T. Belman. I agree with Mearsheimer 100%. The US should align with Russia to stand against China.
I co-wrote with Alexander Maistrovoy, Contemplating a US-Russia Alliance 5 years ago.
Mearsheimer wrote Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order 3 years ago.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@Reader
Cohen’s comments are well worth listening to.
I do not accept that @eddavis317 is simply a troll. I don’t think his or yours or my own opinions on this matter should be seen as absolute or beyond a fair discussion, and the worst that might come of such an honest discussion is that we might at least inform eachother of our perspectives. He raises questions that are commonly raised by many and to which, for my part, I am not intimidated from offering what I believe to be a fair response.
@eddavis317
Fair point on Iraq, and thanks for the correction, but the reality is that when “NATO was definitely off mission” in Libya and Yugoslavia, they changed international law to support their war conquests and this is the interventionist model upon which the current war has been conducted by Russia.
This does not fairly describe what occurred in 2014. The US mounted a coup to displace a legitimate govt(whatever that means in Ukraine) and displace it with a pro-European govt. This was a clear violation of the Bucharest Memorandum. The coup itself included the murder of several dozen protesters by neoNazi elements in the Maidan, who would soon gain prominence in the new US supported, pro-EU Ukrainian govt. Following the coup, and because of the coup, Russia seized Crimea and the outrages of the Odessa Massacre occurred, and Civil war broke out.
Regarding the Russian invasion, this war is quite regrettable and should have been avoided and easily could have been avoided, if Russia’s concerns of security were acknowledged and supported rather then being ignored, while she was also being threatened by a nation with a significant fascist contingency in their armed forces, which was also the largest standing, battle tested, NATO trained European army in existence today. The testimony of the threat that Ukraine’s armed forces posed to Russia is demonstrated by the claimed successes we are to believe the Ukrainians have achieved in forcing Russia to retreat despite Russia having air superiority, if you accept such “news” as valid. Regardless of this fact, the notion that Ukraine was unrelatable to NATO is not a honest one. Whereas it might be fairly stated that Ukraine is not officially part of NATO, it has been trained as such, armed as such, funded as such and weaponized as such. The NATO powers’ inclination to ignore Russia’s security concerns, about which Russia was quite adamant, was a clear signal of their intent, which they have now boldly made crystal clear with bipartisan statements supporting the goals of destabilizing or assassinating the existing leadership in Russia.
NATO has trained the Ukrainian forces and the US and Europe have armed the Ukrainian forces. The pledge of Ukrainian membership in NATO in 2008 was never repealed and Zelensky’s chief of staff this past December acknowledged that the US had green lit Ukraine’s entry into NATO. Despite the protestations that Ukraine was never a threat to Russia, Ukraine has threatened Russia several times over the past year, beginning within weeks of the new US administration taking control, and not the least of these threats was the suggestion of Ukraine abandoning its non-nuclear status.
Beyond this, you can not ignore the similar basis of Russia’s Ukraine invasion as it compares to the NATO invasion of Libya and which has been accepted as a valid basis of self defense by the international community. It is untenable to suggest that Russia has less right to exercise her right to self defense in an ongoing war in a neighboring nation than NATO had when they exercised a right to self defense in far off Libya which was never a threat to any nation in NATO. The disparity between these events is ever more heightened when it is realized that the war aims of the Ukrainian civil war is directly aimed at Russia, herself, and hence the threats mentioned above by Ukraine against Russia could not be so easily dismissed as empty rhetoric.
Regarding Yarosh, I wasn’t commenting on his popularity(though, that is another story), but rather I was indicating that Zelensky chose to elevate a radical such as Yarosh as a advisor to the military command rather than distancing himself from such radical elements to move towards pursuing peace. The appointment of the ravid Russo-hating Yarosh was a complete betrayal of the pursuit of peace upon which Zelensky was elected and was never implemented.
@peloni
If I were you, I wouldn’t answer edddavis, I think he is a troll, so don’t waste your effort on him.
If he wants to know they whys and wherefores, let him watch this (much better than Mearsheimer):
An excellent lecture/discussion from 2015 about the US/Russia/Ukraine:
Stephen F. Cohen: The Ukrainian Crisis – It’s not All Putin’s Fault (Recorded in 2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUj3Vqptx8
peloni,
NATO did not take offensive action in Iraq. The US created a coalition that included European allies. NATO was definitely off mission with respect to Yugoslavia and Libya. NATO has never threatened Russia.
No doubt, the US pushed hard to get Ukraine away from Russian dominance. Ukraine has never been a military threat to Russia. Russia, on the other hand, invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimea in 2014 and supported insurrection in the eastern provinces. Russia’s justification includes the presence of a Russian speaking population it needs to “protect.”
Yarosh never got much of the vote in Ukraine and question if he is as influential as you feel. Perhaps you have more information on him than I do?
@eddavis317
How do you classify NATO’s conquests in Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq as defensive? I grant you the claim was made that their actions were “defensive”, but the NATO model of a defensive pretext in these wars was the basis for Russia’s “pretext” of invasion in Ukraine, only the unrest in Ukraine was on the Russian border and no NATO member bordered any of these 3 nations that found themselves as NATO’s target.
The Europeans were behind the Minsk 1 and 2 treaties, yet the US proxy govt in Ukraine never succeeded in enacting the pullback in accordance with these treaties. Instead, men such as Yarosh were appointed to advise the military. Recall it was Yarosh who threatened to hang the newly elected president Zelensky from a tree if he made the first move towards peace, despite the fact Zelensky’s overwheling victory was based on a peace platform to implement the Minsk agreements and end the Dombas war. If the Zelensky govt had lived up to his campaign rhetoric dedicated to achieve peace, Putin would not have had his “pretext” for the current invasion and there would be no war.
vivarto:
Planned attack by the Ukraine on Donbas and Crimea in 2022? Where do you get that information from?
No. NATO is not a threat to Russia. Russia claims the threat as a pretext for it’s aggression. NATO is, very much, a defensive alliance. It does not train to invade any countries. It never has. Most NATO countries barely maintained an adequate defense budget to defend Europe. Only recently, did Germany increase it’s defense budget.
Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine essentially energized NATO and reunified it. NATO may add Sweden and Finland. Perhaps you can explain why Finland attacked Russia so many times?
An excellent lecture/discussion from 2015 about the US/Russia/Ukraine:
The support of Israel for this Fascist movement led by Kerensky is absolutely critical. This whole movement in propaganda and military terms is being led by a Jew and all parties in Israel as the Jewish Homeland affirms just that. Past time for Israel to clarify.
@Ted Belman
This can never happen because the US is conducting the war of attrition against Russia, and Russians would be very stupid to enter into such an agreement against China if it was ever offered to them by the US.
Basically, the West led by the US wants a replay of WWII without repeating the 1812 scenario the 3rd time.
It wants to take over the territory of the former USSR and then attack or subdue China but it doesn’t want to pay the price that the Germans paid in WWII, and it wants to win this time, and to win decisively.
Therefore, it wants to greatly weaken or, even better for it, to destroy Russia.
Hi, Adam
It’s ridiculous to use the term “we”, when describing “American” foreign policy. We are not a country ruled by the consent of the governed, but a “Cheatocracy” imposed upon us by our wealthiest families. What you call “American foreign policy”, in these days of “open borders”, is directed against the American people as much as it is against the Russians, Ukrainians et al.
Here is a link to “2000 Mules”, in case you haven’t seen it yet:
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/2000-mules-watch-the-full-movie/
@Adam
I am not unaware that Measheimer co-wrote the anti-Israel Israel Lobby,
That doesn’t mean this analysis should not be published.. I read it on face value and did not reject it on principle. I also publish the odd thing from Haaretz when I think the contents has merit.
@eddavis317. I agree 1,000 per cent. In my opinion, Israpundit should never publish articles by antisemites. They lack all credibility.
The problem with American foreign policy is not that it aims to create a “liberal world order,” but that we frequently aid brutal dictatorships, such as several past governments in Indonesia, Pakistan and the present governments of Turkey and Iran. There is no “liberal world order.” Mearsheimer uses this argument because he is opposed to democracy and believes that the United States should adopt a governmental system modeled on those of Russia and China.
This war has very little to do with Russia and Ukraine, and a great deal to do with US Democratic Party politics.
First of all, John M.’s opinions about Jews and Israel are irrelevant to his analysis of Russia / Ukraine war.
He might be an antisemitic asshole for all I know, and his analysis of Russia/ Nato situation can still be brilliant.
There have been many brilliant racist in history, including Einstein.
Secondly
It’s not for you to say whether NATO’s expansionism is or is not a threat to Russia. If Russia perceives it as threat, then it is a threat for them.
And frankly they have every reason to feel threatened.
NATO is an extension of American power.
Americans seek to dominate the whole world and have instituted coups and regime changes in nearly 100 countries.
Philippines, Indonesia, Hawaii, Haiti, the “Arab Spring”, removal of Mosadeq in Iran, Panama, Mexico, Nicaragua, Chile, on and on goes the list. Most relevant to the current wan was the America supported “Orange Revolutions” in Kiev including the brutal coup with over 100 people murdered and democratically elected president having to run for his life. This coup was orchestrated by CIA and they used NAZIs to do the dirty job for them.
They also attempted to do the same in Belarus in 2020 and in Kazakhstan in Jan 2022.
But you don’t have to take my word for it.
Americans are saying it themselves.
They are saying that that Russia has given them 7 years to prepare the Ukrainian army.
They trained 23k Ukrainian soldiers for the planed attack on Donbas and Crimea in 2022.
They are also admitting that they are at war with Russia and that their goal is to weaken Russia. Several officials indicated that they want regime change in Russia, including Biden.
Lindsey Graham even called for assassination of Putin.
So it’s easy for you to say that NATO is no threat to Russia, but Russians are seeing it differently.
And in your opinion, what is the purpose of rockets in Poland, Baltics, Slovakia, Hungary, Chechia, Bulgaria, Romania?
Who are they aiming at?
Not at China. Not at Iran.
Obviously they are aiming at Russia.
America would NEVER allow such forces to be build close to their borders.
Is this not the same John Mearshiemer who wrote the anti-semitic tract about the Israel lobby? Why are we presenting the views of him on this forum? His political views are based on an absence of moral underpinnings and mired in relativism. There is no moral equivalence between NATO and Russia in the current conflict. NATO’s expansionism is not a military nor economic threat to Russia.