/lit/ - Literature

wtf is establishment?

The CIA hope not. The establishment in the driver’s seat hate him and try to bury him like all other challenges to their narrative.

>>20031030
Unfortunately no. At least, I’m sure they were read but nobody wanted to implement their strategies. All the realist geopolitical intellectuals started getting replaced after the Soviet Union fell in favor of liberal international theory. Mearsheimer and Kissinger have been sounding the alarm regarding Ukraine for about a decade. The realists won’t be back unless by necessity, aka when Sino-Russo alliance becomes a viable alternative to Anglo hegemony, which is not a given but is still decades away

>>20031030
I am deeply into Mearsheimer, and I decided to apply his theory when I make friends.

>>20031278
What would that entail I’m curious lol. I just read his Ukraine article from a few years back and want to read Tragedy of Great Power Politics

>>20031291
I suppose he would play nice with his allies to ensure their loyalty while engaging in tit-for-tat exchanges with his rivals.

>>20031030
Politics is specifically designed to soft lock high IQ intellectuals out of power because because they want to implement solutions rather than play power games.

neorealist black-box niggers have the most impoverished understanding of politics in the whole of International Relations (and that's saying something because IR is already the special-needs quarantine of the social sciences), and Mearshiemer is the most retarded gorilla nigger basic-bitch neorealist out there. I would be disappointed in /lit/ (if my expectations weren't already subterranean) that this guy is being shilled just because you watched a youtube video where he blames USA for the Russian invasion. Him and Fukuyama, this board is perennially stuck in 101. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a painfully mediocre book which demonstrates no real understanding of the world. At least read the pre-Waltz writers with some integrity like Morgenthau or Carr who weren't reductive morons. Or better yet, start with the Greeks and read Thucydides. But just generally, kill urselfs you trend-chasing dilettantes

>>20031030
Have you seen the way that US liberals have been reacting to his surge in influence lately? His lectures are reaching tens of millions of views on YouTube and liberals are reacting by condemning him as a fascist authoritarian. They won’t learn a single thing; liberalism as an ideology entirely functions on arrogance. It cannot ever admit its contradictions or innovate because then that would undermine the modern myth of progress and freedom. As long as the West remains liberal then it will unravel from within, even if it takes decades.

>>20031030
No, and anyway at this point the damage is done. We might just be better off grinding Russia into poverty and cynically sacrificing the countries in Russia's immediate vicinity anyway. The only further response Russia can make to NATO expansion is a nuclear arms race, since they're way, way out of their depth as far as military hardware or economic size goes.

We probably could have avoided a new cold war, but I just don't think human beings have it in them to tolerate societies that are too different than theirs, ironically including liberal societies.

>>20031418
Hes funny

>>20031030
umm i REALLY would URGE mr mearsheimer to RECONSIDER his views so that they're in line with what I think, mkay

>>20031418
youth
>writing a fulminating paragraph about how the gormless 20 year olds on /lit/ are stupid for reading dilute and derivative versions of more penetrating and original authors
>taking great pride in being able to surmise why a recently trendy author is trendy and by what means he probably penetrated the dumbass collective consciousness of 4chan and social media users

maturity
>realizing the diluted and derivative works have a function in leading young people to more complex ideas and presentations of ideas
>realizing that endlessly lamenting vulgarity is just the highest and last stage of vulgarity

>>20031418
ok buddy how did you get on your dad's computer

>>20031418
Holy Seethe!

>>20031438
If Westoids actually cared about Ukraine they would pressure Zelensky into surrendering to avoid further bloodshed:
Ukraine is already lost but Westoids don’t care about the people on the ground losing their lives.

>>20031458
The same people have been talking about Evola for years

>>20031510
I don't think the average person has a long enough memory to understand what has happened in Ukraine over time. All they know is that they're being invaded by a country which we see as hostile.

Ultimately, Ukraine is a pawn in an international power game. I don't think the West can back down now that we've run it up to this point. Anyway, it's the Ukrainians choice to resist. If they wanted to surrender, we couldn't stop them. They choose to fight, and now that Russia is committed it's good for us to weaken them as much as possible.

>>20031278
This made me laugh pretty hard. Thanks anon

>>20031543
>the average person
>we
>us
I wonder who could be behind this post

>>20031598
An American. When I say we I mean the West. And by the West I mean USA. It's our empire

>>20031620
It was your empire. Have a good day.

>>20031418
Mearsheimer is the heir and logical progression of Thucydides

>>20031030
Only the intellectual elite of the establishment will both read and understand him. Unfortunately they will be out-numbered by the mass of retarded establishment drones leading to even more large scale blunders.

>>20031030
No and they shouldn't. Mearsheimer is a fucking idiot who didn't and still doesn't understand how domestic politics influence international politics. Look into what this guy was saying during the late 1980s and early 1990s: he didn't believe Gorbachyov and Shevardzade, okay fine, but he didn't believe them because he refused to admit the possibility that the people in power didn't always act as 100% rational agents of state interest.
Anyone who unironically subscribes to a theory of international relations should be put in a soft padded room before they hurt themselves or others

>>20032429
So what is the true way to percieve international relations? Every person in political power should be assumed to be butterable and greaseable, or forget that, buttering and greasing is the only possible option of relation?

>>20031778
Mearsheimer is the cargo-cult of Thucydides

>>20032429
He (and all other realists apart from "neoclassicals") are right to dismiss domestic politics. It's not relevant.

>>20032483
>a cargo cult is when you lean from history except you disagree with me which is wrong!

>>20031030
So you think that there is a deep-state or at least a more overarching authority than the so called "publicly elected leaders" but you believe that this same group that has unspeakable power so as to control the theater of democracy is not aware of and must learn the lessons of a public intellectual? A public intellectual that they have never promulgated and specifically allowed to publish nor are they even aware of him via his book on the Israel Lobby? And yet he is somehow despite his anonymity meant to somehow be in possession of a great insight that they hereto are not? (considering how shrouded their intentions are being a secret elite)
I'm sorry OP literally nothing about your question makes sense.

>>20033121
Stop posting

>>20033150
Give me six reasons why, directly related to the questions in my post.

>>20033155
for your own safety

>>20033169
Damn, I was hoping for greater clarity about OP's self-contradictory worldview. Instead I get shitty photoshops.

Where should I start with his work anons? I'm doing International Security at uni so I probably should get familiar

>>20033441
You should have read the 'Tragedy of Great Power Politics in 101, 'Bound to Fail' is also important.

>>20033121
Different anon here. Some members of the US intelligence community are likely familiar with his work. However, elected leaders are usually more beholden to donors and party opinion than to government experts or outside intellectuals. Secretive groups and hidden agendas have undoubtedly existed since time immemorial, but high-level thinking also changes with factions or historical conditions as >>20031168 noted.

>>20031418

>>20031438
>We probably could have avoided a new cold war
The entire western strategy for the last 30 years has been to pacify the east; Russia either accepts it and is relegated to third world status, or they fight back and are relegated to third world status.
The Cold War never ended, it just changed gears. Russia would be on the losing end no matter what, and at this point the cost of inaction is perceived to be greater than the cost of action. The war is a gift to the west, and the more civilians that die the better it is (for the west).

>>20031626
Assblasted, rent free even.

No, and Mearsheimer is a mad raving anti-semite anyway.

>>20031418
based, glad somebody is finally saying it

>>20033740
Who cares?

Very good, Mr. Mearsheimer, however...

>>20031030
Mearsheimer was once very well respected, but frankly, he's at the stage where he needs to step back from public commentary.

As of right now, Mearsheimer is a major embarrassment for the IR field when he's playing the interview/opinion/speaking circuit. His position on Ukraine & Russia is ridiculous.

In summary, you can take his old work seriously, but not the new.

>>20033812
>His position on Ukraine & Russia is ridiculous.
Do elaborate.

>>20033812
Hey agent Glowie
How’s your little Russian project going? Going to do the no-fly zone?

senile old coot doesn't know shit

>>20034827
Yeah Chomsky is so much more level headed and cognitively aware.

>>20033812
>In summary, you can take his old work seriously, but not the new.
He's been saying the same thing for 20 years you fuckin druggo. He's the premiere IR theorist in the world. If he's wrong the entire discipline goes into the trash.

>>20034832
Chomsky pretty much agrees with Mearsheimer.

So does anyone who thinks Mearsheimer is wrong want to give an actual reasoned account, or just bark nonsensically like a dog?

New vid: https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc

>>20031418
Mearsheimer's thoughts and model aren't even mutually exclusive to the ideas of the classical realists and other neorealists. Hence neoclassical realism. He is however absolutely correct about the structure of the world being the driving force behind Putin's decision making in this case.

Having NATOcucks able to put nuclear tipped cruise missile first strike capability and BMD systems in the huge areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia represents a much larger threat to Russia's second strike capability, and thus to MAD itself, than previous NATO expansions. Russia is unironically invading to preserve world peace.

Cope, seethe, and dilate. Also, all the names you dropped would agree that his perspective is much more accurate than the braindead retarded idealist NATO shills screeching about muh sovereignty, muh morality, muh Putler.

Thucydides trap is literally happening right now with NATO supremacy potentially replacing Russia's understanding of their MAD deterrent, and Mearsheimer spotted it 30 years ago.

You can put more emphasis on the domestic Russian situation if you want, certainly those factors are not irrelevant, but to try to discredit Mearsheimer and his theory as idiotic is beyond a joke. There is a reason his ideas are taught in every university in the world while yours are not.

>Reminder that NATO agree with Mearsheimer's assessment that Russia has legitimate red line security concerns about this issue.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1879/RAND_RR1879.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
>Reminder that Mearsheimer is not alone in remembering the reality of NATO and Russian relations pre 2008
https://scheerpost.com/2022/02/24/hedges-the-chronicle-of-a-war-foretold/
>Reminder that Mearsheimer told the Ukrainitards not to give up their nukes, that Russia wanted its territory (for a buffer at the very least), and that NATO would not protect it.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mearsheimer-Case-for-Ukrainian-Nuclear-Deterrent.pdf
https://www.mearsheimer.com/publications/

Literally anyone, and I mean ANYONE trying to shit on Mearsheimer these days does NOT have a case. They ARE a seething natocuck. There is no other explanation. His 45 year prediction is coming true, and all of his major predictions about Ukraine's reality have come true already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VypZg4eTJgY

>>20031418
well pardon me mr gucci loafers

>>20031418
Fuck off, faggot. Faggots like you go on and on about IR but flinch when you hear a gun

>>20035740

Not that guy but you can't separate the theater from the audience.

Original intent, historical reference, past promises, spheres of influence, MAD, egos, and the rest of your stories have nothing to do with anything but bluff and tenure.

"What does it cost me?" and " how much can I make?" are the only questions on anyone's mind, and the only way you will ever get two or more people to agree on doing anything.

Putin's invasion was a cost risk assessment based on rationality from his perspective and magical thinking from everyone else's perspective.

There is no "figuring this out" based on stories of the past or intentions of the future. There is never any way to justify stupidity. You can't fix stupid.

The only question to ask is, "what CAN they do?" "How much will it cost me?" and " How much will it cost me to act?" The rest of us will always be fucked until we make a society where we stop rewarding the very things that kill us while stupidly thinking that we can "punish and prohibit" function into such a moronic system.


So shove your whinging academics up your ass. No one knows what is going on. The only way to win this game is to not play, and everyone can do that when we stop setting it up as a game with winners and losers.

So can a boomer tell me why The Russian Federation wasn't integrated into free trade unions and a slow process plan to join the EU and even NATO in the late 90s and early 2000s?
Why did the absolute state of Russia still remain the antagonist? when it seems that they were hoping to cozy up to the west themselves.

Did America baby boomer leaders really still want to hold on to further crushing their arch rival and torture this devil for eternity for ever having opposed them? and managed to trick the Europeans to keep a beaten rabid dog on their door step?

>>20036244

Russia was systematically gang fucked by neoliberalism: the same Chicago School neoliberalism sold to Chile that ended in its fascism under Pinochet and the same neoliberalism that bankrupted South America, and shipped US jobs to China.

You can blame whomever you want to to make yourself feel better, but it was Russian people in power who accepted this greed based slavery system. This was not a US policy; It was a capitalist policy, and was embraced by the very people who supposedly were fighting capitalism for the last 80 years before the Soviet Union disbanded. The same names that were running the military and the intelligence services are now the oligarchs.

Tyrants love tyrannical systems. You want someone to blame, blame they tyrants and their con game systems, not other tyrants.

We have our own problems with them.

>>20036244
Gen-Xer here.
The US wants Russians to be ground into the dirt, it’s children turned to sex slaves and the last hollow souled zombies to aid the industrialists in extracting all their resources.
I’m not even kidding and only slightly exaggerating.

>>20036291
Capitalism is the policy of the US.
But, yes of course Yeltsin and their local oligarchy did it willingly.
Bakunin was right in the end.

>>20036291
explain why Germany and Japan managed to properly incorporate the american economic system into their previous anti american economic system politicians and economic leaders.
>inb4 denazification and purge (reverse course then even lmao) actually removed those pesky former players

>>20035740
well said

>>20036244
The Americans wanted a permanently neutered, broken Russia. The Russians genuinely believed that they didn't lose the Cold War, they saw it as a managed peace with both sides having done the right thing. Regardless of whether that's accurate to reality, they were in for a rude shock when the West rejected them from most institutions they were aspiring for, as well as the general mood of triumphalism in the West. Add in treading all over Russian foreign policy interests in the Balkans and even Iraq (which Russia was too weak to stop) and you find the beginning of the problems we see today. We did not manage the post-Cold War period well at all and left any pro-West Russian political figures in untenable positions, the point where even Yeltsin and Kozyrev were getting shitty with the West.

>>20036311

Capitalism is not the policy of the US. The US is OWNED by Capitalism, and so does its bidding when setting up how it interacts with capitalist interests because the US was taken over by the neoliberals under the modern Republican Party starting with Eisenhower but firmly taking effect under Reagan.

The US was told by its masters through their bought representatives in the Congress to get out of the way in Russia in the 1990s. The US wanted to do a Marshall Plan (>>20036345 ) — give loans, education, modernize industry, set up banks, create cushions for the pensioners. That was the original plan under the Clinton Administration, but the Neoliberal forces of the IMF and the World Bank nixed all that because NATO wanted to make more money selling arms to the newly liberated satellite countries, and the Congress was by that time owned by the insane right wing of the Republican party. No funding was given for Russia, but the Chicago School liars were sent in, and the Clinton democrats were too stupid to see the ruse.

And so a sink or swim sell off of Russian assets to privatization coupled with government austerity was allowed to exploit Russia. The same disastrous policy decisions of privatization and austerity that led to the the 2008 world recession. It is all a world wide attempt to destroy self-governance.
Putin was one of them. The kleptocrats willingly joined in and just traded one tyrannical system for another. Russia was totally fucked, but none of that has anything to do with any excuse for what Putin is doing now. Mearsheimer et all are still a bunch of fantasy writers.

Niggers
That is all

>>20036425
dude, the russian economy has been absolutely pathetic.
Can you stop your pathetic cope by blaming this on capitalism while also wanting to blame ex soviet russian oligarchs?
You are literally contradicting yourself in the same post by holding on to both positions.

>>20036438

There is no need to get angry at me because of your misunderstanding. I am blaming both capitalism and the oligarchs and NEITHER and BOTH. YOU were blaming the US. THAT is the cope! Stop trying to find enemies in the people. I brought up the oligarchs not to blame them, but to counter your blame of the US. You flipped that around.
It is the SYSTEM, but it is MORE than the system! It is the system that makes the people that use the system that makes the world where the system is rewarded and rewards the people who then keep the system going. It is a cycle. Once in, you not only cannot get out, but you cannot know that you cannot know that you cannot get out from the system that you are in.

It is this thread and these idiot “Philosophers” like Mearsheimer AND Bukunin AND all the rest from Plato to the latest flavor of the week who cannot see the making for the made. You miss my point. You can come up with all the “this then that cause and effect” bullshit you want to. The story is the story. That the story COULD get to this point is because of the way you make it, not because anything is caused.

Until you get rid of the nonsense of capitalism as a market management system, you will always be rewarding the very behavior that destroys societies. You cannot have people work together in a win/lose game. All your theories and stories of why will never make any sense. It is like saying, “Oh, this rock caused that rock to move” in the middle of a landslide! There are litterally infinite stories you can make of the landslide that all contradict each other and all are right and none of them are right.
But If you didn’t pile up the rocks, then they would not have fallen.
I was just saying to everyone, “shut the fuck up!” That's all.

(Cont from >>20036511)

You are now in the story of war. The time to not be in the story of war is when you NOT build your armies. You can’t be in that story from the story you are in. You are fucked.
No manner of wish thinking is going to get you out of that story, and no manner of wish thinking got you into it. You made war profitable because you made the winning of one by the losing of another profitable. You rewarded your own demise. How that plays out is infinite. The reasons that played one bad way as opposed to another bad way is an argument for the stupid.

>>20036190
>Mutually assured destruction is irrelevant
Lol.
>magical thinking from everyone else's perspective.
No. Plenty of Western analysts have thoroughly explained the security component of his decision making. You would prefer to pretend that the security dilemma does not affect Russia, but it does.

The rest of your text is nonsensical drivel hypothesizing and idealizing some utopia that will never exist, and you probably even know that to be the case.

I've had Mearsheimer as a professor at the University of Chicago. He's brilliant. Been able to speak with him one-on-one during office hours. During one he was furious (rightfully so) that a recently published interview at the time noted he was most well-known for his book "The Israel Lobby" rather than "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and had some very interesting unfiltered comments on that topic.

Also met Eric Weinstein when he visited the university to give a talk on economics to the PhD department. My friends got a slot in for a brief office hours session with him while he was staying on campus. He is something else man. If we recorded the audio of that session he would probably be hammered in the news for all the slurs he threw in front of us. Was shocked he'd say that stuff to strangers. The things people say being closed doors...
He's definitely an autist btw.

>>20031452
He has picrel not only on his official website but hung in his office as well kek.

>>20036623
Awesome stories, unironically thanks for sharing.

>>20035248
I'm this anon >>20036623 and if you want to see him address counterarguments, I would read his recent interview with the New Yorker in which the reporter kept trying to smear him with loaded, biased questions, not unlike the criticisms here in this thread. Suffice to say, he handled them all perfectly. No emotion, just on-point analysis. It easily proves this anon >>20033812 wrong. In my opinion anyways. Judge for yourselves.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

There are also a lot of misconceptions and false representations of him in this thread but I'm not here to debate. Just wanted to share my experiences.

>>20031030
He's not wise. /thread

Here's one of him talking about the rise of China to an Australian audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlt1vbnXhQ

>>20032429
This big time.

>>20033858
He's like a guy that asks a if a girl that was raped was wearing a short skirt. Also that idiotic lecture on Ukraine is refuted by himself around the 8 minute mark. He can't even read a basic graph.

>>20034868
They're both out to lunch.

>>20036425
>Capitalism is not the policy of the US. The US is OWNED by Capitalism,
Well yeah, that’s why I say it’s policy is capitalism. US INC. so to speak. I agree.
>and so does its bidding when setting up how it interacts with capitalist interests because the US was taken over by the neoliberals under the modern Republican Party starting with Eisenhower but firmly taking effect under Reagan.
The MIC and the assassination was pretty firm. It has been showing it’s teeth more because of its short lived preeminence is slipping away

The rest of your post is solid and I agree, but what do you mean Mearsheimer is a fantasy writer?

>>20033441
1. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (his magnum opus, obviously, and essentially the foundation for the school of offensive realism he more of less founded)
2. Liberal Delusions
3. Why Leaders Lie

>>20036623
>"The Israel Lobby

terrible book

>>20036681
>He's like a guy that asks a if a girl that was raped was wearing a short skirt
Very telling that the anti-Mearsheimer crowd can only resort to non-sequitur analogies that they saw on reddit. Let me guess, Russia is literally Voldemort and Thanos as well?

>>20035766
>legitimate

LMAO

>>20036722
>reddit

Mearsheimer is quinessential reddit LMAO

>>20036511
>YOU were blaming the US
I was. (Also me >>20036691 )
No one’s innocent and I don’t trust any state or statesmen. I just don’t cover everything in single posts. It is the system though
> Until you get rid of the nonsense of capitalism as a market management system
Well this is why I like Bakunin. We want that same thing.

>>20031030
If he was truly wise he'd be working at an agency not lecturing to 20 somethings.

>>20036730
You are quintessential NSA on his lunch break

>>20036663
Anon I genuinely believe there are some shadowy shills trying to smear him in an organized fashion. Not only do they wheel out the old anti-Semitic garbage for his discussion about the Israel lobby, (and in spite of him readily criticizing genuine anti-Semites) but they also try to claim his arguments are outdated, despite them occurring before our very eyes.

>>20036730
Right, and Ukraine is the country version of George Floyd, right?

>>20036737
Some people like to blow the lid off of the stupids

>>20036737
True ideas men aren't wagies for retarded bureaucracies. The guy's ideas are taught across the globe.

>>20031030

>RT contributer

Into the trash it goes

>>20036756
That's what you think kek

>>20036737
You're right, the best experts are the ones running the CIA and our current foreign policy. Which was been so successful. The Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc. were all orchestrated by the greatest foreign policy minds obviously.
Literal Nobel Laureates (the founder of behavioral economics, Richard Thaler, random example) teach at universities. And more famous authors I can think of. Along with most philosophers at some point.
>Become famous and revolutionize your field through your contributions
>Sit on the money from your books in a comfy tenured position at a renown college where you get simply get paid to teach like one class a semester because the university is satisfied with your clout or having you speak at a couple events
>Appear in interviews to promote your clout at your own discretion
"no he should work in a Kafkaesque bureaucratic hell hole to make no difference because the old guard runs everything! And get paid government salary!"
Most retarded post in this thread, jesus.

>>20036763
Back to Twitter with you, liberal

t. Anarchist

>>20036673
This was how I found him. And he was exactly right. Aussies got off the fence pronto.

Absolutely incredible amounts of seething in this thread. Say what you want about him but he was demonstrably correct about Ukraine and American hegemony, and literally every liberal think-tank troglodyte and journalist was wrong. That’s all there is it to it.

>>20031030
He fundamentally doesn't understand Putin, so his position on Ukraine is dubious.

>>20036829
Doesn't matter, it's the international system that is driving the Russian reaction. Any Russian leader would have behaved the same way in the same circumstances.

>>20036839

Totally wrong.

>>20036849
Any GOOD Russian leader would. Yeltsin would be drinking himself to death all these eight plus years.

>>20036849
Nonsense, it's completely justified to dismiss anyone trying to psychoanalyse any political leader (let alone an extremely secretive one like Putin). It's pure Disney movie wishful thinking. Putin is not meaningfully different to any of the leadership who ruled Russia throughout the 20th Century (the Yeltsin and Kozyrev cabinet being a shortlived anomaly).

>>20031030
People like this guy's career depends on their hypotheses. Look how much mileage he gets out of this "Ukraine is the wests fault" nonsense. He can't afford to admit he is wrong. A career contrarian. Of course the establishment doesn't take him seriously. They know better.

>>20036862
The establishment took Fukuyama seriously, that should be indicative of the groupthink and wishful thinking in the establishment. You State Department retards have been consistently wrong since 1991 and Mearsheimer has been consistently right.

>>20036408
>The Americans wanted a permanently neutered, broken Russia. The Russians genuinely believed that they didn't lose the Cold War, they saw it as a managed peace with both sides having done the right thing. Regardless of whether that's accurate to reality, they were in for a rude shock when the West rejected them from most institutions they were aspiring for,
>when the West rejected them from most institutions they were aspiring for,
What exactly would Russia have had to have done to have been accepted into EU and NATO? Or any other institutions they were rejected from? What really really really would have been the main differences?

>>20036867
>Mearsheimer has been consistently right.

LMAO

>>20036958
>>20036849
>>20036763
>one word responses from the same State Department shill

>>20036961
That's all that's deserved

>>20031030
>https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-ukraine-crisis-according-to-john-j-mearsheimer-impeccable-logic-wrong-facts/

Dinosaur BTFO

> no a single substantive critique in this thread, just people saying he’s wrong and outdated, without giving examples of where he was fundamentally wrong and which of his actual theories are outdated
What the fuck is going on in this thread?

>>20036967
>imperial Germany couldn’t have crossed Ukraine to strike at Russia, because Ukraine in 1914 was part of Russia; Nazi Germany attacked not Russia but the Soviet Union in general and Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Belarus in particular, when its forces launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.
So his argument is that because Ukraine was part of Imperial Russia/USSR, that it doesn't count as Ukraine being used as a staging point for invading Russia proper?

>In reality, since the United States and its allies never had a “plan to westernize Ukraine,”
Factually wrong, this article is 8 years out of date so that's not so surprising.

>Amazingly, Mearsheimer believes the West tried to turn Ukraine into its “bastion.” This would be news to Ukrainians, who have consistently accused the West of doing little to nothing to advance Ukraine’s integration
Again, outdated. The amount of Western military hardware pouring into Ukraine for almost a decade prior to the crisis is proof of this.

>Is it, finally, even true that the West was determined to transform Ukraine into a pro-Western democracy?
Yes lol, American politicians including Biden have been stating this openly. Again, the article is 8 years out of date. Why was the hohol making grandiose claims like this only 6 months into the crisis?

>>20036968
State department shills.

>>20036867
Truth.

>>20037002
>Factually wrong,

Proof?

>>20036968
Unironic pro-war MIC shills. I am not joking.

>>20036968
> The argument is marred by two fatal flaws. First, by invoking past invasions, Mearsheimer goes beyond the analytical framework of realism, which assumes that “objective” threats would be recognized as such by any rational observer, and invokes Russian historical memory, ideology, and political culture—or perceptions. Once perceptions enter the picture, we leave the realm of realism’s logical rigor and introduce factors that contradict the objectivity and rationality assumption of realism and implode Mearsheimer’s theoretical framework. After all, the power of realism resides in its claim that all rational observers, regardless of nationality, would assess national interests and power relations in approximately the same way. If they do not, because values, norms, ideas, and the like get in the way, then realism amounts to the banal observation that power somehow matters in our assessments of international relations. Who could disagree?
Rational people don’t reason through their perceptions? Pattern recognition is a form of reasoning. Any rational actor who had a flat landed neighbor which often as the launching pad to invasion would reasonably find their enemies installing a hostile government very, to put it mildly, not cool. The author here mistakes facts and history. Facts are things that happened. History is explaining why these things happened. History, ideology, and political culture are not being consulted when making this decision.

The second problem with the argument is that is it based on non-facts or twisted interpretations of real facts. For starters, Napoleon crossed today’s Belarus, not Ukraine; imperial Germany couldn’t have crossed Ukraine to strike at Russia, because Ukraine in 1914 was part of Russia; Nazi Germany attacked not Russia but the Soviet Union in general and Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Belarus in particular, when its forces launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. Mearsheimer might counter that this kind of criticism is picky and that his point is that three powers crossed Ukraine—“a huge expanse of flat land”—to attack Russia. But that image of Ukraine (and Belarus) is precisely the problem. Europe never consisted of aggressive states in the west, a powerless Russia in the east, and a “huge expanse of flat land” in between. Sometimes Russia incorporated that huge expanse; sometimes that huge expanse actually had a non-Russian political identity; and never was Belarus identical with Ukraine.
The author shows his hand by conceding these points are “picky.” This is all nonsense and even seems to suggest Ukraine was usually seen as a part of Russia prior to the 20th century lol

>>20037014
Whoops, meant for >>20036967

>>20037012
Tell me without lying that the current Ukrainian government, since 2014, is not pro-Western and anti-Russia.

>>20037012
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-investment-climate-statements/ukraine/

>>20037014
>enemies installing a hostile government very

t. things that didn't happen

>>20037024
Because a government is pro-western means it was planned to be westernized? LMAO nice logic there.

>>20037014
Motyl is by far one of the worst writers on Ukraine. I don't blame him since he has personal connections to the country but you can easily see that he's coming at the argument from an emotional and irrational direction. Luckily, the State Department pets in Poland have already gotten ahead of that and invented a new term, "Westsplaining".

https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

Only Eastern European retards (but not Russians or Belorussians) are allowed to comment on Ukraine.

>>20037026
>https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-investment-climate-statements/ukraine/

What is this proof of? Can you even read?

>>20037029
Literally happened. On the scale of hostility they are about an 8, willing to use violence against Russian proxy groups, but not to declare outright war. Definitely hostile.

>>20037040
LOL fucking westsplaining. Why are they like this? HAHAHAHAHA

>>20037042

You watch too much RT

>>20037038
I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article since that's exactly how Motyl frames the term "Westernized", not in your /pol/tier understanding where he's talking about McDonalds and transsexuals for some reason.

>>20037024
Why would anyone be pro Russia?

>>20037041
It is rife with examples of the Ukraine westernizing, privatizing and opening itself up to Western markets, investment, and even some Western political/corruption reform. All of this in the wake of the Western lead coup within Ukraine, coined 'The Revolution of Dignity'. You can claim to be blind and cry that Ukraine isn't westernizing, but from the Russian perspective it objectively is.

>>20037040
>https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

Great article

>>20037055
I never said anything about being pro-Russia, just not being explicitly anti-Russian.

>>20037062
>Western lead coup

Opinion discarded

>>20037068

Nice circular logic

>>20037079
How so?

>>20037062

>Basically If a girl was murdered by her ex you would say "hurr durr she shouldn't have left him and got a new bf"

Have sex

>>20037081
He's trolling anon. Us Mearsheimer chads are easy to troll because we have passion for the truth, sometimes it blinds us to the insidious and bad faith action of retarded idealists trolling shortly after they lose the argument at hand.

>>20037085
I'm not saying Ukraine deserved it The fact is simply that Ukraine lives in this world between nuclear armed Russia and NATO, and that favoring one or the other would always have serious consequences. Morality and what ought to be are irrelevant.

>>20037085
>reddit analogy
Welcome to being a minor power with a much larger nuclear armed power next door. It doesn't matter if the girl should have been murdered or not. You can moralise as much as you want but that bitch is still dead. I do feel sorry for Ukrainians for being tricked by the West but at a certain point they should have rubbed together those 2 brain-cells of theirs and realized they were on their own in a bad neighborhood.

>>20037096
You could say the same for the whole of Europe though

>>20037099
Would you say a solution to the whole situation is to stop providing any military aid and just let Putin take Ukraine?

>>20036867
Fukuyama still hasn't been proven wrong though. He's utterly despicable, but not wrong that we haven't thought of an ideology or system past liberal democracy since 1991. When you transgress liberal democracy, you get your economy nuked like Russia right now.

>>20037140
No you couldn't. NATO and Russia are safe from large scale conventional conflict thanks to MAD. Only non NATO nations on the Russian border have to be careful not to antagonize it.

>>20036968
I have no idea. I've never seen this kind of mindless seething before. It's like RANDCORP bots infiltrated this thread or something

>>20037149
Best Western action is to host talks and to convince Ukraine to commit to neutrality. A neutral Ukraine provides large benefits to NATO, with none of the downside that come with a Russian puppet Ukraine.

>>20037160
That’s not what Putin wants

>>20037160
It’s funny that you think it’s all up to Ukraine and that Putin is a reliable actor that hasn’t been shown the respect he feels he deserves

>>20037155
It's 10x as bad on /k/, not sure about other boards. It's always hard to sift the garden variety retards from the genuine shills. Usually retards stop posting when they realize they are wrong. Contrastingly, shills seem to fall back on demanding more and more trivial explanations about exact details, pedantic demands about defining precise terms, and inane claims of logical fallacy.

If I had to guess what the next gen of GPT augmented state sponsored shilling aims to do, I'd say it probably tries to waste as much time as possible when encountering good faith dissenters, while also collecting all data to build better timewasting arguments.

>>20037167
Lmaow

>>20037162
>>20037163
If that is the case (and it may well be), it will show the world that Putin is absolutely focused on downloading a Russian expansion pack.

>>20037140
Europe is part of NATO, with the exception of small handful of countries, most of whom have a separate EU-based Defense Treaty (CSDP). Moldova is probably the only country who has to worry about Russia given they are not in the EU or NATO.

>>20037149
>let Putin
Let's not do that thing we personify countries into one man, leave that to the tabloids. To be clear, we should never have gotten to this point at all. If Russia wants Ukraine in its sphere of influence, then that's a small price to pay. Adding Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence does not make Russia much more of a threat. It still has nukes, its navy is still bound by the Straits which are controlled by a NATO state in Turkey. If Russia messes with NATO or EU countries, that is an entirely different situation. It was wrong for the West to hang its credibility on defending Ukraine when it had no intention to ever do so.

>>20037180
Ireland, Sweden and Finland dont

>>20037180
>Let's not do that thing we personify countries into one man,

Well sorry in Russia it is one man you fucking retard

>>20037214
Finland and Sweden have been neutral but NATO aligned. None of the three countries present the same first strike or missile interception potential due to the geographical differences. Belarus and Ukraine are the main risk to Moscow and the ICBMs in western Russia.

>>20037180
>Adding Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence

Suppose Putin wants to add Finland and Sweden or Ireland to his sphere of influence

>>20037152
States are witnessing the cost of participating in the global liberalism, the USA included. Russia's economy is not even that big but it's large enough and the leading producer in key areas that sanctions against it destabilize markets the world over. The US and its allies also have to suffer. Western businesses that provide products/services in a country of 140 million have been excluded from profiting off those consumers. The governments of nations can't don't have much political wiggle room, especially since their legitimacy is drawn solely from the relative material wealth they can provide their citizens. Anyone worried about their sovereignty is going to approach further integration with the liberal democratic world with trepidation as they understand that outsourcing their economic needs to other countries mean outsourcing their autonomy.

>>20037218
Wrong.

>>20037221
You really don’t get the entire issue at all, Ukraine being a “first strike or missile interception” point as you put it is debunked Kremlin red herring

>>20037223
Suppose China adds Mexico, Canada and Cuba to their sphere of influence

>>20037231
LMAO you think anyone else has a say in Russia? Or that Putin is acting on behalf of the will of the Russian people?

>>20037233
No it isn't.

>>20037238
Nobody rules alone.
>>20037234
USA activates its Monroe Doctrine and they get invaded RIGHT FUCKING NOW, just like bay of pigs.

>>20037239
Yes it is

>>20037245
You’re pro Putin just come out and say it

>>20037245
>Nobody rules alone.

God you’re retarded

>>20037218
Debatable unless you have your own personal connections to Putin's inner circle and have access to knowledge that only the intelligence community would have. Anyway, you seem satisfied with everything else given that you've done exactly what >>20037167 pointed out ("demanding more and more trivial explanations about exact details, pedantic demands about defining precise terms, and inane claims of logical fallacy.)

>>20037214
>>20037223
Even the Soviet Union at the peak of its powers did not add Finland to its sphere of influence, just force its neutrality (Finlandisation is a term for a reason), Ireland and Sweden are even more laughable. And anyone who thinks Russia in its current state is on par with the USSR in terms of power is just ignorant.

>>20037248
This post is why we shouldn't let Eastern Europeans comment on the current crisis. They are irrational and ruled by emotion.

>>20036968
attempting to create a theory of interstate relations which ignores domestic social, political, economic structures and pressures is an impoverished worldview with little causal efficacy. Neorealism, both offensive and defensive, in it's attempt to determine universal 'laws' of interstate relations grounded in the international structure (of anarchy) and purported 'universal interests' of 'states' both flattens the complex causation of almost all conflicts and projects an anachronism of post-westphalian statehood and international relations as universal principle. That was the original sin of Waltz that has been carried on by all neorealists. States aren't billiard balls colliding on preset courses according to the international state of play, but multi-intentional, often fractious, often contesting factions with complex motivations which stem from domestic and historical realities. To suggest that neorealists find their intellectual antecedents in figures such as Machiavelli or Thucydides does a disservice to both those writers, who rightly grounded their analysis foremost in domestic situations and then their interplay with the international contestation, and never considered states as black boxes whose motivations can be assumed.
In a word, Mearshiemer is wrong for the same reason all IR theorists are wrong: a pure theory of international relations is a doomed project to begin with.

>>20037257
>Debatable

What planet are you on?

>>20037258
Correct

>>20037261
Please, share your insight with the rest of us detailing the structure of Russia's decision making elite.

>>20037223
Russia is not capable and the Russian leadership know this. Ukraine dropping out of Russia's sphere of influence was more than they could bear and this is a desperate move to get back what was considered a key territory. Finland wasn't ruled from Moscow for over a century and a neutral Finland acts as a buffer between NATO and Russia well enough.

>>20037265
1. Putin

LMAO who is pedantic now?

>>20037271
kek you have to be over 18 to use this site.

>>20037271
Very convincing, thank you State Department for this and your other incredible insights.

>>20037264
>>20037253
>>20037248
>>20037246
>>20037231
>>20037214
>>20037170
>>20037162
>>20037085
>>20037079
>>20037066
>>20037066
>>20037047
>>20037008
>>20036958
>>20036849

>>20037246
Prove that the Russians don't have legitimate security concerns in that regard? Oh, you can't?

>>20037253
It's just the truth, nobody can rule alone. You could claim he runs a kleptocracy or any number of authoritarian regimes and you would have an argument, but he IS beholden to his supporters in the various arms of Russian power. Nobody rules alone.

>>20037296
Read a fucking book for once

>>20037288
>Prove they don’t

That’s not how proof works

>>20037302
>Well sorry in Russia it is one man you fucking retard
You're making the claim.

>>20037302
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1879/RAND_RR1879.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Here is NATO admitting these are real security concerns for Russia.

>>20031418
Based.

>>20037258
Good post anon. I find neorealism useful because all the factors you suggest are needed to fully understand muddy the water a bit, and it neorealism helps to clarify rather than obfuscate. You said IR is largely a fruitless project, what methods do you think need to be integrated that can help explain past and predict future conflict? Are there any theories that integrate domestic politics?

>>20037307

You actually think there are others than Putin with a say ? LMAO

>>20031620
As an American my interests are served by the US empire losing strength, not gaining it. Russia and even China will never have the power to deprive me of rights on a whim, but the US government always will and as an empire it clearly seems to be headed in a direction where it has no qualms with doing exactly that.

There unironically glowniggers in this thread right now lmao.

I’d just like to let you faggot know you are fucking pathetic to the fullest extent of that word. In a single generation, less then 20 years, you destroyed American society. In the year 2000 the west and America in particular was the greatest economic, military, cultural force in world history. It had a stable and robust social and political order. Generally it was a great place to live too.

In 20 years through your sheer incompetence you fucked that all up. Not just in one thing but in anything. Watch a fucking comedy movie from 2000, anyone involved in it would never be able to work again in Hollywood if it was released today.

I’d almost be impressed if I didn’t have to live in this hellscape, and I’m not being dramatic in using that to describe modern America.

My recommendation for you is to skip town and lay low, try and disassociate yourself from this shit while it can. Throughout history the best run political organizations breakdown, this ship has been tragically run for decades now. You do the math what’s going to happen to you when shit hits the fan. Don’t make the mistake thinking it’s too big to fail either, that just means things will be extra brutal and cruel.

>>20037329
Yes

Has anyone been on /k/ recently? The glownigger shilling on there is absurd. If you're doubting that they're here too go over there and take a look, if they're there they're also here.

>if you disagree with me you are a putinbot/glownigger

>>20037402
It's insane. Informational warfare has kicked up a notch.

>>20037413
It's weird that they chose /k/ in particular though, I feel like that board never used to have bad shilling. I guess the glowies really are hoping they can dupe gun-toting Westerners into flying to Ukraine to die in a GRAD missile strike in some swamp.

>>20037416
I shit you not I saw some ostensibly legitimate users SHITTING on a Russian girl for having a bubba'd moist nugget, but only because she was Russian. Old /k/ would have been spamming coomer or calling her out for ruining the rifle. A few instances like that where the board culture is ignored for politics have pretty much proven it is now a battleground for external parties. I guess the Russians are there too, but jeez.

>>20031030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP8BfC1e0Ug

This guy is 10x more informed. John Mearsheimer has never even met Putin

>>20037560
>Putin wrongly placed responsibility for the various Western color revolutions on the United states
>wrongly
Just LOL

>>20037594
I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job too

>>20037619

Mearsheimer is a raving anti-Semite.

>>20037619
We know it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNgCwoaT9u4

>>20037258
Put your trip back on

>>20031431
“Liberalism” is not “liberal,” in fact, it’s something like neo-fascism (or neo-Marxism) in which, ironically, all dissenters to this authoritarian ideology are themselves accused of being “fascist,” “brainwashed by alt-right misinformation,” and the like. This is classic psychological projection — those with the most authoritarian tendencies, snobbishly looking down on and heckling those who haven’t been caught in their net as themselves being “fascists”, “fascist-sympathizers,” “brainwashed by the far-right,” etc. Modern Western societies are some of the most authoritarian and the most morally degenerate, and the word “liberal” is a sort of demonic inversion of and net over this. The power elite does whatever they want — impose authoritarian measures to deal with the spread of COVID-19, normalize certain teachings and a lens of interpreting reality throughout the news, academia, and Hollywood which views all members of one group (heterosexual White men) as inherently “oppressors” and all other groups as “oppressed,” bait Russia to war with NATO expansion then run military propaganda priming us for war with them to satisfy the ends of the military-industrial complex, then retroactively says all these things are “liberal,” “true,” “valid,” “good” and “normal” to believe and have faith in. The Western media could convince people that eating your own shit is a good way to simultaneously a good way to show solidarity with George Floyd and the stop the spread of COVID, and this would then be a “liberal” idea if Don Lemon repeated it enough, and people who objected to this would unironically be called “anti-shit-eaters” and the like.

>>20038161
yep

>>20037346
based

>>20037346
based anon dabbing on cia niggers

>>20038161
>>20031431
(Cont.)
A great example of this is in the very idea of “Russian misinformation.” This is a perfect psy-op put out by American intelligence agencies, news networks, political leaders, and their military-industrial complex. First off, it conveniently highlights and mainstreams this idea while distracting people from the obvious fact that “American misinformation” exists just as clearly as “Russian misinformation” must. Secondly, it is so broad and vague it can be applied to everything without any clear-cut proof of this being so — if there’s some possible evidence some Russians somewhere are involved in putting out articles questioning things like the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, then all people who question the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine are now “Putinbots,” “repeating Russian misinformation meant to sow division in American society,” etc., no matter how intelligent they are and how qualified their views are. Third, and finally, it instantly, simply, and preemptively dehumanizes and debunks all Russian viewpoints, since it is now all simply “the Russian propaganda machine.” Even if Russian leaders and news sources say simple, good, and true things, you can’t give any validity to it — it’s “Russian misinformation,” and “Russia is the enemy.”

Ironically, the simple idea, that the very concept that “Russian misinformation” is such an omnipresent and all-pervading threat, could itself be American misinformation, is never considered as a possibility, similar to the lies America put out during the Middle East wars to glut the needs of the military-industrial complex, such as about WMDs in Iraq. Also, the propaganda is so effective, that even posts like mine — which aren’t sympathetic to Russia, but simply playing “devil’s advocate” — could easily be suspected of themselves being “Russian misinformation” or “written by someone brainwashed by Russian misinformation meant to make Putin more respectable.”

>>20038202
its over

>>20038197
lol, imagine how loud a glowie's huffing n puffing would get trying to chase (You) on foot

>>20037707
He’s also a Jew himself

Do people legitimately think federal agents are in this thread trying to derail it? You know how small /lit/ is, right?

>>20037341
I agree that it probably would have been better to avoid the conflict, and I agree that we are better off with limiting the domestic state power the government has. But I think you are underestimating the impact that a big loss of US influence on the world, and even on you. We benefit substantially from a world of relatively free trade and relatively broad cooperation, and 80 years free of a true great power war. You can point to a bunch of other bad shit to chip away at that achievement, but it shouldn’t be underestimated.

Imagine a world with only democratic major powers. Imagine the wealth that the entire world would have if the Chinese people had the same culture of freedom that the US has. It’s an appealing pipe dream and it’s not surprising that a big part of the establishment has been hypnotized by it, and ignored all the warning signs of it going south

>>20038235
>He’s also a Jew himself
His wikipedia doesn't say that.
Also protip: "John" is not a jewish first name unless the jew in question is from a highly assimilated family
t. jew

>>20038603
>wealth
This is the only thing legitimizing the USA and its liberal democratic order. Material well-being is all the inhabitants of any empire are asking for. I'm very skeptical of the real superiority of liberalism; it may be a coincidence that the most powerful and wealthy faction on the planet happens to be liberal democratic.
Have you ever lived in Saudi Arabia? It's one of the first examples westerners give of a country that affords little freedom to its people. However, many who actually live there still enjoy it and many of the kingdom's citizens are satisfied with the way things are. Of course this is anecdotal, but so is the apparent success of the liberal democratic world order ー there isn't another set of Earths where you can rigorously experiment, controlling for various factors, with different ideologies and detetmine which works "best".

>>20038755
>This is the only thing legitimizing the USA
that's not really true, unless you count cultural industries to be a consequence of US wealth. I have lived in Europe for a while and people are in various states of americanization because they consume 100% american media productions and speak in american cultural symbology. What I'm seeing is what I imagine would have been happening as the roman empire was latinizing/romanizing by adopting the imperial language and its cultural/architectual styles

>>20036785
this post is the hieght of a midwit take because it has just enough surface level knowledge to be in the right ballpark but completely misses the mark on the finer details of the subject. The fact you dont even mention/know for example that the Bush admin repeatedly ignored CIA intel about the justification for the iraq war makes it clear your post can be forgotten about from the first line. it wasnt high IQ foreign experts that aggitated for the iraq war retard, it was a political clique

>>20038778
Which cultural industries? That sounds like a broad term. It could be the case.
That culture is spreading because the US is able to crank out so many films, TV series, and so much music while having a global media network to export them with. Your comparison with Rome is apt. Was Roman culture really "best" or were Romans better at spreading their culture than the people they conquered?
I'm critical of the causal link people take for granted between ideology and material prosperity, media dominance, military might, etc.
Would the United States have failed if they where an Islamic Caliphate founded by a mohammedan Washington rather than a republic, all else being equal? I think it's hard to say.

>>20038782
They didn't stop it, they went along with it, so what you're telling me is that the bureaucrats aren't just lazy minded and stupid, they are also morally bankrupt.

>>20038161
Liberalism is freedom, but a freedom in which everyone shares, a freeedom in which everyone is liberal. Even if it does not tolerate certain things, it tolerates the most things, therefore it is the most free, order.

It does not tolerate less free orders who would wish to lessen it's abundant freedom, because those lesser free orders therefore threaten an aspect of it's existence, for a part of it's whole to be threatened would be to threaten the breadth and honesty, integrity of it's whole

>>20031431
>Have you seen the way that US liberals have been reacting to his surge in influence lately? His lectures are reaching tens of millions of views on YouTube and liberals are reacting by condemning him as a fascist authoritarian. They won’t learn a single thing; liberalism as an ideology entirely functions on arrogance. It cannot ever admit its contradictions or innovate because then that would undermine the modern myth of progress and freedom. As long as the West remains liberal then it will unravel from within, even if it takes decades.

I don't get how people can say he's wrong about Ukraine when he literally predicted what would happen years ago. Especially when the alternative interpretation is that Putin is invading "for no reason", or because of "cognitive decline" or some retarded theory like that

>>20031431
sad but true. why are they like this?

>>20038161
>>20038202
Trying to stuff a million different thoughts and actions over many years by many people for many reasons involving statehood, economics, politics, money, and power, into a single word; liberal. Is absurd.

The word liberal may certainly mean one exact thing, this and that and this or that; but people who say "I am equal to this word" and then do: these and those and some other thing; are not nessecarily so.

Simple words attempting to maintain extremely numerous complex possible actions and ideas are very helpful, but not always meaningful, sensical, or accurate.

Judging and analyzing and understanding and criticising all possible actions on their total possible basis, is much more reasonable, rational, logical, and fruitful, then judging a t shirt with a word on it, who puts the t shirt on, what they do, and then attacking then word and t shirt.

Now to be fair it may he possible to find correlation between types of people attracted to the shirt;

But at the same time, as time goes on, society evolves, complex humans find themselves in positions never possible before, or super convoluted, complex and rare, thoughts and actions may be possible and asked they were never possible or thoroughly considered when defining and coining that tshirt and word

>>20039038
Basically anyone who understands geopolitics predicted this. Even Sleepy Joe.

>>20039066
>can't into pattern recognition

>>20038924
>Would the United States have failed if they where an Islamic Caliphate founded by a mohammedan Washington rather than a republic, all else being equal? I think it's hard to say.
It did start quite a bit more conservative didn't it,pilgrims, puritans. These things over time, and as material comfort increases are harder to maintain, there requires effort and resistance to avoid the pleasing temptations of certain freedoms. Consider a kid eating candy, how quickly they may be converted to a candyholic. The difficulty to taste candy, emphatically enjoy it, but commit to rarely eating it.

Little by little the generations go and get a bit more comfortable, a bit more informal and lax, once accepting a freedom and seeing life does not crumble from doing so, it being difficult to change back to demonizing that freedom

>>20039082
>>can't into pattern recognition
The complexitys of 100s of millions of people and 1000s of miles and all possible thoughts and actions are much too complex for two words, for two words any of these 100s of millions of people may point to and say that is exactly me; and then for 1 of 1000s and 1000s of people in power, or 1000s out of 1000s and 1000s of people in power to point to one of the words and say, I am with you guys, that word is exactly me too, nothing more nothing less; someone perfectly entailed the totality, the limit of possible thoughts and actions of that word and we are it; for those 1000s of people, all relatively complex and unique themselves, to then think and act in a series of possible ways, possibly undefined or exacted or fully fleshed out in their chosen word; to say then; whatever I do equals the nature of this word, for I have chosen to wear this word, as you have chosen to, and I as a person in power under the banner of this word, am in the power to with my thoughts and actions define this word now, and since you all not in power, have chosen the same word as me, must act in accordance to my possible chosen thoughts and actions.

>>20038355
What kind of fucking argument is this? We know astroterfers use bots to search for threads on a given topic that might be active anywhere. They seem to be less active on /lit/ compared to other boards, but the idea that this is absurd, as this point in time, is itself a naive viewpoint given how much shit is occurring.

>>20039082
>>20039154
I forgot to add a point i considerd relevant; consider for example Christianity and all its denominations, all the different types and characteristics of people that proscribe, and single book, my minimal writing of what was said, how many different interpretations and ways of relating to it; so to, a few simple brands of words, many complex different people, relating to many denominations of those labels

>>20039046
They're idealists.

Realists like Mearsheimer hold that the international system is anarchic, but states behave RATIONALLY (they want to survive) and respond to incentives. State behavior is predictable, which leads to "balance of power" theory. In a balanced system, theoretically, rational states should balance each other and pursue peace. Peace is the goal and war is failure even though the anarchic nature of the world means war is inevitable. Nations at the top become hegemons and can influence the policies of other nations in their vicinity. Individual leaders ("Putin") don't matter so much.

Liberal idealists believe that peace comes from the political alignment of liberal democracies and the more liberal the world is, the more peace. This is extremely important for them. This goes back to the French Revolution which saw the world through the lens of political alignment and if you weren't in alignment with their new republic then you were an enemy.

I think there's an added thing where if you're a liberal and you're taught to be critical of everything, you paradoxically become less critical of liberalism. I noticed vis-a-vis NATO expansion that liberals have adopted this line that "these countries CHOSE to be part of NATO." They apply a "'rights" discourse as if states have "rights." Mearsheimer would see this as absurd. NATO has a right to reject Ukraine, Ukraine does not have a right to join NATO and this is plainly obvious, but libs don't realize that by arguing for the possibility of Ukraine joining, even if they are constantly rejected, serves to draw Russia into war. For Putin, it doesn't matter what NATO's "intentions" are, what matters are capabilities.

Also, there are Marxists who see war as economic in nature. Inequality in the world leads to conflict and reducing inequality = more peace. That applies domestically and internationally, so the actions of individual states and leaders doesn't matter as much as material inequality across the board. There are also some similarities between realists and Marxists, which might be why China today is perhaps the most "realist" country in the world. Like the realists, Marxists view the world as unequal (some states are more powerful than others), which ensures there is no harmony of interests between nations, which backs up the realists' view that nations only work to pursue their own interests and increase their relative power. But Marxism tends to focus more on the political-economic sector than the political-military sector.

Marxists also tend to focus on agents of imperialism (like how the West funds NGOs, and the NED and CIA and MI6 fund and train "activists" in countries against their interests) and "the center vs. the peripheral." This has some similarity with realism which also argues that it's the nation-state that is pulling the strings of those international institutions and corporations to oppress the poor and the weak nation-states.

>>20038603
>Imagine the wealth that the entire world would have if the Chinese people had the same culture of freedom that the US has.
That depends, would Chinese peasents truly be better off eating McDonald's over wet market bats and pengulan? Seems debatable

>>20039208
Also this is Mearsheimer on the USSR

>>20039208
I'd add that it's hilarious right now to see liberals contort themselves into knots arguing for a No Fly Zone (which means war with Russia) in Ukraine while there are neo-Nazi battalions on the ground being armed by NATO. Those people are Bad to talk about though ("and we have Nazis too so that doesn't mean we should be invaded!!!") because it makes it more difficult for liberals to interpret all events through a literal-childlike Powered by Marvel™ worldview and the worst crime anyone could ever commit is making them (good boys with good politics) feel bad about anything they believe.

>>20039208
>but states behave RATIONALLY (they want to survive)
What are the limits of threatening an irrational state if it is a partner of MAD?

If Hitler had 10,000 nukes and didn't stop conquering the world, what would have been the most appropriate course of action?

This is why it is the highest priority for all world leaders to be reasonable, sensible, and beautiful friends with one another, to be beautiful friends with everyone in the world, to truly infinitly love life and the world, for all to be friends and on the same page, so there is no tension, no need to conquer, everyone is reasonable, everyone's wants are reasonable, there is enough for everyone to get what they want.

So yeah, now we see some of the fear involved with north Korea and iran. Who the fuck are people, what the fuck is a person, and how could it possibly be trusted, especially with gureenteedly preserving the existance of the human species and world.

>>20039260
I’ll say it again.
Fascism is liberalism in decay

>>20039243
>they believed that international politics would immediately undergo a fundamental transformation and the balance-of-power logic would be relegated to the boneyard of history. Specifically, they thought that with some help from the Soviet Union, communist revolutions would spread across Europe and the rest of the world, creating like-minded states tat would live in peace before finally withering away altogether.
This sounds like thought process of many liberals in the US after the fall of the USSR.

>>20038755
>Material well-being is all the inhabitants of any empire are asking for
No, Americans have traditionally wanted freedom. Americans still want freedom, even if some have been becoming more illiberal as the state gets larger.

The thing you’re complaining about is that most people choose to be materialistic. Most Americans choose to pursue wealth. If they wanted something else they could do that instead. >>20038924
> Would the US have failed if it was a caliphate
It would not have anywhere near the power, influence, or standard of living because it would be fundamentally unfree. Saudi Arabia is able to give lots of material benefits to its citizens only because of its trade with the West. It would be nothing without Western productivity paying for its oil. I guarantee you that as oil becomes less important, Saudi Arabia will decline.

>>20038202
>Even if Russian leaders and news sources say simple, good, and true things,

They don't though.

>>20031030
I saw his video about the current war and he is a midwit.
>Guys, do you remember how the US reacted when SU wanted to place nukes in cuba in 62? Russia is in the same existential threat, so they are not to blame but america
He completely ignores the nato russia founding act in which russia accepted that it would not have a say in who gets to join Nato and in return Nato would never place nuclear missiles east of gerrmany. Nato kept it's promise. There are still no Nato nukes in eastern europe. Russia broke it's promise to nato and their guarantees to ukraine in the budapest memorandum in 2014 and now again.
Even if you stay within the comparison Ukraine was not about to have nukes immediately stationed in its territory like cuba was.
The US tried to overthrow the cuban government but backed off when they realized that the people backed them.
After that they put down an embargo but they haven't tried to annex and erase cuba as an entity because a socialist country south of florida was an existential threat.
The fact that he makes this half-assed comparison and doesn't see its flaws makes me doubt his credibility about anything.

>>20038755
>However, many who actually live there still enjoy it

LMAO

>>20039418
This

>>20039405
>Americans have traditionally wanted freedom
I think you're mostly right.
>most people choose to be materialistic
It's reassuring that someone can argue with some self-awareness on this point. The quest for "freedom" often (but not always) means freedom to pursue material prosperity without pressure to fork over the fruits of one's effort to some 'master' who doesn't give enough back in return. There are clear examples of those who exercise their freedom to live an alternative lifestyle such as the Amish.
However, I'm not so much discussing America as in the American people so much as America the State. The USA has a history of citizens and even elites disagreeing over the direction the country is going in, but regardless it became an expansionistic empire with vassals across the globe.
>It would not have anywhere near the power, influence, or standard of living because it would be fundamentally unfree.
My skepticism on this point is based on the many great powers that flourished in the past despite lack of "freedom" as it is defined today. Science, art, military might, etc. going above an beyond necessity appear to be born of excess.
>Saudi Arabia is able to give lots of material benefits to its citizens only because of its trade
True of any state in history.
>It would be nothing without Western productivity
Can the West be productive without being liberal? Can the West be Liberal without being productive? Saudi is proving that it can be integrated into the democratic liberal world order without itself being liberal and democratic. The only thing anyone really cared about was what they had to offer in return.
>>20039427
The other anon could reply with an argument. Why couldn't you?

>>20039418
Is the point not that its Russia worried about nukes in itself, but Russia believing Ukraine joining NATO is an existential level threat? We have evidence that we knew that Russia felt sensitive concerning Ukraine, yet we disregarded them completely while Russia watched Ukraine draw closer to the west. If you play a game against an opponent knowing a certain move will make him react in a certain way, why act surprised when you get that exact response? In the weakest sense of the word, America gets blame for expecting Russia to sit there and take it, and banking on (or blinded by rather) their hegemony to avoid seeing any negative consequences.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
>Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia
It doesn't absolve Russia of actually invading by saying it could have clearly avoided it by actually considering what we were doing. I'm pretty sure Mearsheimer is pro-usa anyway. He just doesn't seewhat was the point of applying pressure to Russia and pushing them over to China's side (The US's actual rival), and for no good reason.

>>20039418
The US did consider invasion in response to the Cuban missile crisis but instead opted for a blockade. Castro found a friend in Khrushchev given that he the former wanted to deter future US invasion and the latter wanted a counter to the missiles in Turkey.
>The US tried to overthrow the cuban government but backed off when they realized that the people backed them.
So the US invaded a sovereign state and only stopped when they failed?

>>20039579
This is the point people misunderstand about Mearsheimer's claims. Russia telegraphed for a long time that it would react like this to Ukraine being pulled deeper into Western orbit.
The response from the West was basically "Try it, beta incel chudlets. You're not gonna do shit". Now we're here.

>>20039571
>Saudi is proving that it can be integrated into the democratic liberal world order without itself being liberal and democratic.

No it’s not

>>20039632
The most horrible thing is that this may potentially be a good result for the US, avoiding any general reflection, built on the corpses of at least tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.

>>20039579
Ukraine was never going to join NATO, this is the fundamental red herring used by Russia to justify their excursion.

>>20039579
>Is the point not that its Russia worried about nukes in itself, but Russia believing Ukraine joining NATO is an existential level threat?
That's another thing. He keeps saying that ukraine in nato is an existential(!) threat for russia but he doesn't say why. He just brings up this half assed example of the cuban missile crisis.
>If you play a game against an opponent knowing a certain move will make him react in a certain way, why act surprised when you get that exact response?
Once again nato russia founding act. If my opponent says he is okay with his neighbours aligning with me why does he sperg out later down the line? Also after yanukowitch was overthrown there was no intention of joining nato, only eu. The invasion of crimea is what caused ukraine to pivot towards nato.
>>20039617
>So the US invaded a sovereign state and only stopped when they failed?
Yes, but they didn't use their own troops. They used cubans to draw cuba into the western sphere like russia used yanukowitch to draw ukraine to russia. Both failed and russia should have backed down like the us did. This invasion by regular troops is an escalation that never happened in cuba.

>>20039632
>Ukraine being pulled deeper into Western orbit

Being pulled? Nice presumption.

>>20039647
You can’t win these people over, watch the 8 minute mark of that Mearsheimer lecture he glosses over the support for the EU in Ukraine he makes it seem like the country is 50/50 to support his half baked argument, by the actual graphs show it to be 70/30 support at least I. Favour of the Eu

>>20039647
>So the US invaded a sovereign state and only stopped when they failed?
>Yes, but they didn't use their own troops. They used cubans to draw cuba into the western sphere like russia used yanukowitch to draw ukraine to russia. Both failed and russia should have backed down like the us did. This invasion by regular troops is an escalation that never happened in cuba.

This. And people weren’t put in jail for criticizing it, in fact Kennedy was probably assassinated for it .

>>20039646
>Ukraine was never going to join NATO, this is the fundamental red herring used by Russia to justify their excursion.
We have NATO themselves saying Ukraine desired Membership all the way from 2008
>https://web.archive.org/web/20200714204022/http://www.summitbucharest.gov.ro/en/doc_202.html
>>23. NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
>>20039647
>That's another thing. He keeps saying that ukraine in nato is an existential(!) threat for russia but he doesn't say why.

If we have Russian ministers saying they view NATO expansion as a threat, why are we arrogantly deciding that they don't actually mean that? If Russia feels that Ukraine is going towards NATO,even if the facts on the ground are different, then that is what has to be addressed.
>Once again nato russia founding act. If my opponent says he is okay with his neighbours aligning with me why does he sperg out later down the line?
Probably because of the absolute state of Russia in the 90s left them with little alternative but to have the US set the terms of whatever they wanted. What other effective options did they have? Would you expect a country that was over a barrel before, re-assume the position if it didn't have to?

>>20039664
Pulled or drifting into. It wasn't meant for agency on the part of the US and EU to be implied but I'll be more careful next time. From the perspective of the Russian leadership how it's moving doesn't matter, only the result matters. The action that wouldn't raise the stakes would be for the West to reject Ukraine even if Ukraine wants in and actively rejects Russia.

>>20039713
>>Ukraine was never going to join NATO, this is the fundamental red herring used by Russia to justify their excursion.
>We have NATO themselves saying Ukraine desired Membership all the way from 2008

That doesn't mean they were automatically going to be accepted. Judging by how Russia has behaved. They were justified in seeking membership

>>20039717
>Ukraine wants in and actively rejects Russia.
You give Russia too much credit, why do you think they would accept the rejection? Why do you think the Russians would see rejection as anything but Ukraine trying to cozy up to the west?

>>20039571
I think characterizing the other countries in the West as vassals is a bit extreme, since they are able to resist US prerogatives and often do so, but you’re right, America’s global commitments are far beyond what was envisioned by any earlier era of American values.

It’s an open debate on what the interests of the American people really are in this instance. Nature abhors a vacuum, so on the outskirts of any nations security bubble will lie some threat or competitor. And of course the bubble has expanded astronomically. But if we pull back, the other powers will push forward, and they’ll still be right on the border of whatever you consider to be a legitimate security interest. The dream is that there would be nothing outside the bubble.

> Science, art, military might going above and beyond appear to be born of excess
In regards to the military maybe, since it is a kind of necessary parasite which takes things away from people are gives nothing in return (if you discount the fact that in the real world you could be attacked and lose far more). I don’t know what you mean by science and art, which are primarily created by individuals cooperating to achieve things according to their own values. Maybe you think that their values are wrong, but it’s not so obvious to me.
> Saudi Arabia is able to give lots of material benefits to its citizens only because of its trade
>True of any state in history.
Not true. There is a big difference between wealth which you trade natural resources for, and wealth that is produced by human capital. 70% of Saudis work for the government. I’ve read it’s estimated they work 1 hour a day. They are an immensely unproductive people. Don’t confuse money with wealth.
>Can the West be productive without being liberal?
No, not to the same degree. Freedom brings about a large dispersion of economic power among many people, which allows for decentralized decision making. This kind of economic organization is the most efficient we have. Additionally, intellectual freedom leads to much better ideas being produced, which means better technology. Compare the research output of the US to the rest of the world.
>Can the West be Liberal without being productive?
Yes, if most people decide that productivity isn’t important to them and don’t work as hard. Or if you’re an American Liberal, which is to say a Social Democrat and you don’t really believe in economic freedom like a classical liberal does.

We’ll see about the future of Saudi Arabia. Illiberal countries can win a sprint sometimes, but they can’t win the marathon.

>>20039741
>>That doesn't mean they were automatically going to be accepted.
Maybe we should have told Russia that sooner rather than later
> Judging by how Russia has behaved. They were justified in seeking membership
Which is a classic security dilemma. Ukraine seeks NATO because they fear Russia. Russia seeks to prevent this as they see NATO in Ukraine as a threat to their own security. Ukraine sees these actions as further reasons to be in NATO, and this cycle continued until it came to ahead a fortnight ago

>>20031033
The supposed organization that manages influence over structured societies by means of financial power, media infrastructure and of course, magic spells.

>>20039713
>We have NATO themselves saying Ukraine desired Membership all the way from 2008
Yes they did desire membership. But first of all france and germany were against it. Second of all the interim government explicitly stated in 2014 they had no intention of joining nato and wanted to remain neutral
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html
>In November 2008, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Prime-Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former Ukrainian minister of defence Anatolii Hrytsenko doubted Ukraine would be granted membership of MAP in December 2008
>If we have Russian ministers saying they view NATO expansion as a threat, why are we arrogantly deciding that they don't actually mean that?
Because there was a mutual agreement on this. Nato kept its part. Russia didn't. It is rather arrogant for russia to decide what its neighbours are allowed to do.
>Probably because of the absolute state of Russia in the 90s left them with little alternative but to have the US set the terms of whatever they wanted. What other effective options did they have? Would you expect a country that was over a barrel before, re-assume the position if it didn't have to?
They didn't set the terms of whatever they wanted. Nato commited to never place nukes in eastern europe and to deepen cooperation with russia and be included in decision making processes. Actually Russia as a non member has had privileges with nato that no other non member had.

>>20039755
>I think characterizing the other countries in the West as vassals is a bit extreme

Totally extreme. Is Canada a US vassal state? LMAO

>>20039761
This, and it comes down to the simple fact, that Putin cannot stand that Ukraine would not want to be part of Russia, and has not gotten over the humiliation of the break up of the USSR

>>20031030
He has a few good points but is kinda retarded. For one the notion that we should be getting closer to Russia to counter China is just stupid. The animosity between the 2 countries runs so deep that it will likely never happen. Even if we could I don't see the long term benefit. Russia's economy is shit and long term I think they will only continue to decline in relevance. We have way more trade with China, and even as they become a superpower and compete with us in certain areas they are still quite economically dependant on the U.S.

>>20032697
It absolutely is relevant. Leaders aren't always rational actors maximizing their nation's power, and sometimes foreign policy decisions are downstream of domestic economic concerns. Nazi Germany transitioned itself to a wartime economy, rearming itself, pushing the country down a war path.

>>20039772
People have an anachronistic view of words like vassal since they connote imperialistic oppression today. Why wouldn't a weaker state seek to be a vassal if it would reduce their own security concerns and provide trade with a powerful empire? What does Canada gain from not playing along.
Also, the US already pressured Canada to cancel joint military exercises with China so there is a sort of US-led, unequal relationship between these two countries, even if the word "vassal" is too provocative.

>>20039832

>US already pressured Canada to cancel joint military exercises with China so there is a sort of US-led, unequal relationship between these two countries, even if the word "vassal" is too provocative.

You must be pretty young, because Canada was pressured to join the Iraq war and went against the US. So yeah, the word vassal is not provocative it's just being used by someone that doesn't know its meaning.

>>20035740
>Russia's second strike capability, and thus to MAD itself, than previous NATO expansions
Russia has nuclear subs so I doubt it would seriously negate MAD. Also I dont see how joining NATO will mean they get nukes. After all the U.S was the one to pressure Ukraine to give up their nukes.

>>20039832
I mean, obviously the US can’t maintain a military and intelligence relationship with a country linked to our number one competitor. Canada just had to realize they were being dumb. It’s not like we threatened them, it’s just that cooperation is a two-way street.

>>20039847
Canada participating in Iraq doesn't present the same national security profile as Canada cooperating with the US's biggest geopolitical foe.
It's a different matter to ask to join than to ask to stop.
We'll see how the US responds to continued Chinese encroachment in Canada in the coming decades.

>>20039823
I think realists would argue that World War II was the result of the breakdown in the balance of power. E. H. Carr wrote a famous (and actually somewhat Marxist-influenced) book on it that is really influential among realists. There are a lot of ways to look at it. From a Goodreads review:

>So, what was it all about? Well, Professor Carr is writing just after the outbreak of World War II. Though he never expresses it directly, he is obviously mad at the ninnies in the west who's head in the sky policies have brought all of this about. Yes, that's right, we've got an English historian writing a book during the phoney war phase of WWII, and he is mad at the west.

>Why? It seems western thought after WWI took a decided turn to the utopian. We sought, collectively, to divorce international relations from power politics (that's right Woodrow, we are talking about you), and instead base the international system on such chimeras as "world public opinion" and the community of interests.

>None of this ended up working out. We had the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Naval Disarmament Treaties. They all started from the premise that morality, without reference to power, is what should govern the affairs of nations. Furthermore, there were no intractable differences between nations, for all that needed to happen was an illumination on the benefits of the status quo to nations like Germany, Japan and Italy.

>Carr thinks all of this is hogwash. He stands for the simple and intuitive proposition that morality and power have to go hand in hand for a successful foreign policy. Morality without power is empty rhetoric. Naked power is inevitably resisted. Cloaking one with the other is what is required for success. This may seem common sensical these days, but in a world reeling from the impact of the "War to End War." You can imagine how western thinking got a little off course.

>Carr is a member of distinguished class of British historians, including AJP Taylor and Trevor Roeper that lived through the two great wars and provided invaluable insight into their origins. Interestingly, though Carr was a defender of the realist school, he also became an ardent supporter of the accomplishments of the Soviet Union (the imaginary utopia of all imaginary utopias). Like AJP Taylor, while his analysis of the interwar era is a tour-de-force of scholarship, after the second world war, he seems to have lost his way. Taylor became so rabidly anti-German he opposed NATO for Germany's participation. Carr saw so much virtue in Stalin's programme, he became convinced of the flaws of the profit motive and advocated for a socialist-planned economy.

>>20039761
>Second of all the interim government explicitly stated in 2014 they had no intention of joining nato and wanted to remain neutral
And who knows, maybe if that Government didn't collapse in July and the subsequent one didn't call joining NATO "a top priority " things could have worked out differently
>>20039761
>Because there was a mutual agreement on this. Nato kept its part. Russia didn't.
So does that mean Lavrov was actually lying about Russia's view on Ukraine? A treaty is just about as valid as the state's incentive to follow it. You do understand this is about determining what actions a state would take and why, not about a moral justification right?
>It is rather arrogant for russia to decide what its neighbors are allowed to do.
States have used force for their own aims since the beginning of time. It's not acceptable anymore, but lets not pretend any major power is innocent in that. What's hubris is ignoring someone stating their country would take major action if yours does this, because a treaty somehow magically stops them changing their mind to new circumstances or responding in a way they now see as best?
>They didn't set the terms of whatever they wanted
It does sound like NATO got what they wanted. They set firm boundaries on nuclear weapons,established channels to reduce uncertainty about each others actions, and deepened cooperation in general. All of this reduces tensions with a state which is inherently suspicious about you. What did it actually cost NATO? They even got free reign to expand as you said.

>>20039990
>I think realists would argue that World War II was the result of the breakdown in the balance of power.
Indeed
>From a Goodreads review
c'mon anon...

test

>>20040011
>And who knows, maybe if that Government didn't collapse in July and the subsequent one didn't call joining NATO "a top priority " things could have worked out differently
Of course you leave out that this pivot towards nato ocurred after the invasion of crimea.
>A treaty is just about as valid as the state's incentive to follow it.
This mentality is a big part of the reason why russia is and will remain a shithole.
>You do understand this is about determining what actions a state would take and why, not about a moral justification right?
It is about the credibility of a country and what its word is worth. Right now russias word has about as much value as the ruble. So no point in keeping up negotiations with them.
>lets not pretend any major power is innocent in that
For almost 80 years there hasn't been a great power, that has declared that another country doesn't actually exist and started a war to annex it. Russia right now is trying the eliminate ukraine as a sovereign entity. Something that hasn't happened in balkan, afghanistan iraq or libya.
>What's hubris is ignoring someone stating their country would take major action if yours does this
They actually said they wouldn't invade a day before the invasion. Once again russians word means shit now.
>What did it actually cost NATO?
What did it cost russia? As long as nuclear weapons are not moved into eastern europe MAD is ensured. Nato cannot force people to join them.

>>20036663
Easily proven wrong? There's nothing 'disprove' me wrong on. I fully acknowledged his contribution to the field, and even own his books, but it is absolutely true that his peers collectively groan when he does interviews like I mention and you cite. Particularly when it comes to Ukraine.

He has been good at what he does. Passed tense.

>>20039673
So a large part of this seems to be: Ukraine is a huge huge massive land mass, with likely tons of tons of tons of resources. EU/the west may want to court Ukraine to get access to all those resources; Russia would lose access to all those resources, and the power faction possibly more; having an example of prospering liberal democracy on their doorstep.

Russia having an ethnic relation with the ukranians, and a historical relation with the land proximity; claim this land, these resources, are more ours than EU/the wests, so they are trying to prevent them from taking it, by taking it.

>>20040104
>Russia would lose access to all those resources
Not lose access, but would face market competition over those resources. The exact same game Russia was already playing in the global system with other countries.

>>20039761
>france and germany were against it.
Why were they against it?

What did NATO have to lose in quickly and easily accepting Ukraine, what were the cons?

>>20039761
>Second of all the interim government explicitly stated in 2014 they had no intention of joining nato and wanted to remain neutral
Does the term interim not dramatically imply a possible lack of permenance?

>>20040101
>Right now russias word has about as much value as the ruble. So no point in keeping up negotiations with them.

This. There is no negotiating or peaceful coexistence with psychopathic dictatorship

>>20038603
There's nothing appealing about the "dream" you've put forward. The people you're talking about aren't in it for some sort of utopia, it's all pure power politics. Nobody with power is enamored about some kind of liberal democratic fairy tale, liberal democracy is simply the system that props them up and makes them money. What you're describing is the end of history and our elites want it because they're on top, and to end history on top is to forever be on top.

>>20039293
This is idiotic considering how Ukraine has basically no liberal tradition to speak of.

>>20040160
>What did NATO have to lose in quickly and easily accepting Ukraine, what were the cons?
Russia wasn't pleased with ukraine growing closer to the eu. Of course france and germany took this into consideration because everybody wants to have good relations with each other and ukraine in nato was a not a big concern in 2008.
>Does the term interim not dramatically imply a possible lack of permenance?
We will never find out because putin decided to chimp out in august of 2014 before anything was even decided.
>>20040183
>peaceful coexistence
I don't think war is inevitable, but the west will disassociate from russia economically and keep moving forward. Maybe putin will chimp out again once the russian economy fully collapses and we will all die; i wouldn't know because we can't trust anything russia says anymore.

>>20040160
>Why were they against it?
>What did NATO have to lose in quickly and easily accepting Ukraine, what were the cons?
Russian gas.

>>20039793
Early after the Cold War it was possible but I think what we’ve done to Russia has made it impossible for a while at least until the current bureaucracy is replaced.

You’re retarded if you see no benefit to allying with Russia though. It’s not about economically off China, he’ll we continued to trade with the USSR throughout the Cold War, it’s about militarily surrounding China. You’re right Russia poses no long term threat so why would we antagonize them when if we had their assistance we could put our only legitimate challenger, China, in a stranglehold. If our establishment wasn’t so retarded Russia would have all the reason in the world to be more wary of China than of us.

>>20040121
It's the game every country plays. Russia is just losing.
>>20040183
>The opposition is totally irrational and mentally incapable of negotiating. They have to be removed.
This is such a hopeless perspective on international politics. I don't even think the US administration is this radical on this topic.

>>20040205
No I’m describing a world without war, and with the maximum amount of freedom for the most people. There have always been elites, the fact that some people have power over others and choose to do bad things with it is part of the human condition. The best thing to do is to break up the power among as many people as possible, which is exactly what liberal democracy does.

>>20040183
>>20040101
You people are retarded. If Putin disappeared off the face of the Earth tomorrow, his replacement within the United Russia party would still be compelled to fight Ukraine to neutrality. If United Russia disappeared tomorrow, their replacements (either the commies or the white nationalists) would similarly be compelled to fight Ukraine into neutrality. This is not an issue of personality or even partisanship for Russia. Opposing a pro-NATO Ukraine is an issue of geopolitical necessity for anyone in charge of Russia, and this is precisely why there is nobody of any political significance across the spectrum in Russia who would allow such a thing to happen. Your brain is rotted by Western movies where you think if only we kill le big bad thanos putler man we can have our cake and eat it too!

>>.20040160

Well, there are lot of bad answers to this but the actual reason is that NATO is legal charter with rules and conditions of acceptance.

Ukraine simply did not meet its standards against corruption and for demonstrating a society that adheres to the rule of law.

You can't park nukes or expensive war machines in unstable countries.
The rules have been there since the 70s but the recent decent of Turkey into authoritarianism is proving most inconvenient and embarrassing for NATO, and so they certainly had a refresher course about corrupt countries and the problems they can create for the alliance.

>>20040287
It's starting to look like "Liberal Democracy" is the new communism. Everyone claims it does something but we can't be sure because there's no "true" liberal democracy implemented anywhere. And if you claim there are "true" extant liberal democracies then you can't claim that they disperse power over time as power has only been getting more centralized in the West for decades.

>>20040101
>Of course you leave out that this pivot towards nato ocurred after the invasion of crimea
Which finished March 26th, while your non committal statement is dated March 29th? If you said the Donbass and Lushank it would make more sense. You still ignore the fact that no one is blaming Ukraine for doing so, but I'm saying that action led to an obvious response from Russia
>This mentality is a big part of the reason why russia is and will remain a shithole.
Yes, but that is the mindset they have. That is my point
>It is about the credibility of a country and what its word is worth. Right now russias word has about as much value as the ruble. So no point in keeping up negotiations with them.
When did it become about that? The entire discussion is understanding why Russia took the actions it is taking. Credibility is a factor in states communicating with each other, but the other two sentences are just an odd tangent
>For almost 80 years there hasn't been a great power, that has declared that another country doesn't actually exist and started a war to annex it.
Because the US realized its far easier; once you invaded a country you get rid of who you want, let democracy happen, and then lean on whoever needs to be pushed to get what you need.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-money-cia-idUSBRE93S00K20130429
But arrogance is a moral judgement anyway (which you seem fixated on). All I'm saying is that violent force exists like it always has and should not be forgotten about
>They actually said they wouldn't invade a day before the invasion. Once again russians word means shit now
Shit now, not 14 years ago when relations were better, and not when what they said then is being confirmed by their actions now. It shouldn't be hard to tell the difference really
>What did it cost russia?
Well to get to that point they had their economy nearly detonate from poorly done liberalization and lose about 4 years of life expectancy. I don't think there was anything Russia had left to offer or push back with. What it did cost Russia though was allowing NATO expansion right up to their door if they felt like it, in exchange for lower likelihood of Moscow being turned into glass

>>20040287
A world devoid of conflict is one where the existing elite are permanently entrenched. That's all you're describing. The people in power now want a world devoid of conflict so they can always be in power without threat. Conflicts are always just a matter of changing who the elite actually are, opposing all conflict is just proposing that the class of people in charge now should always be in charge. The US is no freer of oligarchy or bureaucracy than China or Russia, the biggest difference is that the nature of this relationship is more obscured. Because hey, as long as you support diversity and equity and don't say anything outside of this window of acceptable views you'll be much freer than Vaclav Havel's green grocer right? Right?

>>20040205
But there are elites at the top of all nations comfortably, what compels their actions? Is it more so the ambitious aspiring elites that have to be looked out for, because they have something to gain? Or all thosen at top always have something more to gain?

Platos notion of the rulers being best if not personally caring about personal wealth is almost horseshoely equal to having so much wealth one needs not a single personal care to aquire more for oneself.

Then it is a matter of those below, who can never be satisfied with what they have, or if not them, those just below, and those just below, and those just below. A nation is a mountain of starving dogs climbing atop one anothers back to nip at the carcus dangling from the heavens by the hand of God

>>20031168
>>20031030
this guy is a fucking retard. his arguments consist of pointing out that the US is not a neutral entity (wow!). most of his other statements that try to go beyond this consist of dismissing other positions as 'laughable' or 'wrong' without saying why.

>>20040304
You’re right to an extent, but this is because of the expansion of the welfare state. 19th century post civil war America was as near a true liberal democracy as ever existed. The existence of contradictions doesn’t disprove the idea though, and it’s not like pendulum can’t swing back the other way if enough people want it to.

>>20031458
and posts such as >>20031418 enable people to find the more complex and original works

>>20040228
>>Does the term interim not dramatically imply a possible lack of permenance?
>We will never find out
Aren't all governments and people interim and impermenant? Even the attempted solution to this, monarchy of strictly royal blood, showed the dynamic swings from one political mind to the next; which is why the idea to permenantly crystalize a stable agreeable political mind in the form of constitutions and stuff came about.

But as long as people and moods and desires can change, and provocations and threats can occur, and paper can be ripped or rewritten, who knows what's what

>>20040321
I totally disagree, the average person in America has a lot more power over their own government than in Russia or China. Ideally we would remove as much power from the state as possible. Sure there would be rich people, but there’s a lot of class mobility in a free meritocratic society. And the power of the rich is limited when they can’t use force, which is an essential element of a free society. I’m not worried about people like Jeff Bezos, he never got a dollar from me I didn’t give him willingly.

>>20039208
>This goes back to the French Revolution
I think the idea is actually from Perpetual Peace by Kant (which was written during the time of the French Revolution, but as an outside observer)

>>20040295
>It is a necessity to fight a pro nato ukraine... because it just is!
>>20040319
I'm saying that action led to an obvious response from Russia
The thing is that you are confusing action and reaction. Getting rid of the neutrality provision in the ukrainian constitution was a reaction to the russian invasion of crimea and not the other way round. Prior to the invasion a ukrainian nato membership was very unlikely.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28978699
>The entire discussion is understanding why Russia took the actions it is taking.
You are right. And still nobody has explained to me why ukraine in Nato is an existential threat to russia.
>All I'm saying is that violent force exists like it always has and should not be forgotten about
And usually there is a brain and conscience behind it, but i am probably expecting too much.
>in exchange for lower likelihood of Moscow being turned into glass
This implies that there was a probability of moscow getting nuked after cold war was over, even though their second strike capabilities were still intact. Can you elaborate on this?

>>20040375
If the average person in America had more power over their government than in Russia or China, its approval rating wouldn't consistently be negative year after year.

>>20040304
>disperse power over time as power has only been getting more centralized in the West for decades.
It's only ever comparitvly; compared to the empires monarchies and dynasties of history?

It's not completly idealistic but it is more idealistic. What would power more evenly spread to the people look like? In America regular Joe's like you and me, well maybe not me, run every town and city in the country. And we have....some say....
Alot of things about community are obvious, alot of people have different tastes then one another, weed is legal here, not here, alcohol is sold on Sunday here, not here, full nude strip clubs are in this town, not this one, these people voted against a new apartment complex in their backyard, these people voted for it

>>20040403
>bro just let us invade Iraq there's WMDs I swear so whats the biggie
>bro just let georgia join NATO whats the biggie
>bro just let the Syrian government collapse and the Islamists we armed take over whats the biggie
>bro just let us pull a color revolution in ukraine whats the biggie
>bro just let us pull a color revolution in armenia whats the biggie
>bro just let ukraine join NATO whats the biggie
you are here
>bro just let us pull a color revolution in belarus whats the biggie
>bro just let belarus join NATO whats the biggie
>haha looks like you have no warm water ports and the missiles we placed in belarus, ukraine, and the caucasus can reach every critical point in western russia before your can respond, no more MAD guess you better start eating the bugs bro no biggie
do glowniggers really think this is reasonable?

>>20040370
>But as long as people and moods and desires can change
That is why treaties exist. If i buy a pair of socks and start to dislike them after a month i can't just give them back and ask for my money back. Of course treaties between countries are far more complex than treaties between private entities but if a country only considers treaties binding as long as they benefit from them less countries will feel inclined to deal with them after they renege on their word; which is what is happening to russia now.

>>20040427
>missiles we placed in belarus, ukraine, and the caucasus can reach every critical point in western russia before your can respond, no more MAD guess you better start eating the bugs bro no biggie
You make three mistakes there
First, Nato has agreed not to place missiles in new member states and has kept that promise. There are no nato nukes east of germany.
Secondly, being able to reach the russian mainland in little time is already possible by putting missiles in the baltics. Something nato has not done.
thirdly, MAD relies on second strike capabilities. These are nuclear armed submarine fleets that are mobile and therefore hard to detect. Even if nato were to put missiles on land russias second strike capabilities through submarines would remain intact, thus MAD would still be ensured.
You make no sense.

>>20039647
>Yes, but they didn't use their own troops. They used cubans to draw cuba
Cubans who were armed and trained in the United States with US money. They even might have gotten American air support but that was pulled at the last minute

>>20040405
How does that make any sense, it’s not like the president usually wins in a landslide. 49% of people are automatically unhappy that the other side won, and then you have the people who didn’t vote at all.

>>20040450
>First, Nato has agreed not to place missiles in new member states and has kept that promise. There are no nato nukes east of germany.
What's your time horizon on this? You think NATO is never ever going to put missiles in Belarus or Ukraine we swear our fingers aren't crossed trust me bro? Like cmon, what fool would allow that to happen. You'd have to have the time horizon of a nigger to allow NATO into Belarus or Ukraine if you were Russian. Especially after all of the shit we just spent doing in the Middle East? Your whole argument is "we lie all the time but trust us here!" Not even Russians are that stupid.

You're arguing for appeasement. You're saying that Russia should appease NATO. Appease them in Iraq, in Syria, in Georgia, in Ukraine, in Belarus. Appeasement doesn't work, it only invites further aggression. I mean fuck, America has the Monroe Doctrine claiming exclusivity over the entire Western Hemisphere.

>>20040340
Your post is laughable

>>20040489
The Congressional approval rating has been around 25% for over a decade. What you're saying makes no sense, if people had power they would not overwhelmingly disapprove of the job their government is doing. Bureaucracies have power, oligarchs have power, but people do not. Liberal democracy is the worst form of government precisely because it is the best at hiding this fact.

>>20040492
>You think NATO is never ever going to put missiles in Belarus or Ukraine we swear our fingers aren't crossed trust me bro?
30 years after the collapse of SU and 24 Years after the Nato russia founding act Nato still hasn't reneged on it's commitments to russia. Even after the crimea invasion Nato hasn't put missiles in the new member states. You think like a russian; you assume everyone will backstab you. This mindset is also why russia sabotages its future whenever it can.
>You're arguing for appeasement.
No, i'm just argueing that they observe the treaties they sign.

>>20040403
>You are right. And still nobody has explained to me why ukraine in Nato is an existential threat to russia.
Some anon in another thread in the topic suggested the rulers of Russia would be scared that a nearby prosperous liberal democracy would compell the Russian citizens to demand changes, revolt. So like the meaning of most non true democracies/republics, the rulers hold their nation and people hostage for their personal benefit.

Whether there is some part of them that truly believes they are doing it some amount for their people's benefit, and objectively so, is up for discussion.

The masses having true pure freedom is relatively new phenomenon, and so it may be possible, especially coming from milenia of tradition, like new, naive babes, know not what is for their own good. The opposing arguement being, better to fail free than succeed slaved, and all opposing arguements involved in that.

>>20040515
People approve of their individual representatives in much greater proportions. Anyway classical liberalism implies limited government, which means that most of the resources of society ought to be handled privately. Additionally the US’s federal structure means that a lot of important decisions are handled at lower levels. I’m sure that plenty more people are happier with their state and city than with the federal government. I’m assuming you’re not an American or this would all be obvious to you

>>20040403
>The thing is that you are confusing action and reaction. Getting rid of the neutrality provision in the ukrainian constitution was a reaction to the russian invasion of crimea and not the other way round. Prior to the invasion a ukrainian nato membership was very unlikely.
Im not confusing it, im saying it's a continuous cycle of action and reaction (and I'd argue its Donbass that made Ukraine change its mind all the way in August.) Russia seizes Crimea because the instability of Maiden makes Sevastopol both vulnerable, and potentially at risk. Concurrently you have Pro-russians starting shit in the East. Russia supports this because anything pro-russia is good for them. This pushes Ukraine towards NATO. Russia increases their support for East Ukraine because it damages the prospect of Ukraine trying to get into NATO. Russia pushing more increases the resolve of Ukraine to get in NATO. This cycle (a Security Dilemma) continues, with Russia seeing Ukraine come closer and closer to NATO until we get to the actions of the present day
>You are right. And still nobody has explained to me why ukraine in Nato is an existential threat to russia.
Honestly, take your pick. Historical Neurosis about the vulnerability of Ukraine militarily, food security concerns with the wheat they grow, energy concerns with the gas that flows through and keep their income. Their main warm deep water port being there, paranoia about NATO glowies having a land border for their next regime change op, wanting a good old fashioned buffer state, or all of the above at once. There is a lot Russia compared worry about with Ukraine compared to the Baltics or somewhere like Finland. The most important thing to the West is that Russia is genuinely concerned about the status of Ukraine, and it should be acknowledge in dealing with them
>And usually there is a brain and conscience behind it, but i am probably expecting too much.
The second is rare,having a conscience doesn't do any favors for survival
>Can you elaborate on this?
Its more a glib response. The measures in the treaty were all about deescalating things and trying to get Russia out of that NATO paranoia mindset that could result in a hot war

>>20031030
>NATO PINKY PROMISED THEY WOULDNT PUT MISSILES IN UKRAINE!
>Why should Russians believe an organization that blatantly appears anti-Russian?
>J-JUST BECAUSE OKAY! NATO SRE THE GOOD GUYS! PRO-TRANS KID CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IF HISTORY MMMKAY!

>>20040515
>The Congressional approval rating has been around 25% for over a decade
How many people that don't care about the state of things, or think things are fine, don't take part in those polls; those polls of how many?

Heck as long as my meat and cheese is at the supermarket every week and I can find a a nice gal to fuck occasional in have no qualms with congress

>>20040563
>Honestly, take your pick. Historical Neurosis about the vulnerability of Ukraine militarily, food security concerns with the wheat they grow, energy concerns with the gas that flows through and keep their income. Their main warm deep water port being there, paranoia about NATO glowies having a land border for their next regime change op, wanting a good old fashioned buffer state, or all of the above at once. There is a lot Russia compared worry about with Ukraine compared to the Baltics or somewhere like Finland. The most important thing to the West is that Russia is genuinely concerned about the status of Ukraine, and it should be acknowledge in dealing with them
Those are all very valid concerns that should be adressed, but none of them seem existential to me as russias government and their defenders keep saying; as in russias very existence does not seem to hinge on a port to me and russia is the biggest exporter of wheat in the world.
>>20040564
>Why should Russians believe an organization that blatantly appears anti-Russian?
Russia has had more privileges with Nato than any non member ever had.
>J-JUST BECAUSE OKAY! NATO SRE THE GOOD GUYS! PRO-TRANS KID CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IF HISTORY MMMKAY!
I'm sorry that you're unable to see the world outside /pol/ talking points.

>>20040302
>Ukraine simply did not meet its standards against corruption and for demonstrating a society that adheres to the rule of law.
lol. Are you seriously telling me that Greece, Bulgaria and assorted Balkan countries are any different from Ukraine?

>>20040639
>but none of them seem existential to me as russias government and their defenders keep saying;
How large and tangible is the range between existential and: a little weakened, and a little more weakened, and a little more weakened, and a little more weakened.....

When does that turn to existential, and when is it too late to prevent further weakening? Or just the nuisance required to exert strength to overcome those mounting weaknesses

>>20040375
>I totally disagree, the average person in America has a lot more power over their own government than in Russia or China.
A single vote every 2 to 4 years is equivalent to having zero power at all. Almost all of the governance in all countries, even "democracies", is done by bureaucracies and unaccountable politicians. The only reason your government is more "responsive" is because the society itself is wealthy enough that there is not a high incentive for corruption.
>but there’s a lot of class mobility in a free meritocratic society
That has been declining tmk for quite a while in the US, which is falling in this metric behind many other western countries. The trend seems toward a more sclerotic/rigid class society

>>20040639
> Russia has had more privileges with Nato than any non member ever had.
It’s still a blatantly anti Russian organization

>>20040639
>Those are all very valid concerns that should be adressed, but none of them seem existential to me as russias government
They are existential to Russia's government though and they're willing to invade Ukraine over it and pay a cost that NATO, so far, hasn't demonstrated that it's willing to pay in return. So the question is what do you do about that? Like.... for the realists they're not so concerned with whether the Russian point of view is a valid "opinion" or not. Mearsheimer here:

https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?t=2019

There's this attitude among the liberals here that the Russians have to "prove" that Ukraine is in their vital strategic interest at the level of discourse... or something... and that makes their actions legitimate or illegitimate. No, they are showing you that it's in their vital strategic interest by their actions. You don't have to approve of the invasion obviously. But talk is cheap. What matters here are actions and capability on both sides of the equation.

There's another annoying thing people on the internet do when they think that if you're explaining something, that you're necessarily approving of it, or endorsing it somehow. It's incredibly frustrating to deal with.

>>20040639
>none of them seem existential to me
To YOU.(and losing your only warm deep water port is actually very bad for any country) How many times must it be said that the Russian government is going to have different views on what is vital to them, and if we want to consider their responses we have to acknowledge that. They could be wrong, they could be concerned about things I haven't thought about, it could be a collective krokodil induced vision. Whatever its basis, that is what they care about. You think Russia is speedrunning its return to the 90s without what they think is a very good reason?

>>20040785
Very well put. It's really strange how they think word games somehow overrule reality.

>>20040798
Lmao I wonder what old Mearsheimer thinks of this?

>>20039859
Followed by attack subs - nobody really knows how secure that aspect of the triad is. That is why you have a triad.

>>20039418
>dude we won't put nukes of BMD in ukraine trust us
Not how the world works.

>>20040639
>none of them seem existential to me
It doesn't matter. Russian history is the story of constantly being invaded and collapsing into anarchy. They may be totally overreacting (or not), but it's incredibly naive to wonder why they don't trust NATO assurances.

>>20040688
If Russia, adopted a western liberal government there would be no problem. Instead they choose to be a mafia-state operating under the guise of a legitimate country. NATO is needed.

>>20040765
>Russia's government

LMAO imagine thinking that existed.

>>20041389
You seem to be completely ignorant of pretty recent Russian history. They tried that in the 90s and their life expectancy went down 10 years. For rational reasons don’t expect that to occur again within the next century. As well I think you’re wrong in your assessment. Putin and Bush had very good relations, for instance Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after 9/11. This was up until it was announced Ukraine and Georgia would be joining NATO.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uJB3gahGyqo
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQ5TXzR0Kk

>>20031030
No unfortunately they’re all a bunch of unstable neurotics

>>20040798
Wow that pic is enraging. I don't really like Mearshimer that much but it's ludicrous to try and cancel him for expressing a different view.

>>20040686
>The only reason your government is more "responsive" is because the society itself is wealthy enough that there is not a high incentive for corruption.
What ... there are countless examples of wealthy countries with extreme corruption. In fact if anything it's the inverse--a lot of money creates more opportunities for corruption. Saudis Arabia very oil rich but not exactly a defender of human rights...

>>20041631
And America the absolutely perfect ideal best ever greatest country ever by leaps and bounds which should there fore be unfathomably better than every country and wouldn't even think to compare itself to a lesser country, which is by far them all, is a perfect role model in the realm of human rights

>>20041389
>If Russia, adopted a western liberal government there would be no problem.
wow no one ever thought of that, I wonder why?

>>20040256
>our only legitimate challenger, China, in a stranglehold. If our establishment wasn’t so retarded Russia would have all the reason in the world to be more wary of China than of us.
Russia is already wary of China even though they're allied. In any case I don't see what being friendly to Russia would get the U.S. Our interests are diametrically opposed on so many issues and us allying with them would alienate many other countries. I see no reason even if we could, and we can't, that we should tie ourselves to a sinking ship. As for China being a challenger, I suppose that depends somewhat on our actions. Clearly they want Taiwan and greater influence in their sphere, but they still trade a fuck ton to the U.S and West, so I don't see them doing anything too extreme to the West because it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

>>20041709
And as for militarily surrounding China .. They are already surrounded. Russia's friendship with China is conditional. It's not like they'd let China invade them.

>>20041649
Did I say that U.S was a champion of human rights? No all I said is that being wealthy doesn't always entail less corruption. Please do go on addressing points I never made.

>>20041742
More so we can list the nations with the least curruption? Probably European nations? Every nation probably has curruption, but the nordic European nations probably partake I curruption that negatively impacts their citizens least?

Then also doesn't Saudi Arabia give all the citizens money they get from oil? What are the 10 least currupt nations? And what are the 10 nations with the most citizens having the highest quality of living?

>>20041709
>In any case I don't see what being friendly to Russia would get the U.S.
A greater promise of no war

>>20040227
This is idiot, seeing as how Ukraine has a direct lineage to WWII naziism, and it’s current battalions are being aided by US fascists from the deep state.

Thanks for playing, chumpy

>>20038754
It’s still a stupid defense to call him an anitsemite for writing a book on the lobby

>>20038235
>4chan can't even differentiate between German and Jewish names
That was the one thing that /pol/ was actually good for.

>>20041790

You cannot be friends with a psychopath because they are fundamentally untrustworthy.

>>20042094
Better to be friends than enemies?

>>20042206
Psychopaths do not have that capacity

>>20032458
People aren't going to act according to some rigid theory.