Analysis & prediction on Ukraine from 6 years ago: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” -John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the U. of Chicago,
Analysis & prediction on Ukraine from 6 years ago: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wre
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Your automatic responses without bothering to understand the posts is getting a bit tiresome.
I understand. You keep posting things trying to justify Putin attacking the Ukraine by blaming other people. The analysis is that suggesting that the US is at fault for suggesting NATO membership was possible because WHEN Putin invaded, the US wouldn't be able to help them. Even in the analysis you posted, Russia is the aggressor but the US is somehow to blame for not engaging in WWIII over it.
You have no basis at all for claiming that I am trying to justify Putin attacking Ukraine by posting this article.
It is not the thesis of this article that Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine.
I do not know if you are trolling or your prejudices get in way of your thinking.
Unlike you I am against all countries using military power. That has consistently been my position all the years I have posted on Terb.
Last edited:
this guy was against Ukraine giving away their nukes because he predicted that Russia would eventually attack. Pretty accurate, eh?
John Mearsheimer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The west could have let Russia join NATO in the 90's or not backed the wacko 2014 coup.this guy was against Ukraine giving away their nukes because he predicted that Russia would eventually attack. Pretty accurate, eh?
John Mearsheimer - Wikipedia
But now?
Its more of the same, Marwan Bishara's take gets it.
Indeed, both Russia and the United States are like soulless casinos, willing to gamble and take the risk and the loss, as long as they control the game or are able to game the international system to their advantage.
Some claim that equating American democracy and Russian autocracy makes for a false equivalence. As a liberal democrat, I concur: there is more accountability in a democracy than in an autocracy.
But historically, when it comes to foreign affairs, the behaviour of major powers on the world stage is driven mainly by the nature of geopolitical, strategic ambitions and necessities, not by the nature of their system of governance.
In fact, one could argue that Western democracies have behaved especially badly as colonial and imperial powers over the past one or two centuries.
But then again, the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, have also been violent towards their neighbours.
When asked what it means for Russia to be perceived as an “aggressor”, a government spokesperson recently said that was an invention by the West whose reputation is “covered in blood”.
Sadly, since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the US have led mostly by the example of their power and rarely by the power of their example, undermining in the process international peace and security.
They have deployed the wrong means to the right ends, and the right means to the wrong ends, launching devastating wars to establish peace and stability, and providing poor nations with economic and security assistance only to prop up dictators.
They have wasted three decades, focusing primarily on advancing their own narrow interests just as they did during the Cold War, and in the process only paved the way for, well, another Cold War.
This will be a dark period for Europe and, indeed, the world.
How were they going to keep them, though?
That's always been the problem with this counterfactual.
they would have had issues maintaining all of the nukes but they sure could have kept some smaller ones.
I'd have to go back and look to some experts, but I got the strong impression that even holding a smaller one they couldn't use wouldn't have been particularly useful.
Trading them for what they could get was probably the best use of them.
Trading them for what they could get was probably the best use of them.
and do what with it?Ukraine has always been at the mercy of Russia.The west can't do anything, Nato can't do anything...It was only a matter of time. More sanctions coming to Russia but I doubt Putin will flinch...I t hink he's all in on this.
and I bet they could have gotten a better wording of memorandum than what they got. Crazy how semantics changes history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
I doubt that was achievable at the time.
I don't think there is a single treaty the US or Europe has other than NATO that has an obligation to intervene.
