it were then it would still not justify Russian's invasion of a sovereign neighboring democracy.
@@Garelay but that argument fails when you point out Ukraine isn't in NATO. If the position is NATO is a puppet USA organization and does everything the USA wants and the USA wants Ukraine in NATO then...
@@russellward4624 They claim Zelenskyy is an American puppet and that it's only a matter of time/ an inevitability that Ukraine would have joined NATO, hence this is a "preemptive strike that's justified"
Is this guy for real? Transnistria, the war in Georgia, poisoning political opponents in Europe(including Ukrainian presidential candidate), and "nobody called them aggressors"? How much is he getting paid for saying that?
Ever since the Ruble became Rubble, propably not much.
@@danielrumi9141 If he's smart he stipulated to be paid in Dollars :p
what about ukraine that banned communist parties since 2015 and since 20 march 2022 they banned all other opposition parties? it doesn't sound so democratic to me
@@azerty8866 We didn't ban communist parties. I can make a communist party without any problems
You obviously didn't watch his video 🤣
Russia didn't just back separatists in 2014, they had their own soldiers in unmarked uniforms doing the majority of fighting.
Oh yeah, that one time the British had a ship in Russian territorial waters really "spooked" Russia and justifies the invasion. It's not like Russia has their fighter jets cross into the airspace of the Baltics, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, ... all the time or anything.
The UK have to intercept Russian jets in our airspace all the time as well
Sweden has had Russian submarines pop up in their bays and rivers. Before disappearing again. As a pure intimidation tactic.
And the Royal Navy ship was in Crimean waters, not Russian.
@@orcho141 Did you hear a year or two back, when Northern Irish fishing boat was sunk, thought to be from a Russian sub going into their nets or something stupid. I forget the details, but Russia keep on pushing it, doing more and more outrageous things, and I find it gross that there's people in the west helping spread their propaganda as they do what they're doing.
Just imagine how crazy Russia would have gone if we had repeatedly poisoned people in their country, like they have in ours, including that innocent woman in Salisbury who died.
We also know they've been arrogantly flying in northern Canada, we know they're very interested in the resources in the Arctic and they've been testing us. Wouldn't be surprised if they tried to annex the North Pole if we let them 🙄
Don't forget about dropping hundrets of Middle Eastern refugees at Polish border. A normal country wouldn't see it as an intimidation tactic (a nuisance maybe) but for our goverment it was terrifying
France didn’t leave NATO, they de-integrated their army from NATO command structures because they wanted more autonomy. They were still in the defencive alliance and went along with standardizing rifle cartridges and stuff.
They tried to form a European alliance without the US, and failed.
@Aditya Chavarkar No Charles De Gaulle tried to defy NATO and create a European based alliance, and basically at every turn NATO stopped him.
@@danielshepard1449 He tried to create European based Nato without the US and most important of all UK...Would never work..De Gaulle was delusional.
University of Chicago is the MOST prestigious non ivy league college in America and I am disgusted this is what they have to offer us. Why cant people look past "America bad?" People I respect have made similar takes. I feel like I'm losing my mind.
I feel you, friend
The problem with "America bad" idiots, is that are USUALLY, right. America does a shit Ton of bad stuff. Perceiving naunce beyond America bad is appearantly impossible
@@trithos7308 Yeah it's more like: is happening because "America bad"
Based on what I already know about the University of Chicago on economics and citations, I think that prestige might be undeserved.
@@GigasGMX The Econ side sucks, the prestige on the STEM side though is very much deserved. Unfortunately as with all things, you get idiots who use their attachment to a more prestigious thing as the basis for backing their shit takes.
You should have uploaded this on the main channel Ian, Mearshiemar is one of the world's foremost IR scholars and its really important to bring to attention how awful he is here
I agree
Read his stuff from the past 20 years. He’s been stupidly wrong quite a bit.
I don't see that he's awful here - he's being quite frank, and he's talked about these problems for years, while the rest of us couldn't have cared less. He cared enough to speak about these issues when the rest of us never even bothered to know where these places were on a map. Now we've all googled up like last-minute armchair experts, and are trying to spout forth our belated wisdom too late.
@@manofsan It was never about how dedicated he was but abput how right he was, and here he's pretty intellectually dishonest
@Prajwal Jayaraj - I don't agree. In what way do you claim he was?
This is like a tired movie trope; we find someone with awful takes, Vaush debates someone who defends them, but then we find out that a guy like Mearsheimer's continued shit takes validates everything Vaush thought initially.
Vaush streams are a flat circle.
In the first second of the video too haha
it is surprising the amount of people that have shitty takes uh?
@@helios566 circles are two dimensional and therefore flat
You say that, but Hasan loves and promotes this guy.
This is why you shouldn't just trust authority, even on their field of expertise. Listen to their arguments instead.
"Do your own research"
@@metabolic_jam "I can't read so I strawman instead"
@@metabolic_jam defer to the experts only works if you validate expertise
This is such a scary take to have. You're basically saying that you should take absolutely no information from experts, and only accept points of view if you identify with them on an emotional level.
@@Imbalanxd In scientific publication, experts' opinion is consistently the lowest quality of information/evidence available compared to the alternatives, even less so if it's a single expert
> be russia, losing the war you started
> "feel backed into a corner"
> THIS ISN'T EVEN MY FINAL FORM
> With the power of -friendship- ...NUKES that may or may not work! (they don't have friends)
> The Kremlin transforms into a giant Putin-shaped mech and goes full sicko mode
> ...?
> US becomes a Russian colony
seems legit
Mearsheimer/Putin can use the exact same "security threat" excuse on Lativia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Sweden, CANADA, ALASKA. These countries are next door to Russia and are logically next on Putin's "I decide the existential threat" list.
And considering Putin's grand speech he's already planning to move East because something something USSR and Russian Empire good
The thing is, the whole conflict didn't even start with some bold move from NATO, it started with the association agreement with the EU, which was about free trade, human rights, travel and work.
In other words, the "existential threat" to Russia was for example minorities not being discriminated, Poles buying Ukrainian gas and Ukrainians having an easier time picking asparagus in Austria. You know, an unimaginable aggression against Russia, lol.
Wow, nice absolute dishonesty. It started with the 2014 revolution. Either you're just a straight up liar, or you've got no clue what you're talking about. Either way, maybe don't speak
@@Imbalanxd Yeah, and the riots started after Yanukovich was about tear down to EU AA..
@Aditya Chavarkar thats a valid opinion to have. Its also valid to think that the ousting of a democratically elected president by a vote done while their were far right militia in the room is not based
@@disser3849 maybe the Russian trade deal was better? After all, the EU wasn't allowing any Russian input at all, while Russia was fine with trilateral negotiations.
But fine, maybe not taking the EU deal was a step too far. Maybe the protestors should have gotten what they wanted, which was for Yanukovich to move the next election forward by months. He did do that, by the way. He moved the next presidential elections forward because the protestors demanded it. The organisers accepted this, but then the far right extremists who were working as "security" for the protest didn't accept it.
Wow, epic democracy dude.
@@Imbalanxd •Looks at Russia's economy• yeah.. sure.. that deal would have been way better for sure.. and ofcourse EU does not allow any Russian input, why would it? So yeah, shouldnt have tried to strip the EU AA deal and he wouldnt have been ousted. Though tbf I probably would not have removed him from the office. Though that doesnt really matter in the big picture. Though on the other hand his politicsm opponents have been prone to being jailed and poisoned so maybe I would have though different if I were in the room. Hard to say.
this should have been posted on the main channel.
Yeah I don't get why it didn't
Debating the Insiminator on the main channel, and a serious, important and entertaining analysis of a hack professor affiliated with Chicago Uni on the side channel. Especially weird given how much and how fast Vaush’s main channel grew during his most intense Ukraine coverage. This is the side of Vaush you need to boost more.
That Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if not but for its seeking NATO membership is already dubious, but to then imply that NATO or the US somehow bears primary moral responsibility is, to put it charitably, the same sort of argument that a cornered seventh-grader would give.
God damn, dude.
I will simplify this as much as possible:
NATO expansion towards Russian borders over the past decades has influenced the state of Russian politics (who gets into power, who surrounds them, how strong are nationalism forces)
Invading Ukraine has a contemporary trigger which is a bit messy, but the underlying powder keg was planted by east expansion.
I'm not saying nato wanted to conquer Russia or that this is a legit fear. It's about how you treat a former empire. And how this empires identity is limited in the international climate
@@christian2i Emphasis on FORMER empire. These are sovereign states now, Russia cannot just take them back into the fold no matter how much they bitch and moan about it. It isn't their territory, they have their own governments and have for 3 decades now.
@@christian2i And I will simplify this as much as possible:
Ukraine is a sovereign country. Estonia is a sovereign country. Lithuania is a sovereign country. Latvia is a sovereign country.
Sovereignty means that a country gets to pick its friends, allies, and trading partners. If Ukraine wants to be part of EU and the EU wants Ukraine, that's the end of the discussion. Russia doesn't get a veto. Your and Mearsheimer's Putin apologia is nothing more than textbook victim-blaming.
@@christian2i The invasion was 100% Russia's fault. Stop with this both sides bs.
I don't agree with you. NATO's relentless expansion eastward pushed things a long way down the road to war -- and now we're just bickering over who took the final steps off the precipice. There's plenty of blame to go around here, and America deserves its share of it.
As a Romanian it frustrates me to no end that people making the "Ukraine is America's fault" argument never take into consideration what Eastern European countries want. WE ARE TIRED OF BEING OPPRESED BY RUSSIA. Eastern Europe has endured a century/centuries long oppression by Russia and their several forms of Empire. NATO is a way to ensure that oppression does not continue to happen.
Freedom from oppression is based.
Tankies defending Russia here don't actually see non-Americans as people, though. Their entire worldview is American Exceptionalism in reverse, instead of everything good in the world being because of America, everything bad that happens in the world is because of America.
To them, you're not smart enough to be self-determinant, you can't make that decision for yourself because you're not a person to them, you are a chess piece. One that they would gladly sacrifice if they think it means mud in America's eye and because hey, they won't have to be the one to sacrifice anything to stick it to the "Evil Empire."
I really wish voices like yours could be heard more, I figure if anyone should determine if they want to live with Russian or Western influence in their countries, it should be countries that made up the former Soviet Bloc. They are the ones who know what it's like to live with Russian influence dominating everything they do.
In any case, keep stating your case, man. Your voice is an important one, even if some people don't want to hear it or refuse to listen.
@@VMonkies Very astute. America Worst is just an angsty teenage version of drunk middle aged America First.
@@VMonkies as a ukrainian, i am cheered by your words 💙💛
Damn right!
As a 24yo at the time of the Romanian revolution in 1989, I remember as today how much we engaged as a people to get accepted into nato and European union.
Although we won in court the Snake Island, we let go of any claim for it just to be free of any territorial burdens with our Ukrainian neighbor.
A sacrifice well worthy in hindsight in this dire hour of peril.
Well done, compatriots.
I'm shell shocked by what is going now in Ukraine now, considering the greed and lack of humanity of Russian army and czars, whatever their name is.
My grandparents had a lot of stories to tell us about the barbaric invasion of Russian soldiers in ww2.
Russia has now lost 9 generals, 10 colonels, 12 lt colonels, and a navy captain
Including one of the Chechen generals and a commander of a major battalion.
Navy captain? Did he drink too much and drown or something? Or did he die from the burns inflicted by the Snake Island chads?
@@arskakarva7474 He died in Mariupol, but I didn't see details. Was disclosed by Russian MoD, so it's not UA propaganda.
Good.
these people always bring up NATO and the 'West' but they never talk about how all these Eastern-European countries and their people absolutely hate Russia(and for good reason) and how they choose to be in Euro and NATO, because their arguments falls apart as soon as they start talking about how Russia's been bullying these countries for a Century, what should Ukraine do? just let Russia decide their future?
the only reason Russia even has some allies is because the U.S treats countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc like shit, if these countries had good relationship with the U.S they'd never ally with Russia.
This audience is so ill-informed I want to cry. Go watch someone with half a brain, please. Autism isn't a super power, people.
Yeah those f*cks don't care about us at all, we're just buffers and cia pawns to them.
So NATO is at fault… for letting the Ukrainians decide for themselves if they want to join? Consider this: Why is Ukraine considering NATO to begin with? Why should Ukrainians have to appeal to an oppressive regime that made it explicitly clear they do not consider Ukraine a legitimate state and want to absorb it whether it’s citizens like it or not. It’s doubtful Russia would’ve left Ukraine alone even if they weren’t considering NATO. This whole argument really seems like it’s just blaming the victim. It’s also gross how he’s just straight up lying about Yanukovych, the Russian puppet the Ukrainian people overthrew. He promised to fulfill the peoples desire to have closer integration with the EU and then abruptly changed his mind after he was already elected. He tried to forcefully take control of the country and essentially become a dictator until he was finally chased out. It was later uncovered that he was being bribed and set up by Russia.
Why do so many Putin defenders act like NATO is some independent sovereign country that has a government that can move armed forces around at will? It's a voluntary military alliance. The USA & UK like Russia & China have military alliances, pledge to defend allies etc. It's so annoying how these people talk about NATO.
Ukraine should join the European Union, and then push for federalization from that point. That way, there is some hope that they can escape IMF-World Bank control, that is escaping IMF-World Bank control through a method that isn't "escaping" into the invading tanks of the Russians. Both NATO and the EU basically literally send in the IMF and World Bank as requirements to join, especially for these Eastern European countries from what we've seen in recent expansions, however the EU has hope for federalization, and federalization would entail the Euro, and the Eurobank, as well as the entire Finances of the EU, actually falling under the control of the EU Parliament, a democratic body, as opposed to a bureaucracy controlled by the IMF and World Bank, which is what it currently is. Comparatively, NATO just drops you and your countries finances straight into their hands.
He's using a kind of "Mad Libs propaganda", where he's deliberately omitting certain details or leaving them vague or inserting things that sound like careless misspeaking, in the hopes that the viewer will be at least somewhat sympathetic and subconsciously fill in the blanks or correct the misspeaks with whatever their pre-existing biases desire. It's highly effective because it allows people with all sorts of political leanings and biases to get onboard with what he's saying, and they come away thinking he's oh so very smart because they think he just happens to "agree" with them. I think he actually does a pretty slick job of it, but a little bit of autism power will help you see right through it.
AP
The Russians have the *third* strongest military in Ukraine. The first is the Ukrainian military, the second are the Ukranian farmers, and the *third* is the Russian military.
Lots of people here saying that Ukraine should be getting a say in this and no, only The West™℠®© and Russia are sovereign so it's up to us and only us to duke it out. Ukraine is closer to Russia so I guess they get dibs. The West™℠®© probably did something bad within the last 15 minutes anyway so mum says it's Russia's turn to do an invasion. So yeah colonialism is good now, and wait what time is it? Fuck it's scramble for Africa time! Someone got eyes on the French? Are we too late?
People who defend Putin's actions are a joke.
Yeah I mean when have foreign powers dividing an area for geopolitical reasons with little thought to the people that live there has ever gone poorly before
@@seanmac1793 That's literally what you're arguing should happen here. All countries bordering Russia should just shut up and put out and let the "big powers" redraw their maps as they see fit.
@@vanyadolly why do you think I support Putin. I agree with what your said
@@seanmac1793 Sorry, I confused you with someone who had a similar name and icon
I did two years of International Relations and back in 2011 had an encounter with a profesor like this over the topic of the Georgian invasion. I merely spoke up during lecture that the invasion was illegitimate and the guy practically jumped me demanding I prove Georgia was Russia's fault. It seems like realism thinking caught on during the Cold War but once over many of the realist theorists were unable to move on to a more suitable model for the new reality (ironically). The result are these weird takes. I would argue a Constructivist or even Idealist theoretical framework could explain the conflict better yet these Cold War gurus can't seem to apply anything more complex than 1 great power vs 1 great power to any event.
The thing I don't get is that he twists and turns while trying to essentially assert that this is The West's fault, when it's 100% Putin's. The excuses for a casus belli Putin offered were laughably bullshit, and yet this guy won't even call it a war/invasion at the start, just a 'crisis'.
I don't see what this has to do with realism theory though, or how recent events debunk it. "Putin is invading because he wants another vassal state to shore up his Sphere of Influence" seems like a perfectly accurate explanation for the conflict that fits 100% with realism. Just like "'The West' doesn't want Ukraine to end up in Russia's sphere (but also doesn't want a direct confrontation which risks nuclear escalation), and so is funnelling aid and weapons to Ukraine while sanctioning Russia" also fits nicely into realism (as I understand it) as a response. But explaining the situation doesn't reveal who's right (unless you place particular moral weight on stuff like democracy, which iirc realism doesn't). So it looks to me like Mearsheimer is misusing a descriptive framework (this is why X is happening) to make a proscriptive/moral claim (X should/shouldn't be happening). Is there something missing from my understanding here?
@@efffvss The reason why I think it doesn't fit realism, is that the west didn't behave 'realist'. While yes supplying Ukraine with weapons sound realist, it is way out of its sphere of influence in the traditional sense. The whole supporting democracy and self-determination as well as using soft power, trade incentives and other instruments to bring nations into a cooperative system fits way more the idealist notion, that nations can cooperate and live in peace if the right configuration is achieved. Mearsheimer criticizes the west that it behaves this way and thus 'intrudes' on the realist expectations of Russia. He accuses the west of not sticking to his favorite model basically. Russia's behavior is treated as a descriptive reaction.
I'm writing a masters thesis on constructivism right now and I've been thinking the same thing, at the very least that needs to be invoked to some degree, I mean all of Putins rhetoric in what he has said about Ukraine and Russias history already explains the invasion better than "but nato!!"
@@garruksson Indeed a constructivist approach will be actually able to explain why western countries and Russia seem to behave as if they lived in different geopolitical realities. Meanwhile a realist one needs to stretch their model to a breaking point to make sense of this. But it's good to remember these theories are tools, not be-all-end-all explanations of all international relations (even if they appear to claim otherwise). They can have varying degrees of application based on situation. You can for instance explain Iran-Saudi opposition based on realism, but good luck explaining the EU with realism as your only go to.
"I merely spoke up during the lecture that the invasion was illegitimate"
LOL what does that have to do with anything though? Realist politics isn't about what you think is "legitimate" or not it's about how geopolitics actually works. Western hegemony expanding into eastern Europe is going to cause a military response from Russia, regardless of who you think is and isn't "legitimate" No Russian leader would tolerate this any more than an American leader would tolerate Russian warheads and troops in Cuba/Mexico.
been embarrassed by leftists treating Mearsheimer as an authority on this war, no only only because he's wrong, but his crude IR 'realism' is incompatible with anti-imperialism.
Mearsheimer stated two weeks before the invasion, that Putin is "too smart" to attack. that's how descriptive his 'realist analysis' has been.
2:30 Mearsheimer, in a New Yorker interview with Chotiner, literally said he wants US to cede to Russia's interests in EE, to get them to side with US vs China.
Mearsheimer is an IR Realist, which is a polite way of saying he's an imperialist sociopath.
Except none of his takes are even realist here. It's just propaganda.
He's an offensive realist, there's a huggeeeee distinction between that and more mainstream discussion surrounding neo realism
An imperialist sociopath because he doesn't want one empire to start wars with other empires?
Notice: Mearsheimer always has the logic of the Kingdom of Ends: Ukraine can't "defeat Russia", but "can only stalemate", just means that Ukraine pretty well doesn't have any autonomy, in his mind, because they aren't a big enough dog. It's like: "if Russia wasn't having it's existential crises, you know, all the time, when they have a coup (cause Russia great, russia russia russia russia), we should donate to the poor Russians, and give them enough to stop having these existential fits". Like wtf....
Mearsheimer's offensive realism is basically might makes right with extra steps
And he calls it "great power politics" instead of imperialism
@@atticusrex2691 LMAO gotta love liberal euphemisms.
Yeah, they don't have autonomy.
@@granudisimo its not 'might makes right', but arguing ETHICS when we're discussing global national power-projection is only an optics front. Its incredibly blinkered, especially coming from the west.
Please debate this guy Vaush. I want to see him pivot, change the subject, or try to move the goalposts when you nail him on something.
This guy reminds me of the objectionist guy, Vaush debated. Someone who appears to be a professional, maybe even an expert in his field, but after listening shows the exact opposite
He also sounds like a tankie Jordan Peterson.
I love how smug he is, while being so wrong.
Whose fault is it that Russia chose to invade Ukraine? The answer may surprise you
Was it 🅱️ased for the British to pursue apeasement in the beginning of ww2? The answer may surprise you.
It was me
Taiwan!
@@anupamsen200
No, no. It was me, I am at fault.
Doesn't really matter who's fault it is, I'm more concerned with how we can prevent war. Expanding western hegemony into eastern europe guarantees war.
I feel like I could crush this guy (and others repeating the same lines) in a debate despite being ignorant of the history of the region.
I wouldn't get drawn into the details of whether X election was valid or Y impeachment was constitutional or is Z president a Nazi Jew?
I'd stick to the basic facts.
- Ukraine
- Does Russia fear a land invasion?
- if yes, you look ridiculous. Because
- nukes
- even without nukes, invading Russia being a bad idea was a meme before "meme" was a word
- nobody wants to occupy Russia
- if "no" then what is all of the innuendo about NATO expansion "destabilising" and "threatening" actually amount to besides depriving Russia of the opportunity of conquest and imperialist expansion?
- what threat did Ukraine pose to Russia?
- no, the war did not start with "x historical event", wars always have history, but this war began with Russia marching tens of thousands of troops and thousands of armoured vehicles into Ukraine and starting to kill its people.
"I know we broke up like 30 years ago, but we both know that we where meant to be. This one new guy she likes would have not been good enough for her. Had he not made advances towards her, i wouldn't have had to go into her house, kill her family, and take her back into my basement. Now we can be together till death do us part. Lovely."
💯
Wasn't Mearsheimer the dude who was saying that Putin was _far too smart_ to ever invade Ukraine?
wish they'd start putting the info below misinformation videos/tweets about the russia/ukraine conflict like they did with COVID
Why do so many Putin defenders act like NATO is some independent sovereign country that has a government that can move armed forces around at will? It's a voluntary military alliance. The USA & UK like Russia & China have military alliances, pledge to defend allies etc. It's so annoying how these people talk about NATO.
@@AB-zl4nh think she's referring to mearsheimer
The absolute pawns who actually read those things xD
@@AB-zl4nh I’m absolutely talking about Mearsheimer’s video lol
It’s crazy what you can disguise under the realm of “realist” geopolitics
Realist geopolitics seems to be a passive voice language affectation and little else.
The deepest of lib cuckery.
It's crazy how limited a liberal brain is when you ask it to view the world without emotion
@@rainbowkrampus TIL "lib cuckery" is not supporting NATO expansion
Realist geopolitics usually means 19th to 20th century imperialist nationalism that views the world as a chessboard and great powers, personified into these robotic perfectly rational hiveminds, as its players.
It's basically to international relations what neoliberalism is to economics, and no surprise.
Basically might makes right with extra steps.
“Hello! I’m Some Fucking Old Guy here to tell you why appeasing brutal dictators is crucial to keeping my investments abroad from losing money.”
This is some liberal level head canon
@@MrDougfunny7 Prioritizing capital over the sovriegnity of nations is actually quite liberal.
Totally weird this guy's take changed he said russia would for sure invade if Ukraine got rid of their nukes. Also this guy claims to be a realist lol
realism is when murica bad
I have tried to listen to Mearsheimer several times but have given up in frustration, so I fully understand your response to this nonsense Vaush. The man makes a basic assumption that Ukraine is expendable and Russia is entitled to have a security buffer. No mention of the historic Russian paranoia that resulted in the deaths of millions of its own people, the gulags etc. No mention of the horrors suffered by former Soviet states. These people have far greater need of security than Russia. Mearsheimer thinks he is saving the US from a nuclear war. Perhaps it is this kind of sloppy Trumpian rhetoric that has emboldened Putin. Putin has been playing the West for years and many experts, including former KGB operators, have warned us where Putin was taking his country. Russia needs to solve the problem of Putin promptly and permanently.
Mearsheimer is arguing that negotiating a buffer with Russia is preferable to Russia invading Ukraine. He’s not arguing Russia “deserves” a buffer or any moral tint on it. His argument is that in a parallel world an agreement was made between Russia and nato & EU to keep Ukraine neutral and as a result it hasn’t been invaded yet.
@@bl1398 That is the way Putin works. Mearsheimer accepts Putin's claim that all he wants is security and he will leave Ukraine alone if that is granted. It is a false premise. Putin is no different to Hitler in that respect. He wants the Territory and will make false claims to get it. You have to ask, is Timothy Snyders book 'Road to Unfreedom' closer to the truth. Putin's actions would confirm yes. Mearsheimer is simply pushing appeasement which is fools gold.
@@jeffbetts9420 i don’t mean appeasement, but stalling for time. Every extra year Russia doesn’t invade is a year Ukraine gets stronger and Russia weaker. Also putin is on the way out soon and so there’s a chance the next leader is less aggressive and it gives a chance for ukraine to get into nato finally.
Maybe Russia would have invaded by now anyway, I just think it would have been worth trying to string things out. If nato and Russia had entered talks and an agreement of nato,eu and Russia to not interfere in ukraine had been made, putin might have held out hope than Ukraine would go pro Russia one day and so not invade. Basically we would have been trying to deceive putin.
@@bl1398 Yes I am sympathic with your argument but believe the present conflict is the final straw. After the catastrophy of Syria, the annexation of Crimea, invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and downing of the Malaysian plane. Obviously avoiding war should always be the top priority but it wasn't NATO who started it. Not sure there is a correct way to handle paranoid leaders but we can certainly say they are very dangerous. Watch the history of the KGB on Curiosity to appreciate what the West is dealing with if you don't already know.. Putin is definitely a throw back to that era which is tragic for all of us, especially the Russians. I believe Mearsheimer fails to understand this when he places the blame on the West. Many of us find that obscene. Timothy Snyder and Anne Applebaum seem to have a better grasp of reality and know that Putin's aim is to destabilise the West and together with Trump has done a pretty good job to date.
we need to push Vaush to go back to school so that people like this can no longer flex credentials over his objectively correct takes on geopolitics.
Vaush PhD arc 2022 LEZZGOOOOOOOOO
Dr. Vaush
I started dying when Vaush called this guy a glue huffer 🤣
I would have gone with paint thinner huffer
35:07
I'm also pretty bearish on Russia's prospects for simply leveling Kyiv from a distance using artillery and air power. They can't use aerial assets like strategic bombers because Ukrainian air defense is still very much active, and a Tu-95 or Tu-22m is a sitting duck compared to an Su-34. That leaves field artillery, but Russia's ability to "level" Kyiv with that is dubious as well.
Consider the following: In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 90% of the supply chain for the Marine Regimental Combat Team was being used to haul artillery rounds to the front, which required marines to work on one meal a day. This story is recounted by Evan Wright in Generation Kill (chapter 18 opening)
Now if the absolute undisputed champion of logistics, the USA, struggles to haul artillery rounds to the front for successful a
That's why they're settling for turning Mariupol to ash and rubble, with the corpses of countless civilians in it, because they can reach Mariupol with missiles from Russian territory. And there's zero tactical justification for the way they target civilians either. It's just full on scorched earth terrorism.
I was thinking the same in logistics as well! Did not know about your great example though. And we had good maintenance on the trucks and such before the war and not like the Russians with their tires blowing out.
"Didn't require leveling of major cities"
But still involved leveling of major cities.
The US dropped 30k bombs on Iraq in the 2003 invasion, Russia is probably never going to come anywhere near this even if they wanted to.
"But still involved leveling of major cities."
[citation needed]
@@madeconomist458 How old are you? 30k bombs and no majors cities were leveled you say? Were you old enough to watch the shock and awe campaign on TV? Have you heard of fallujah? baghdad? Mosul? tens of thousands of homes destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead. If that's not levelling idk what is.
For a country to join NATO all member states have to agree that it can join. Scholz (German Chancellor) said to Putin, that as long as he was in office Germany will not agree. So effectively Putin got his will, but as it turn out he invaded anyway. So maybe that wasn't about Nato after all.
As it turns out, there's a life that goes on beyond the signed papers and there can be military pacts and involvement and help to a country without direct membership in the most well-known alliances. Like you can ship unlimited quantities of NATO weapons to a non-member country, you can send NATO officers to train their troops, you can send "mercenaries" who are not officially from NATO state armies to join the ranks of the non-member army, you can even start talking about sending NATO fighter jets via land transport... really until Russia said "stop it, we will go nuclear over this" there was no point at which NATO was going to stop "sending aid" until there might've been hardly any practical criterion left by which the non-member country was still a non-member. Get it? That's what assurances and specific weapon positioning agreements and military exercise position agreements were needed for, to also prevent any creeping "de facto membership" being pushed under the table.
@@d0nj03 "de facto membership"
which you made up.
Let's face facts - NATO didn't have any power over Ukraine and without its membership Ukraine couldn't have been considered hostile state to Russia pre 2014. Meaning that TH ONLY issue you can have is Ukraine maintained its military. As it should, cuse demanding it to be neutral without having any serious defensive ability is just asking it to be russian sattelite, without having courge to say it outright
what KILLS me about his argument, and its all the way through, is that the (if you give the UPMOST benefit of the doubt) soft imperialism of expanding NATO is a much more serious and grave threat than the literal imperialist invasion of a soverign nation to prevent their alliance. he says "there was a war in Georgia" using pathetically soft language, it was an invasion in Georgia, and saying it was justified because the invitation to join NATO was given. his entire argument is Russia is well within its rights to violently appose the peaceful expansion of an alliance because the perceived threat of the alliance is more of a crisis than any invasion conducted by Russia to stop it.
or, I mean, TL;DR, the only imperialism thats bad is American, bog-standard tankie bullshit
What gets me is that he is a respected International Relations scholar representing what used to be the dominant school of neorealism. I am just first year of my Bc. and already had to read more from him than I would wish. He comes across as a grifter to me.
word of advice, if you think John Mearsheimer is a neorealist you might as well drop out now, because clearly you did not read a single work of his. He's a offensive realist and that is a completely different thing than neorealism, go back and actually study, stop watching youtube videos and focus on the academic peer reviewed papers, not this bearded youtube hobo who thinks he can "Crush" a man with more academic knowledge than the entirety of the state department.
Literally pre-WWI rhetoric. Nowadays we have democracy, and turns out most countries prefer to keep theirs.
Holy fucking shit, sargon is is going balistic over this very topic right now over at sitch and adams channel. Dudes becoming more and more unhinge.
Carl Benjamin is, and always has been, a fascist.
@@jamesmorrow1646 A Nazi since he talks a lot about Jews.
@@Dynamic_Editor people like him are very predictable, if the Left says the Vaccine is good he'll say it's bad, if we say Russian Government is bad he'll say they're good, if we say the sky is blue he'll say it's not blue.
@@Dynamic_Editor I'd assume he's extremely horny for Putler and Russian imperialism just like he was in 2014 when he claimed the Crimean annexation was legitimate.
@@arskakarva7474 of course because he's a manly man that hates gays and jews.
Masterclass in realtime debunking
V, it's more than just conflating NATO and America, that he's doing: he's also acting as if American hegemony is conflated with EU hegemony, as well. LOL
Saying that nato should move back to it's 1945 borders and alliances because russia threatens to invade otherwise, is like a drunk lunatic with an assault rifle threatens to kill the patrons of his favorite bar because the bar down the road might hire security guards.
"I will commit Ageism to him."
Excellent. Make it happen.
If you look up his theories in his field, what he's saying makes sense: he has a very 19th century imperialist view of international politics, where it's inevitable that big empires will hold a sphere of influence over minor countries, and it's only rational that big powers divide up the world among themselves, and the US is crazy for believing it can impose an order on the world at large. Ukraine is close to Russia, so it's in its "natural sphere of influence" and Russia, beign the regional power, is entitled to have it, and NATO is at fault for breaking this kind of "natural disposition".
This man really said that the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't as much of a threat to the USA as Ukraine joining NATO to Russia. In one, literal nukes were put less then 200 Miles (I can't believe I'm using miles) off American soil, and in the other a country just joins a defensive alliance, bordering a country with a massive nuclear arsenal. John Mearsheimer is actually delusional.
I hope you can debate him, and absolutely crush him.
If Mearsheimer really believed the insufferable lies he's telling, he wouldn't have that smug grin on his face for the entire time like a person who's taking a dump in front of someone's door out of spite.
If find this NATO rhetoric so weird, even from a socialist prospective I don't really see NATO as having a huge impact on all this. If anything it was more the IMF and World Bank involvement in all those post-Soviet countries after the collapse that laid much of the ground work for this in sort of the same way the Treaty of Versi did for Germany. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Russian political structure has agency of its own and shouldn't be considered like some kind of wild animal just operating off of instinct.
These people treat capitalist power structures like it is an inherently western thing rather than the global reality that it is. Granted I doubt this guy is actually a socialist considering the fact he teaches at the university most antithetical to everything socialist haha. The Brick anyone?
If you mean countries like the Baltics it seems the like the World bank and IMF presense was based as fuck. The amount of well being those countries have enjoyed after ditching that USSR rubbish is astronomical.
@@disser3849 I'm not really familiar with the Baltic states in that regard, more countries like Ukraine, Poland and Russia itself. Who were basically given the ultimatum: either sell off or abandon all your public assets and services or face economic ruin; economic shock therapy stuff. A particular slap in the face to the countries where it was socialists who got rid of the Soviet presence.
Even with economic benefit I would still argue an organization strong arming countries with the prospect of financial benefits even if it is over the desire of a country's population is still pretty screwed up. Granted I'm sure these organizations have done some good, that's sort of the benefit of having access to shitloads of capital globally, however that usually comes with influencing a nation's policies.
Now NATO soooort of does this, however at the end of the day it's more in the service of maintaining unified military logistics and inter-operability than strong arming economic policy.
@@materialdialectics Yeah not the case with the Baltics at all. They actively wanted to westernize (and Lithuania actually sent in its NATO application the same year it became independent). The Baltics paid a huge price (especially Estonia) for their NATO membership and they were finally able to secure it in 2004 (same with other Baltic states). There wasnt any "strong arming", instead there was constant pushback against these countries joining, not the other way around (as I said Lithuania applied in the 90s and was only let in NATO in 2004).
Western countries/ideals/NATO are also very popular in these countries. I know Finland is not in the Baltics and is "impartial", but if you were to ask the opinion of the population and politicians about the impartiality, most of the people would say its a western country and impartiality is only in print because of shared border and implied violence if policy changes (and history of thay violence). These countries also have "not abandoned public services". I would characterize them as being closer to Finland and Sweden (though they are way poorer so obviously they wont be able to offer the same quality services). Though I am certain there will needs to be adjustments in aging countries in future (unless they somehow find a treasure trove of workers.) But I dont see how being a satellite state for Russia today would make those services better, if anything it would probably be way worse (again, looking at the economic performance of the Baltics after westernizing). I do think Estonia specifically has a weird fetish about their low public debt levels, but its not because of the IMF or World bank. Its because the population and the politicians see it as a sign of a healthy economy (though to be fair Russia has also not been looking to rake in more public debt for public services). Russia is not exactly known for its "revered" public services. These institutions also have good relationships with these countries, it not like the Baltics, Sweden or Finland are "trying fight these institutions".
The part about the shock therapy seems to only be the case for Russia and specifically Yeltsin and his failed "loans for shares" scheme which was bad (and I would say most agree with this). The narrative is not really a good explainer in Europe. Hopefully I didnt ramble too much lol.
@@disser3849 Nah not at all, I think you raise some good points and context, since the Baltic states are a bit of a blind spot for me. To clarify I don't think that 'westernization' is at all nessacarily a bad thing, granted it is a bit a a vague term that can mean a lot of things. I'd fight tooth and nail to maintain liberal democratic systems against the kind of reactionary return to more centralized power structures like exist in Russia today and as existed in the Soviet Union with their weird bastardized aesthetic socialism that did nothing but turn a (mostly) unaccountable state apparatus into some sort of metaphysical representation of the working class with no actual substantive connection to them.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is I don't think the problematic aspects of these geopolitical relationships have anything to do with being Russia aligned or US/west aligned, I feel like such a tribalist mentality misses the forest for the tree especially as far as a Marxian analysis of the situation goes. Even in regards to the IMF and World Bank I think it would be essentialist to merely think of them as 'evil' organizations, the problematic things that they have done are symptomatic of broader socio-economic stuff that usually stem from capital interests more broadly.
However if you are curious about some of the things I'm referring to I'd recommend 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. It goes through this dynamic as it has relates to a number of countries and events since Keynesian-neoliberal transition. From the early brutal experiments in Latin America, to the former Warsaw pact countries, or at least some of them, to more contemporary events as of when it came out in 2008.
There is a disturbing train of thought among Russia apologists and that is that if a bigger country invades a vastly smaller one, the smaller one can’t win and should therefore stop resisting to “avoid suffering”. Mongols while genociding a contintent... and now 85% of russians
I feel this guy as played as the russian pieces in think tank simulations a bit too often
Saw this guy in a little round table discussion. He got buried and looked like a shill. Honestly, defeating many of his points is child's play. Ask a simple question, or make a simple statement and his points fall to pieces.
I like that people cite this guy as some anti-imperialist, when he pretty much explicitly says multiple times that the only reason he doesn't want conflicts with Russia is that he wants to focus on conflicts with China instead.
Of course he's not an Anti-Imperialist! He's an old cold warrior, in the same company as George Kennan and Henry Kissinger.
That doesn't mean his analysis isn't useful or correct. His main argument - which no one seems to understand, is that the United States shouldn't have stoked Ukrainian Ambitions to join NATO (which has a mutual defense clause) if they were unwilling to deploy troops to defend Ukraine.
He's accusing America of creating the conditions for a crisis - which has broken out into war, and is now using the ukrainians to create problems for Russia and exhaust Russian resources..
Who "cites this guy as anti imperialist" pretty sure he never claimed that. But he did support Bernie Sanders in 2020.
As a Chinese, I'd say he is right to the point, we'd do the exactly same thing as he says. There is no right or wrong or morality in great power competition. US and China clash will happen, for exactly that reason. Seems like Americans brainwashed themselves to believe otherwise. That's good for us. But hey, I don't worry about it at all, cus ill-informed self-righteous Americans will push themselves into Europe to "save the day", we have no complaints on that. Best of luck.
Mearsheimer advocates for policies that he believes are in the best interest of the USA. He's not against conflict, just against conflict that doesn't serve to strengthen the USA vis-a-vis its peer competitors (namely China). He was against the nation-building strategy in Afghanistan, the (second) US war in Iraq, and against US involvement in Libya. That may read anti-imperialist to some, but he is open about his motives.
LOL! Just watched that one 3 days ago and I was buffeld by the stupidity of this scholar and some of his takes also did not age that well.
TLDR: "Notice me, Putin-senpai UwU"
Vaush needs to debate this guy. Absolutely. Would be amazing.
No, Vaush, being impartial is when you take the less popular side... Get with the program... The Russian-sponsored program...
Damn Ukraine, shouldnt have worn those revealing clothing, its basicly your own fault!
mearsheimer sounds like he graduated from the Sid Meier's Civilization School of Political Thought where all the AI civ's are completely determined by their simplistic coding. he also has the same "realpolitik" as otto von f'ing Bismarck. if he is at all in good faith, then he should look up the Is-Ought Gap in philosophy, and even take some courses on logic
I read Foriegn Affairs and this guy wrote one of the dumbest pieces on US-china relations I have ever read. It is nice to know he is consistent with his bad takes.
This guy really should lose his job over this issue
Censorship especially in academia is dangerous. If conservatives had their way: they'd fire most liberal professors for wrong think
@@metabolic_jam I wouldn't call a university dismissing someone for imperialist apologia "censorship"
@@eelvis1674 i prob agree with u on what he said being utter dogshit but nah he shouldnt lose it. hes just wrong and should be laughed at as such
@@lucqq3792 we can laugh all we want but his position gives him additional legitimacy which contributes to his ability to spread his bs
@@eelvis1674 i feel ya, but it is what it is sadly. dude got his phd n thats what academia cares about. i have a dude teaching with a blue twitter checkmark (lol) in my uni who lied about being harrassed by palestinians (hes a zionist), and nothing happened so idk
I always love the argument of a 7-year old "Look what you made me do! It's all your fault."
You mean the NATO-ist argument about why it accepted so many Eastern European countries' membership requests even though it knew that was militarily provocative to Russia? Yeah, pretty stupid argument NGL.
I remember really liking Mearsheimer in my global security class when it came to Israel-Palestine. In retrospect, he didn't go far enough to critique even a two-state solution. The man is stuck in the Cold War
John J. Alzheimer has spoken.
They wouldn't use bombers to destroy cities they'd use their artillery that they've always used to level cities to the ground. They will level cities in Ukraine to win which js bad
The russian air-force still cannot achieve air supremacy in Ukraine so their bombers are in danger.
@@mckenzie.latham91 but Russians don't use bombers to flatten cities they use artillery
@@thevenbede767 They have to use artillery because their airforce keep getting blown to of the sky as well a their rockets by Ukrainian anti air defenses
even in Syria the russians would use helicopters and bombers to drop flaming bombs onto the populace which was easy because Syrian insurgents had no air-force or sophisticated anti air defenses to repel them,
Russian pilots are firing their missiles and rockets from outside Ukraine air space because too many of them are being shot down if they enter the air-space.
@@mckenzie.latham91 again they've always used mostly artillery to bomb cities to dust
@@thevenbede767 because their air-force is shit
that does not mean they haven’t been trying to dominate the skies and use bombers and planes which they have.
the amount of downed russian craft that is confirmed proves that
the more I watch academics like him make stupid arguments that I would expect a twitter dolt to say, the more I’m leaning towards anti-intellectualism.
Maybe you are extremely biased towards which academics you watch?
Why do so many Putin defenders act like NATO is some independent sovereign country that has a government that can move armed forces around at will? It's a voluntary military alliance. The USA & UK like Russia & China have military alliances, pledge to defend allies etc. It's so annoying how these people talk about NATO.
Degrees are only worthwhile if ur open minded to begin with. I still wager this guy is probably payed by Russia to say this stuff. Same with the other grayzone freaks.
most academics are not this dense
What everyone, even NATO apologists, forgets is that when the USSR collapsed, many people expected Europe to explode into war again, including this Mearshimer clown, who predicted that we would regret the end of the Cold War because of the anarchy that would ensue without the “order” provided by the Cold War. Mearshimer was wrong because NATO absorbed most of the nations, like the reunified Germany, that might seek to expand again. We would not be seeing Ukraine in ruins today had it been allowed to join NATO. You could also legit argue that Russia was itself protected by NATO in those days when it was so weak that $4 billion from the US was a lifeline. There were lots of former Soviet states that could have sought revenge in one form or other for decades of repression.
"...like the reunified Germany, that might seek to expand again."
Please stop, you clearly know nothing about European or German politics/history of that time. West Germany was part of NATO before the reunification. And the GDR became part of Germany. NATO couldn't "absorb" a reunifed Germany, because it already was a member of NATO since 1955.
And to the "...that might seek to expand again" Yeah, you know nothing about this and it shows...
@Vertigo
Why wouldn't Germany expand again? Every country can turn into land hungry monster under certain consequences. I think EU protects Europe from Germany because it enables the country to spread its influence without violence. If Putin wasn't a stupid idiot he would do something similar. He wu make Eastern European countries want to join Russia, not try to run away
"I doubt you can make a stupider take than your old one."
Mearsheimer: hold my beer.
A debate against that guy would be sooooo good...
Blood in the water
Dark and red and raw
You're nothing until the thrill of the kill
Becomes your only law
I really hate the way he'll constantly talk about "the west did this which annoyed Russia which means we're to blame" but also acts like the Wests' actions take place in some sort of vacuum devoid of history or reason.
Like, does he think the Baltics joined Nato for fun? Or becaue they had a history of being aggressed upon by Russia?
You can't ignore stuff like this and pretend to just be an impartial observer
Mear-dude is a fascist apologist.
John, you realize Putin is going closer to NATO by expanding, right?
This guy is actually an extremely big deal in the field of international relations. Actually his scholarship is generally pretty reasonable, but every now and then these academics have some pretty asinine takes like this. Think Noam Chomsky on Yugoslavia - great academic, great takes mostly, just a very bad position on that one issue.
The closer a country is to Russia, the more favorably it views NATO, I wonder why.
His video would make an excellent case study for students in schools to learn from on how to attempt to push out propaganda.
👍👍👍💅💅
France left the integrated command of NATO, but never left NATO itself. De Gaulle didn't want American bases on French territory anymore, and being able to use the "force de dissuasion nucléaire" without any US green light, unlike UK.
'This will be bad for the Democrats', who the fuck is this, Tim Pool?
Worlds most eminent historian , Princeton Prof and Russian expert Stephen Kotkin has declared Mearsheimer's arguments as utter nonsense..
Russia went from "Boogyman" to Laughing Stock pretty quickly.
Vaush would vaporize that old man with facts and logic
This was every bit as cringe as I expected it to be
Vaush's commentary, yeah, every bit as vomit-inducing as I expected, I just stopped at 10 minutes in and I'm refusing to continue. The part of his brain that deals with the Ukraine war causality matrix is vaporized, there's no one home. All he knows is the kindergarten-level analysis of "there is one villain and one villain only", and then he calls other people's analyses kindergarten-level.
10:00 The audio glitch here is what happens when a speaker and a mic are too close together and bouncing the same sound bite back and forth. That's why it repeats then fades. It might have petered out on it's own but it was somewhat abrupt so a sound person off camera might have stopped it by muting themselves.
Kidnotkin loves this guy for some reason. I think people like this guy because they are cowards that want appeasement. They know no one thinks appeasement is a good idea so they are trying to justify it.
Hot take. I think Ukraine should have never given up it's nuclear arsenal in 1994.
I hope he was well paid by Putin for tearing up his career
I am always extremely sceptical of people who try to posture as impartial. People who are experts should be well informed enough to have opinions on what should happen.