| > I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it. There was a logic behind Hegel. Marx believed it. There was a logic behind Marx. Lenin believed it. There was a logic behind Lenin. Both Stalin and Mao believed it. There was a logic behind Schopenhauer. There was a logic behind Nietzsche. Hitler believed it. If the 20th century taught us anything, it was to be extremely wary of fine-sounding philosophers with their arguments about "logical necessity" and "historical inevitability". Way too often it was a rationalization of evil, or at least it was used by evil men to put a veneer of "necessity" on their evil. Mearsheimer's position may be pragmatic, but it is deeply morally nihilistic. Are you also? Can you even spell "wrong"? Russia's invasion of Ukraine is wrong. Russia's missile attacks to destroy infrastructure are wrong. Russia's actions toward civilians in the territory they conquered are wrong. Why is NATO expanding? It's really simple. Because nations on the periphery of Russia are terrified of Putin! They're terrified of Russia's "sphere of influence" being a "sphere of military operations". They've seen it too many times. Why did Sweden and Finland just decide to join NATO, after more than half a century of neutrality? Because they saw what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that's why! It wasn't because they were pushed into it by the US. They were pushed into it by Russia! They wanted a very clear sign that told Putin in no uncertain terms: "Don't try that here." Your morals are leaving victims to their oppressors because "realpolitik". That's Quisling's morals, and Chamberlain's, and it's sickening. |
It's a nitpick but one I believe just expands your point here, I live in Sweden and this country has been neutral and out of wars for more than 200 years. Putin has broken a 200 years stance on neutrality and forced Sweden, under a Social Democrat government nonetheless, to join NATO, something that was unthinkable and unsupported by the population barely a year ago.