Invading Ukraine was never about f%$'ing NATO (PROOF)

[TheTexan]

I had some time to read Marsheimer's article "Playing With Fire" more thorougly,

and I have to apologize in advance [MENTION=3158]Todd[/MENTION], I grossly misjudged Mearsheimer's take on this....

because the guy is an IDIOT.

Toward that end, it appears that Russia’s territorial goals have expanded markedly since the war started. Until the eve of the invasion, Russia was committed to implementing the Minsk II agreement, which would have kept the Donbas as part of Ukraine. Over the course of the war, however, Russia has captured large swaths of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine, and there is growing evidence that Putin now intends to annex all or most of that land,

There is "growing evidence" that Putin now intends to annex all or most of the Donbass region? Ya think? LOL. Is there "growing evidence" that the sky is blue, or that water is wet??

SMGDH this guy is an "expert" ?

 

[Todd]

I had some time to read Marsheimer's article "Playing With Fire" more thorougly,

and I have to apologize in advance [MENTION=3158]Todd[/MENTION], I grossly misjudged Mearsheimer's take on this....

because the guy is an IDIOT.



There is "growing evidence" that Putin now intends to annex all or most of the Donbass region? Ya think? LOL. Is there "growing evidence" that the sky is blue, or that water is wet??

SMGDH this guy is an "expert" ?

Yep. And he and Ritter are buddies. Weird isn't it.

I'm not going to split hairs. Prof Mearsheimer has made and makes the argument in defense of Russian interests on all counts for over a generation.. I'm not throwing out all conclusions he makes based on Realist theory.

On another note. This video is worth watching. Lines up with what Ritter, McGregor and some others are suggesting too. I think he's full of crap about suggesting the the West ever suggested they would start a nuclear war, but he's spot on about alot of the main points.

 

[TheTexan]

Yep. And he and Ritter are buddies. Weird isn't it.

I'm not going to split hairs. Prof Mearsheimer has made and makes the argument in defense of Russian interests on all counts for over a generation.. I'm not throwing out all conclusions he makes based on Realist theory.

I'm sure Mearsheimer is a great guy and he's right about probably a lot of things, but this particular nuance is the whole reason why I created this thread - and he's wrong on this.

On another note. This video is worth watching. Lines up with what Ritter, McGregor and some others are suggesting too. I think he's full of crap about suggesting the the West ever suggested they would start a nuclear war, but he's spot on about alot of the main points.

Skimming through it quickly (will try to watch all of it later.. that accent makes my head hurt) .... he does seem knowledgeable. I would point out at 34:08 he does seem to understand Putin's motivations for the invasion: "the main objective of the Russians is the demilitarization of the threat against the population of the Donbass". Can you count how many times "NATO" is used in that sentence? Zero

 

[Todd]

I'm sure Mearsheimer is a great guy and he's right about probably a lot of things, but this particular nuance is the whole reason why I created this thread - and he's wrong on this.



Skimming through it quickly (will try to watch all of it later.. that accent makes my head hurt) .... he does seem knowledgeable. I would point out at 34:08 he does seem to understand Putin's motivations for the invasion: "the main objective of the Russians is the demilitarization of the threat against the population of the Donbass". Can you count how many times "NATO" is used in that sentence? Zero

I first read him in the early 90's when he was telling all the End of History types that they were full of shit and that Interstate disputes would continue despite American Hegemony. Also read his and Walts book on the Israeli lobby and how it effects foreign policy. He's a very smart guy.

 

[TheTexan]

I first read him in the early 90's when he was telling all the End of History types that they were full of shit and that Interstate disputes would continue despite American Hegemony. Also read his and Walts book on the Israeli lobby and how it effects foreign policy. He's a very smart guy.

You guys say he is expert on Russia and yet he fails to understand the fundamental motivations for this conflict. How can I trust his opinion on things like Israel after he's made such a horrible first impression?

This is the problem with "experts". If you rely on them too much, you'll never know when they are wrong.

I might get that Swiss dude's book. That dude has good info.

 

[Todd]

You guys say he is expert on Russia and yet he fails to understand the fundamental motivations for this conflict. How can I trust his opinion on things like Israel after he's made such a horrible first impression?

This is the problem with "experts". If you rely on them too much, you'll never know when they are wrong.

I might get that Swiss dude's book. That dude has good info.

Not Russia. He's and expert in Realist International relations theory. His studies are to help understand nation states conflict. I'm not suggesting he is an historical expert of any sort.

 

[jmdrake]

You seem to be making the " [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] " argument. Which is an argument that I don't take issue with. The crux of his/your point is that NATO forced Putin's hand from a timing perspective.

Which is a wholly different thing than how Tucker Carlson above (and Rand, Massie, etc) understand it.

They think that NATO is the only issue at stake. They think that if Ukraine were to promise never to join NATO, that would be sufficient for a peace agreement, because they think the only thing Russia cares about is NATO.

NATO isn't even the primary concern for Russia. The security and safety of the Russian people in Donbass has always been the primary concern.

To the extent that NATO is a factor in this conflict, it's only because NATO threatens the security and stability of Russians in Donbass.

If you look at the Minsk agreements, these were focused solely on the safety and security of the Russians in Donbass. NATO is not even mentioned in the agreements.

Even Anthony Blinken knows this (see above)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.

Yes. Putin wants to protect Russian people outside of Russia proper. But it's even bigger than that. Why did Putin get involved in Syria? Orthodox Christians were being slaughtered. Russia has historically been the defender of Orthodox Christianity around the world even going back to the 1800s when the Russia Czar came to the aid of the Ethiopian empire when they were fighting off the Italians.

See:



And:



I know the 2nd video by the Washington Post has a propaganda slant in it, but it has a surprisingly high truth content considering the source. Putin is now more aligned with Christianity than communism and THAT is why he's hated by Democrats who lean communist but through the "You're supporting communism" charge at everyone skeptical of their ongoing confrontation with modern Russia.

 

[tebowlives]

Help me understand something

NATO expansion hurts Russian attempts to take the Donbas region because they'd have to fight NATO troops. If Donbas was already Russias, Ukraine joining NATO would not matter. Is this correct?

It's about the resources and pro Russia people in that area. Take one of those 2 away, Russia would not care. Correct?

 

[TheTexan]

Help me understand something

NATO expansion hurts Russian attempts to take the Donbas region because they'd have to fight NATO troops. If Donbas was already Russias, Ukraine joining NATO would not matter. Is this correct?

It's about the resources and pro Russia people in that area. Take one of those 2 away, Russia would not care. Correct?

Yes, Putin primarily cares about eastern ukraine and crimea. If eastern Ukraine belonged to Russia, Putin would not care very much if western Ukraine joined nato. (They practically already have)