[eric_b]

I agree - it was abundantly clear Isaac wanted to push the prevailing narrative, had no interest in alternative perspectives, and wanted to score some smartypants points in the process.

Mearsheimer sounded cogent and intelligent, and I think he made some very interesting points.

His article from 2014 seems like it could have been written this week with how prescient it is: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...

[rubidium]

Woah. If you want to read one article to better understand what's going on, this is it.

It's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism. This article shows where and why.

It also shows how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints.

[mindslight]

It sure sounds edgy to say things like "how intolerant the liberal mindset is to other global viewpoints" and "it's hard for people from the west to see things from a different point of view than modern liberalism". And certainly, people should seek to understand different perspectives that clash with their own assumptions.

But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects.

Coming from the Western world, this is called tyranny. And it's on proud display in the wanton destruction of civilian targets in Ukraine. The effects on the people don't matter - the subjugation of them is the priority. Is it any wonder that the further east you go in Europe, the more people suffered under the USSR, the stronger the support for Ukraine is? One generation later, and we have Ukrainians from all walks of life taking up arms in defense of their individual liberties - the young because they've known nothing else, and the old so that their children never have to know.

Despite using plenty of normative language, the only moral contribution of articles like this is illustrating that freedom is an aberration that needs defending. There are moral concepts worth fighting for, and Western liberalism is one of them. As my grandmother often said, "they don't know how good they have it in this country".

[imbnwa]

>But reading that article, its main foreign assumption is that the desires of the individual Ukrainians for freedom is irrelevant. Not temporarily ignored out of pragmatism. Not disappointingly accepted due to force majeure. But rather rendered irrelevant by the desire of Russia to rule over them as subjects.

That's not what Mearsheimer said in the article:

>One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.

[mindslight]

How does that passage disagree with what I said? By my reading, he acknowledges it only to write it off.

The problem isn't the "realist" analysis itself. It's that such analysis is being held up as a one-sided normative description to affect the actions of the larger might-makes-might of US/NATO. Applying the same standard to both - either we judge the moral merits of Ukrainian self-determination vs Russian conquering or EU/NATO is right to expand simply because they have the might to.