Professor John Mearsheimer Thinks The Russia/Ukraine Conflict Is ALL AMERICA'S FAULT?

🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#Russia #Ukraine

[@Problematist]

"Let's just watch this for 10 minutes" Narrator: He did not watch it for just 10 minutes.

[@nickmccabe2327]

When he says this at the beginning of a 58 minute video, you know it ain't happening

[@savannarbananar]

He said the same thing before his debate with Redacted from Redacted… 😒 I don’t think Vaush knows the meaning of “just 10 minutes”

[@blue5had0w]

*insert Rick & Morty meme*

[@nuanil]

@@savannarbananar It's the same definition my ex wife uses when getting ready.

[@savannarbananar]

@@blue5had0w *insert* *Iñigo* *Montoya* *meme*

[@--julian_]

someone else mentioned this in another video, but thinking that everything that is happening in the world is the US's fault is just another version of american exceptionalism.

[@jeramysteve3394]

People don't have drinking water because the CIA put salt in the oceans!!!

[@austin7761]

@@jeramysteve3394 Fuuuuck, that's good. Thanks for the laugh.

[@winterfire89]

@@jeramysteve3394 I needed the laugh. Thanks for that. 😂

[@bearcudlybear]

I'm sorry but this meme is one of the dumbest from this community. I get it, thinking America is exceptionally bad = American exceptionalism, which is bad...until we face the reality that, while obviously not responsible for everything, the U.S IS exceptionally bad and acknowledging that isn't a bad thing lmao. Especially when you can link like 70% of global conflict either directly or indirectly to America. Now you could argue there's context/circumstances where doing "U.S bad" whataboutism is only detrimental, but then you can just make that point without running into the issue of giving undue cover to the U.S.

[@MrRazmut]

@@bearcudlybear "America is exceptionally bad" is not the same as "Everything bad is because of America" You can see the difference, right?

[@vertigo4236]

"They're not trying to invade Ukraine" "Putin is too smart" Yeah, but no...

[@WBWhiting]

'Putin won't do an invasion, he learned from the example of Hitler.' 'Hitler won't try an invasion of Russia, he learned from the example of Napoleon.'

[@2chin4u]

WBWhiting Napoleon won’t invade Russia, he learned from the example of the Swedes

[@Imbalanxd]

well the only thing he was fatally wrong about was Putins thinking. Everything else made sense, but if the main actor goes crazy, rational analysis stops working.

[@SS-xr7jf]

@@Imbalanxd well, shucks. we’ve discovered that mysterious unknown ingredient involved in geopolitics…. Humans! Lmao

[@musgodness]

Not to mention, Russia has been getting their ass kicked for a while in a very similar fashion and for similar reasons to the Crimean war from 1850's if I recall correctly. (although I don't mean by that they won't lose)

[@rogerstroklund6809]

12:15 "They weren't invading, they were already there." They were on a naval base in Sevastopol, not stationed throughout Crimea. If the US took Okinawa with Marines from Camp Foster, which is on Okinawa, that doesn't somehow make it a defensive action; it is still Americans invading Okinawa.

[@leek6927]

Yeah I don’t know how he had such a big leap in logic

[@russki_dabb872]

I had no idea either. I swear online intellectualism is on a new level of Wtf? I was making a comment debunking the idea that "all German soldiers were not bad" and started references some books and then this one guy replied and said "So they are correct because it is a book? 'Mein Kampf' is a book, does it make it correct?" I was like "What the fuck are you on right now?" I swear, there are people out there who are on a new level of "What the fuck?"

[@wejder12345]

Basically, the US can take Cuba without being invaded, because Guantánamo.

[@rogerstroklund6809]

@@wejder12345 good example.

[@timhocking529]

Yeah and then it made Ottawa a state by a referendum were only mostly solders and pro-US were permitted to vote with the threat of further violence if they voted the “wrong” way. They were already there and they voted in a referendum so clearly it must be a State of America. Nobody should even complain. Also while they at it claim the whole of Cuba because Cuba has a military and want to sign a alliance with Russia and the US are already there so don’t threaten the US by being friendly with Russia okay. Nope totally not okay. But Russia want to do the same thing.

[@TatoISR]

The discourse has devolved into "Ukraine was no angel"

[@joemagarac405]

Well Ukraine WAS wearing a hoodie while carrying Skittles and a bottle of Arizona Iced Tea.

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

I'm Polish and the history of what today we call Ukraine is complicated for us. Still, fuck Putin, let people live and strive to create better world instead of dropping bombs No country has 100% clean history

[@knodelimperator8790]

Ukrainian national souvereignty is literally built entirely around anti-Russian and anti-Soviet resentment and openly celebrates Nazis. Yeah no fuck the Ukrainian nation state, they should just roll over and surrender to Russia already to avoid more unnecessary bloodshed.

[@tomtimelord7876]

Did you SEE the way Ukraine was dressed?

[@knodelimperator8790]

@@tomtimelord7876 I guess once you accept corporations as people, nation states are the next logical step.

[@SS-xr7jf]

I love how the stuff with Georgia is apparently everybody else’s fault but Russia. NATO acknowledging that Georgia can eventually become a member is a “Threat”. Georgia was being “uppity”. America… exists? And has friendly relations with countries? Russia had nothing to do with it or absolutely no agency in its own relations, apparently. Very “it’s your fault that your abusive spouse beat the shit out of you. What did you expect when you were talking back and spending time with your friends”

[@Midgert89]

To be fair though as far as i remember Georgia did attack russian peacekeepers (aka tripwire troops) in South Ossetia which triggered the intervention.

[@jeramysteve3394]

@@Midgert89 yeah but Russia went beyond south ossetia and straight into Georgia itself.

[@SS-xr7jf]

@@Midgert89 we’re they “peacekeeping troops” in the way that the ones sent to Ukraine are?

[@scantrontheimmortal]

@@SS-xr7jf No it was a different situation than Ukraine, they were there much like Russian troops currently in Moldovan Transnistria. I think the Georgian situation was more complicated due to the fact that everyone could see that the Georgians made a poor choice by thinking they could quickly grab back a breakaway region with Russian peacekeepers/troops in it whilst being in a albeit shaky cease fire agreement with said region. So all in all most people were in agreement the Georgians started it but Russia's movement beyond the borders of the breakaway regions into the Georgian countryside was wrong as well.

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

Exactly. "You need to be quiet and just do what he says or it's your fault if he hits you". I'm getting very creepy vibes from this.

[@The_Chosen_Heretic]

Also, the shit he said about Georgia and the cause of the Russo-Georgian War is almost offensively wrong. Russia was the aggressor there.

[@youdoyouidome7452]

Anyone who describes anything besides like, a monarchy, or royalty, as Uppity? Evil. A ghoul, inhuman weirdo

[@LyricalDJ]

Sounds like he's espousing the sort of argumentation Putin's propagandists promote.

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

But Russia didn't have a choice because NATO. Get it? N-A-T-O. /s

[@Imbalanxd]

When did he say Russia wasn't the aggressor?

[@The_Chosen_Heretic]

@@Imbalanxd He basically victim blamed Georgia.

[@ashfox7498]

What does create a neutral Ukraine mean when the people of Ukraine will be continuously invaded for pursuing their own interests in EU membership, liberalization and democratization but Putin considers all 3 of those things completely unacceptable.

[@Imbalanxd]

Putin was completely fine with Ukraine doing NATO training exercises and working closely with them for decades. He was completely fine with the EU being a fundamental part of their economy. The EU told Ukraine that they couldn't have an association agreement and be a part of the customs union

[@paddleduck5328]

Good question

[@ashfox7498]

@@Imbalanxd Wasn't Russia's puppet president of Ukraine entirely against getting involved with the EU which sparked the police state laws he attempted to pass, the killings of civilian protestors, and ultimately his ousting? It definitely seems like he wasn't fine with them being economically aligned with the EU

[@elwinowen5469]

"Neutral Ukraine" means the Finnish model during the Cold War, where Finland maintained neutrality, democracy, and friendly relations with both the US and the USSR. This precluded them from joining the EU, but allowed them to pursue the domestic policies of liberalization and democratization mostly unfettered.

[@MrRazmut]

@@elwinowen5469 what the fuck are you going on about??? The EU didn't exist back then, and Finland is part of the EU now. What?? What the fuck is a cold-war era European Union?? Why are you just making shit up??

[@curtbressler3127]

This guy says that "Putin is very strategic" Yes, a strategy in playing chess could be to bash all of the pieces with your fist and then take a shit on the board....sure....you could employ that strategy.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

nah, he isn´t dropping the "brown option"...yet

[@wgsmit02]

I suppose you think Russia should just lay down for nato

[@Jessymandias]

This guy should give a lecture to the 4000 Russian protesters arrested last week. Explain to them why Putin is right for jailing them.

[@tgwnn]

they probably need some re-education. perhaps this guy could organize some sort of camp for them

[@user-mx5we9ne8k]

This guy isn't making moral claims

[@koalabandit9166]

Could you provide a time stamp to the part where he said Putin was right in arresting protesters? I missed it.

[@apm1917]

Mearsheimer is explaining Russian foreign policy, he's not trying to justify it LMAO

[@tgwnn]

@@apm1917 he's kinda doing both though. talking about the W in moral terms while talking about the E in realpolitik terms. That's Vaush's main gripe with the video (maybe watch it again if you didn't get it)

[@d-5037]

If a tree falls in a forest and America is not around, does it make a sound?

[@faceless_man566]

lol, only if the tree was in nato

[@theorangeninja6486]

impossible. a tree fell, that means america cut it down for the sake of big oil. what a ridiculous hypothetical

[@megafire7]

I love how this guy thinks America considering Ukraine's entry into NATO is an indication of 'how discombobulated American foreign policy is', but *Putin* is totally a rational actor and not making crazy decisions. Very convincing.

[@bearcudlybear]

But at the time he was right though. You can call Putin what you want, but until pretty recently, he's been a very calculated statesman. Simultaneously, to dismiss the claim that the U.S trying to get Ukraine in NATO is a "discombobulated foreign policy" without considering our other engagements that would validate or invalidate that claim is kinda weird.

[@tripleg8381]

grim keeper I think even after this invasion it’s gonna be fine for Putin. Russia will take over Ukraine and sanctions will be lifted over time. So strategic interests of Russia are satisfied and economy is not hammered that bad, after all

[@swanpride]

@@bearcudlybear Has he been? Consider this: If Russia had acted less aggressive and instead had tried to forge ties with the EU-staates, it could have basically swayed the US allies away from them, especially after the mess which was the Iraq war and the NSA affaire. This would have boostered the Russian economy, allowing them to play on the same level as China. Putin's imperialist strategy has doomed the country as well as his legacy.

[@swanpride]

@@tripleg8381 ...the currency is in free fall, and for all the talk of Sanctions hurting the West more than him, Putin is currently pumping gas to the West as fast as possible because it is the only income he has left. Which allows them to fill up their storage, taking even more power out of Putins hand.

[@tripleg8381]

swanpride the main thing here is that money flows to Russia (yes, from sales of resources). The world cannot afford to ban Russian resources since it’s share in the world market is too high. As for currency, weak rouble is profitable for exporters since it increases profit margin. Those sanctions are hurting but not killing, and highly likely will be lifted once this war is over, because the market needs russian oil gas nickel palladium minerals wheat etc

[@cnacma]

Mearsheimer has literally been giving the exact same lecture for 20 years. I’m sure he’s reeling right now seeing what Putin has done, but I doubt he’ll have anything to say. He has nothing really to offer, just the same old lecture over and over. It doesn’t really apply anymore.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

its kinda funny since before his dumb nato take he said if Ukraine gives up their nukes russia will invade them. but yeah dude is kinda a quack.

[@LizStaples]

Him pointing to the Cuban Missile Crisis is very telling. That’s when his ideas were solidified and they haven’t been updated since.

[@Imbalanxd]

Why? So he can be shown to be completely right? Russia has invaded and now they will be ruined, just like he said. Maybe he gave Putin too much credit, but his analysis seems pretty spot on other than that.

[@Slavaisusukhrystu]

@@Imbalanxd Yanukovych fled for his life because the protesters rejected the deal? Proof? Yes, some protesters were mad the government was settling things and asking people to disperse before releasing those they had detained. But even Yanukovych didn't claim those protesting in Kyiv were a threat to him, he just claimed that on his way to Kharkiv (East Ukraine, Russian speaking) someone shot his car. He had no injuries or proof. So, yeah, that was a freaking lie. The EU deal that triggered the protests &invasion were all about incorporating Ukraine to the West? Again, not even Putin said that. I mean, it was literally just a trade deal, that wouldn't make Ukraine an anti-Russia market economy overnight, it will just make Ukraine a trade partner to the EU... Minority language law was cancelled in Ukraine? This is so reductionist it hurts. A vote happened to remove a law that allowed certain parts of Ukraine to exclude Ukrainian from their life and local politics, triggering protests. But even then, trying to cancel it also caused protests, so actually, on February 28, the attempt to repeal it was vetoed. Still, Russia invaded. Our fault? 😖 He ignored Putin's 2007 speech to blame the Georgia and Ukraine conflict on NATO, even though in the next years NATO states strongly opposed their ascension to NATO, and even the U. S. basically dropped their support, meaning joining NATO was impossible, and you didn't even have to justify Russian aggression to do it.

[@Imbalanxd]

@@Slavaisusukhrystu The president of the european commision said, and I quote "one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union". So no, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. The deal was specifically made to make Ukraine an anti russian economy. And the 2007 speech that said nobody felt save directly followed Americas illegal invasion and carpet bombing of iraq civilians, and their occupation of afghanistan, again, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Are you trying to justify those american actions? And no, the repeal of minority language laws had no impact on the Ukrainian language. Obviously. Its not a minority language. It removed the recognising of Russian and other languages as official languages of Ukraine. Theyve passed laws that make Ukrainian the mandatory language in schools. Even in majority russian speaking regions. I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Its wrong.

[@quichwe1096]

Dunno. I listen to this, and for all the talk of NATO and Russia, I think the most notable part is that Ukraine itself is completely ignored as its own entity, rather than being an independent nation that has its own desires. His argument seems to be that Ukraine should be a "neutral" buffer state with no chance of NATO protection, which more or less means that it's Russian client state. I just... Dunno, can't really agree with that. By reacting as Putin did, via the seizure of Crimea from Ukraine, that would have almost certainly guaranteed immediate hostility from Ukraine, pushing them into the NATO camp. Going by the thought that every state's foremost desire is to live, it doesn't make sense for you to stay as the battered housewife in an abusive marriage with Russia, when there's a better off alternative with NATO that isn't going to have you be choked out for your land and destabilized, with further prospect for further invasion potentially on the way.

[@ProfDCoy]

Yeah, this is pretty much the crux of it. Like, if China started supporting South American states to have genuine elections and throw off US imperialism...well first I'd be suspicious because China has proved it doesn't care at all about elections or democracy... But at the same time, it'd be a tough sell to argue that "this is China's fault" when: 1) most South American states want to be free of US influence; and 2) they aren't wrong to want that, because there is a long history of US influence in South America. This isn't an exact equivalence, because I doubt China would bother with upholding genuine elections, but please, bear with me. So what happened in Ukraine seems to have involved some US influence in a state in which the actual, genuine, democratic will of the people aligns with US interests: to be free of Russian influence. No one should be so stupid to believe that the US isn't looking after itself here, but at the end of the day, Ukraine had an election on this issue and decided it doesn't like being the battered wife to Putin's abusive husband. Cantering this whole drama around the fact that the US facilitated a nation state's actual democratic process is basically just saying that the world should be run by Realpolitik, but with a slimy moral dimension: that it's somehow wrong to interfere in OTHER nation's sphere of influence. Listen, you can believe in balance-of-power, sphere-of-influence Realpolitik if you want to. But then you can't claim that it's the moral FAULT of the US to tamper in Russian satellite states: that's what the US SHOULD DO within that ideology. Or you can argue that the US should respect the democratic will of the people in all nation-states. And lord knows it hasn't in so many nations. You can absolutely accuse the US of hypocrisy here: there are plenty of nations whose democratic will was crushed by US intervention because it didn't suit US interests. But what you can't fucking do is claim that it's the US's fault for supporting a nation to hold an election that asserts the popular will to not be a Russian satellite. That argument doesn't make sense in any coherent world view. And it denies the moral agency of Ukrainians and Vladimir Putin. It's a weird kind of self-hating American exceptionalism.

[@adamcuthbert4383]

Hopefully Professor John Meaersheimer will be relegated to the ash heap of history after that speech Putin gave announcing his "greater Russia" invasion of Ukraine.

[@Frankthegb]

Two weeks later and I still see people touting his talk as a profound, scathing criticism of NATO

[@justaname999]

@@Frankthegb yup... it's sad.

[@justaname999]

Unfortunately not. The video gets more and more views. U of Chicago refuses to take it down. and people keep applauding this guy. He's everything that's wrong with academia. (not saying there aren't great people in academia. But, tellingly, people who write reasonable deconstructions of his arguments, using actual facts, are not as famous)

[@mpls1982]

This guy literally said Putin isn't irrational or crazy for wanting to destroy a country. Wow.

[@FiniteVoid]

I thimk he means it makes sense geopliticly its not irrational all be it moraly wrong

[@jogo798]

@@FiniteVoid morals has nothing to do with geopolitics.

[@yellowgreymorals]

With your logic most powerful leaders should be irrational and crazy. Putin is crazy for what he’s doing at this point. But when you’re a leader of a country, killing hundreds, thousands, even millions of people is easy when you’re not out there. You don’t have to be crazy to do that. Just detached.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

@@FiniteVoid "I thimk he means..." The very fact that you have to guess at what, precisely, he means, is extremely damning both of Mearsheimer individually and the farcical pseudoscholarly field of international relations in toto.

[@ilonachan]

@@FiniteVoid yea through his analysis it makes sense geopolitically. His analysis, unfortunately, is based on false premises and blatant misconceptions. It also says nothing about the morality of anything, which is a real shame because this means he goes out there looking like he agrees with Putin on a moral level. I honestly don't know if he does.

[@jorgeguimaraes8820]

23:00 this sequence should undermine any credibility this guy has... "putin is like hitler" - "no he's not, anyone that thinks there's any resemblance is crazy" no arguments given "putin wants to create greater russia" - "no he doesn't! well, if he could he would. but he can't" c'mon, is this serious political analysis?

[@BackwardsPancake]

Yeah this guy comes off as a "stupid person's idea of a smart person" type. Confident sounding delivery over argumentation.

[@MrHodoAstartes]

As he said, a 19th century kinda guy. "Well, of course everyone who is anyone is an imperialist autocrat who wants territorial expansion! The only thing to secure peace in our time is the balance of threat. And to make things convenient, the world MUST balance into exactly two camps." His model lost all predictive power when the Cold War ended. The only time in history when there actually were sorta-kinda two opposing blocs. Under his model the EU makes no sense. It's a voluntary submission of nations under an authority above state level with broad and expanding powers that leads towards an integration of systems, markets and peoples with no primary aggressive or defensive function, given NATO already exists. So there are nations who actually hand over power over themselves to a collective of their peers in which they have limited influence. And they appear to really enjoy that to the point where this entity has increasingly the power to dictate laws and sanction members. The only European nation to decide they don't want that and left is tearing itself apart because the advantages of the collective have been lost. Weirder still, such cooperation is not unprecedented at all. Federation is a proven system. The USA came together that way, as did Germany. But it takes a level of unity, a cohesion and lack of animosity for it to happen. The how and why of nations deciding their friends and foes is just a lot more complex than the simplistic models of Neorealism would suggest.

[@rafaelallenblock]

YOu're not very smart are you?

[@BackwardsPancake]

@Mitthenstein Well, in this current context, the point is that there _is_ no "person comparing Hitler to Putin". He just brings in this statement out of nowhere and dismisses it as crazy. No explanation of what the argument actually entails, why it's crazy, and also no reference to who's claiming this (which would at least allow us to discern the specifics from the original source and make up our own minds). All he tells us is that this statement was allegedly made, he knows a lot about Nazi Germany, and he thinks the comparison is ridiculous. It's all essentially just an off-handed strawman, and not on the level of intellectual honesty I'd expect from someone erudite. And just off the cuff, it's easy to see at least some broad parallels between Hitler and Putin - Both highly authoritarian nationalistic leaders who dream of restoring their empires to their past glory, who enact tight control of their nations through crack-downs and propaganda, and have invaded neighboring states on the excuse of protecting separatist national minorities. If someone tries to stretch these parallels too far and makes it sound crazy, fair enough, but again, we can't tell whether that's happening based on the (non-existent) context and evidence presented to us.

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@BackwardsPancake What parallels?

[@vertigo4236]

American imperialism forced me to drive over a red light!

[@lukesenesac]

"Why would states bordering an aggressive, imperialistic autocracy want to join NATO to protect themselves?" Is the obvious question the man with a doctorate didn't bother to ask. America is a place where people fail upwards.

[@tugger]

tenure: the mind killer

[@procrastinator99]

@@tugger lmao Thank you.

[@arty5876]

Russia invaded 0 countries before NATO spreaded to the Russian borders. If NATO wasn't driving to Russian borders, Russia wouldn't had attacked anyone. In the 90s Russia was a peaceful democraric state, that was providing disarm policy

[@TheVlayche]

Excuse me, where is the logic in your statement? Russia attacked them BECAUSE they want to join NATO. Also, an aggressive, imperialistic autocracy sound a lot like US. And don't bother to answer, I know what to expect from delusional and brainwashed people like you.

[@bakunicorn]

imagine describing yourself as a "nineteenth century person" and thinking it's a flex

[@korrakoanashi7551]

There has been a shift in Vaush, he used to be really charitable towards groups he thought he aligned with. Now he understands groups are full of psychotic individuals and acknowledges the fringes

[@ASolidSnack]

It's actually kind of sad, these lunatics have eroded his (and all of our) faith in the leftist community. I can't believe I can't count on my lefty friends to be anti-imperialist by default anymore. I hate that I feel the same sense of hopelessness for fellow socialists as I do for delusional conservatives and conspiracy theorists.

[@eliasE989]

Well, he's been critical of certain parts of the left like wokescolds and tankies from the beginning. This Ukraine situation is actually an exception where A LOT of people had disappointingly bad takes.

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@ASolidSnack Conspiracy theories such as the “war for oil conspiracy theorists”.

[@beneroni8345]

​@@suburbanyobbo9412yes you're a conspiracy theorist except that and move on instead of being snarky

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@beneroni8345 >”noooo, you are not allowed to agree with Mearsheimer, that makes your a cOnSipRacY tHeoRisT, noooo” Proponents of liberal foreign policy are almost all conspiracy theorist.

[@madgeologist495]

It's good to know that this professor is concerned about European security, but as a European (German) myself... could we Europeans maybe have in say in our security ourselves and would the US-American please just be quiet for once? That would be really nice.

[@ShalottofCsilla]

I'm Finnish and agree. Though apparently we Finnish people are not allowed to have an opinion, as we're to be a "neutral buffer zone" that Russia can freely bully, whether we want to or not.

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@ShalottofCsilla How does Russia bully Finland?

[@ShalottofCsilla]

@@lucasgrey9794 Currently, when there's a threat we might join NATO and we already have EU membership, it's mostly airspace violations and vague threats about "serious consequences" when there's political discussion of things Russia doesn't like. If we were not allowed to join NATO or EU, I'd assume it would be much worse.

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@ShalottofCsilla Nope. Who is a bigger threat Putin or the Finnish elites who plan on importing the entire population of Somalia to Finland?

[@ShalottofCsilla]

@@lucasgrey9794 :D Persu

[@siryvain1602]

"Piece of real estate" wow people really think Slavs are less than human. It amazes me how few people are actually talking about the Ukrainian people and their suffering when they speak on this issue. Did this guy mention the suffering of Ukrainians even once? I know Vaush skipped around a little.

[@knodelimperator8790]

Ukrainians suffer either way, I don't see how this is relevant.

[@slowloris2894]

Have you heard most leftists on Twitter? This has to be Americas fault or else we aren't the only baddies in the world.

[@occasional_doomer]

Awesome. This gets cited a lot by Putin simps. Good that someone addressed it. Edit: Just to address Vaush’s confusion about his Japan point. He was arguing that Neighbors to China in the pacific/SE Asia , who want to form an economic and security bloc with the US in opposition to chinese expansionism, worry that the US can’t provide the resources to back that bloc of its focused on Europe and ISIS. This point is dumb, because the US has more then enough military resources to walk and chew gun at the same time. This is especially true now that NATO members like Germany are increasing military funding to help bolster NATO.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

yeah weird that they don't cite his take he had before this about ukraine which was if ukraine gives up their nukes Russia will invade them XD

[@stephennootens916]

We already have such agreements with Japan and South Korea if I remember right.

[@ShadowIncarnate6]

19:47 100% agree, omfg. As someone who is enthusiastically part of academia, nothing makes me angrier than when people in analytic humanities fields whose job it is to prescribe practical solutions pretends that their shit isn't theoretical and is just "realistic". In a sense, pretending like this is the case is an easy way to deflect criticism away from the theoretical framework created and instead take their position as "given". Anytime someone develops a theoretical framework, that shit is filled with bias and their own values. That doesn't make what they're saying necessarily non-objective, but it is something to pay attention to and call out when such biases taint what is said in relevant ways.

[@m0ZZaik]

There is a phrase by Georg Jellinek (famous austrian political philosopher) that perfectly describes this phenomenon and that I unfortunately only know in german : "Die normative kraft des Faktischen". It roughly translates to "the normative power of the factual".

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

And Mearsheimer has been far more accurate on this conflict than most.

[@OryxAU]

@@suburbanyobbo9412 That it happened? Sure. Why it happened? Absolutely not. He's still simping for fascists.

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@OryxAU How is Mearsheimer simping for fascists? What on Earth are our farting on about? Mearsheimer is absolutely correct on why this war has happened. The reason why Vaush and his fans are kvetching out about Mearsheimer is because Vaush and his fans are Liberals and Mearsheimer challenges Liberal foreign policy.

[@OryxAU]

@@suburbanyobbo9412 Mate, he's omitting every crime Russia has perpetrated on Ukraine and those around them. It isn't even considered in his argument. Putin has been building a coalition by force since even before he took power. He is absolutely a fascist. But if all you know is surface level bullshit, then you get people like this guy spouting the same tired argument over and over taken straight from the Russian state. Oh but it's the west's fault for spreading democracy, totally not the decades of abhorrent genocide of the people in that region that alienated them.

[@rozemorgaine1886]

It's so funny, but so god damn infuriating to hear people like this guy say absolutely everything that's opposite to the truth, and then turn around and say he's doing a good job.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

Not all academic disciplines are equal, and international relations is certainly far less equal than many others.

[@Imbalanxd]

what are your credentials? Not to say that experts can't be wrong, but someone like you DEFINITELY can't be right over him.

[@rozemorgaine1886]

@@Imbalanxd I have none, but I feel like in this situation, reality overshadows his rhetoric.

[@ZealothPL]

His point is: the west is not willing to actually commit to Ukrainian safety, but they keep goading them on, while knowing Russians feel it is an existential threat. Attitudes like vaush exhibited before the actual invasion ("we can do whatever we want and Russia can't do anything about it because rules!") are a direct cause of this whole fucking debacle Turns out Russia can do something about it, even if it seems like a really bad call for them so far

[@jamaicanification]

Something though that might complicate how people understand John Mearshiemer's views on Ukraine-Russia relations is this. Even though his is an ardent opponent of N.A.T.O expansion, he was also a supporter of Ukraine maintaining its nuclear weapons stockpile as a deterrent from Russia. Just putting that out there for anyone who thinks he just repeats Russia's perspective and nothing more.

[@knodelimperator8790]

Any country that voluntarily gives up control over nuclear weapons is too stupid to be left alive.

[@iluvbbw6911]

@@knodelimperator8790 to my knowledge, the nukes were expiring and becoming unstable, they had to get rid of them

[@d0nj03]

Don't expect much appreciation for showing that things are more nuanced in reality to these fanatical vaushite US-tankies.

[@resonance6322]

Mearsheimer is a professor of international relations, and important proponent of the "realist" school of thought. While i have no idea of Mearsheimer's political leanings, IR realism is basically international conservatism. It views the international system as an anarchic pool in which all states seek to guarantee their own strategic interests. There is definately some merit to this school of thought, but ever since world war two, accounting for increased international cooperation, this school has declined in prominance. Using this lens of analysis, however, putins actions can appear somewhat rational. Vaush also lambasts Mearsheimer for not taking account of the morality of the situation, such as whether the maidan revolution was justified, however, it is worth noting that morality of international processes are not relevant for scholars subscribing to IR realist theory.

[@mat3714]

Good comment.

[@noahlenten8360]

This comment makes me cringe so bad Please brother read the textbooks and do the weekly readings its very important for ur education

[@topman8565]

IR declined because America has ran the world last 75 years

[@Aurelius-bf3yx]

And that’s why realism is a terrible theory

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

Having had Measheimer urged upon me by acquaintances whose intelligence I respect (though that's rapidly changing) from what I've seen thus far I've found him as deeply unimpressive as I have every single other putative "scholar" of international relations, and he strongly reinforces my longstanding perception that the field simply is not a genuine wissenschaft and its intellectual standards are shockingly low. One curious fact common to literally all of them, as a far as my observations go, is that when speaking extemporaneously they do absolutely none of the things to justify their claims - this is *not* hyperbole - that are expected of academics in any rigorous field. And yes, I mean even by the extremely relaxed standard of speaking off the cuff before a lay audience. It's all personal hunches and armchair perceptions, expressed with the tacit expectation that the audience will be uncritically receptive sheerly by dint of the scholar's credentials and absolutely nothing else. This is not what actual smart people do -at least not if they're simultaneously smart and honest. An argument assumes the audience's _disagreement_ by default, and presents reasons to dissuade the audience from that disagreement. Ideally, these reasons will be so good that an honest listener will be left with little or no rational choice but to agree. Mearsheimer hasn't come within parsecs of that, and I've yet to hear a single perlocution from him that deserves to be called even an approximation an argument -let alone hard empirical evidence.

[@mikealexander1935]

Mearsheimer isn't on the left. He's an old-school conservative

[@tugger]

@HuskyOps He literally lectures at the university of chicago. You need to realize that not all academia are of the same ilk

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

@HuskyOps read on offensive realism and you will see why he is a conservative. he isnt a "america bad" guy.

[@EquanimityUnruffled]

Now that Russia HAS launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I'm watching for the video where this guy says that actually it was a perfectly rational decision, since the US backed him into a corner.

[@jeramysteve3394]

Of course we did when zelensky said that the nato bid was stalled. Don't you see the provocation?!?!

[@paddleduck5328]

Somebody said New York mag asked this old dude about it but I haven’t looked it up yet

[@EquanimityUnruffled]

@@paddleduck5328 Thanks for pointing me to that. I just read the New Yorker interview with him, and it's hard to believe that this guy is any kind of scholar. At one point he says that Russia has no interest in Kyiv. When the interviewer points out that they are basically throwing everything they have at it, Mearsheimer "clarifies" that Putin is really only interested in regime change. After that he will back out. What does this clown think Putin will do when the Ukrainian people, armed to the teeth by NATO, don't just roll over and accept vassalege?

[@paddleduck5328]

@@EquanimityUnruffled ah thanks for telling me the right source. The Ukrainians didn’t take too kindly to the Russian aligned leader last time.

[@palindont9238]

I'm soooo glad you addressed this. I watched this video and I was so curious about your thoughts. Someone was defending Russia on a Twitter thread and they linked the talk. I watched it and considered what he said, but so much of it struck me as off.

[@swanpride]

What I found notable: A few days before the invasion, this video suddenly popped up EVERYWHERE. Like, it was nearly impossible to escape it. Very timely, isn't it?

[@cendregaming3200]

Well he said we had a Europe first policy because we invaded Europe first when, I dont know if he know this but…our pacific fleet was wiped off the map so we hardly had any marine landing capabilities

[@zainlookboonmee]

Yo, everyone who supports Russia has been linking this video to me too. The guy literally said uppity about Georgia, I mean how much more imperialist can he get !

[@zadovrus1624]

@@swanpride KZbin is anything but a Russia appologist platform, it's the algorithm

[@kingkonfusion]

Haven't watched the full video, but it's just amazing to me how these kinds of "leftists" can completely disregard Ukraine's autonomy. Calling it a "buffer state" a "western bastion" and saying that Russia would wreck the country if it becomes a part of NATO like that isn't UKRAINE'S choice to make, not Russia's. If the U.S. shouldn't get a say in other country's decisions, why should Russia?

[@knodelimperator8790]

I'll bite the bullet on this one, fuck national autonomy in general and the Ukraine's in particular. No way am I willing to risk nuclear war over the supposed "right" of some few million people to choose whether they prefer western-aligned oligarchs or eastern-aligned oligarchs to exploit them. The Ukrainians aren't the Kurds, they aren't fighting for real freedom, just for a different flavor of nationalist capitalism.

[@thedorkettereads6052]

@@knodelimperator8790 National autonomy is what the Kurds are fighting for. So you can't discard one fight because "fuck national autonomy" but praise the Kurds.

[@knodelimperator8790]

@@thedorkettereads6052 No, they are fighting for real actual autonomy of actual really living breathing individuals. They are anarchists. I respect that, and I would in fact be willing to go to nuclear war over that. The Ukrainians are for the most part not fighting for anarchy or communism, and I care nothing for the abstract ideological construct of a "nation".

[@paddleduck5328]

Food for thought.

[@mameokhun4319]

Is Mearshimer a leftist?

[@stenergut9661]

I must admit that I was also sympatetic to Mearsheimers views for a few weeks, until I realised that just because Ukraine is not 'a great power', doesn't mean we should let Russia dubstep all over Ukranian autonomy and freedom. Mearsheimers think might is right.

[@Imbalanxd]

not to whatsabout or anything, but you let America do it. And thats what hes talking about. We *do* let great powers do that. You just dont want to let *this* great power do it.

[@jascu4251]

@@Imbalanxd I definitely don't want to let this great power do it, I'm in Estonia we're probably near the top of the shortlist for his next meal

[@sypherthe297th2]

@Pawwel Mussial While there are legitimate criticisms to be made, when was the last time the U.S. annexed territory by force or invaded a neighbor?

[@ZealothPL]

His main point is, we totally are not willing to actually commit to Ukraine, therefore playin around is just pointless antagonism that will (and already did) end poorly

[@stoyanpetkov3853]

@@Imbalanxd But two wrongs don’t make a right. You can want both imperialists to be held accountable instead of neither.

[@timhocking529]

Better title for the video Vaush reviewed: This is How Russia want you to think US and NATO are the fault of Russian actions.

[@bascal133]

The issue with videos like these is that this will be the first and maybe only education some people will get on this history. People believe this because they googled Russian Ukraine and that was the first video they saw.

[@brockcarson]

Which part is wrong?

[@bascal133]

@@brockcarson I’m talking about the one Vaush broke down with the professor who was like Russia did nothing wrong.

[@benjamindam3416]

I’m an IR student and my professor absolutely shills Mearshimer. I think for the best future outcomes in the world we should use a constructivist lens of analysis rather than liberal or realist lens. Challenges are different. Fallout is wrong, war does change.

[@sinenomine6180]

This professor's ideal scenario is one where Ukraine has zero autonomy.

[@knodelimperator8790]

I sympathize with that position, my ideal scenario is one where the Ukraine doesn't exist as a nation state.

[@user-mx5we9ne8k]

He was just explaining russian foreign policy through the lense of an American response

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

You need to work on your listening comprehension.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

This is realist theory of international relations. It may sound bad, but the world where ukraine joins the west without getting wrecked by russia does not exist. Maybe if they didnt surrender the nukes... but it was too late.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

his ideal scenario is one where there is no war...

[@j0j0dartiste21]

While In a pedantic sense, Ukraine joining the NATO and EU would be considered "expansion", the context that tankies always say it is very nefarious like

[@Sophia-vk5bq]

People not wanting to get killed and have their land taken sure has consequences…🤦🏻‍♀️

[@Oldmanplum]

The problem with listening to mearsheimer is that most people have a fundamentally different perspective than him on the world and don't at first realise the disconnect. Mearsheimer is an geopolitical realists, in particular an "Offensive Realist". His analysis isn't supposed to focus on right or wrong or morality and all the things that are integral to most peoples views but instead solely on amoral strategy. His point wasnt about whether it is right or wrong for Russia to fuck with Ukraine, but rather that it was *predictable*

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

well his take before the nato nonsense was if Ukraine give up their nukes russia will invade them regardless guess that came true

[@SylvanasWindrunnerResurrected]

Are you saying he's captain hindsight?

[@TechnoLion1]

@@SylvanasWindrunnerResurrected More of a captain foresight

[@mars7304]

@@TechnoLion1 sounds like more of a captain foreskin

[@ladyvanda]

Problem is, Mearsheimer uses very morally loaded language like “2014 coup”, “Russia offered Ukraine an amazing deal and the EU offered a bad deal”, “to be fair, Yanukovych overreacted a little”, and “Ukrainians didn’t want to become less corrupt”. All of this in the first few minutes of the lecture. This is just not amoral language.

[@Jessymandias]

If Russia invaded Canada to put nukes there, we'd (justifiably) react. If Russia gave Trudeau nukes, we'd shrug our shoulders. If Russia said they would consider offering Canada a defensive alliance we would laugh. But Russia is justified in it's hegemony if someone so much as whispers the word 'NATO'?

[@rafaelallenblock]

Strawtastic

[@spad1782]

If the Warsaw Pact were still a thing you'd bet your ass the US would be very angry if Mexico considered joining it. Putin's invasion is horrible and a war crime, but don't be stupid.

[@fingersonmyhand.7612]

I just listened to this lecture while I was workin', glad you're covering it.

[@nimrodery]

Damn you sir, now it's in my recommendations.

[@garth2356]

@@nimrodery It's got like 14M views, it's in a lot of people's recommendations and so many of them are buying this stuff he's saying... It's really funny how none of them are noticing how this dude says "Putin is too smart to invade Ukraine" which is just factually wrong xD

[@glumdrop4672]

afaik, it is the US's fault in one sense- after the USSR collapsed, instead of doing a Martial Plan type of policy as we did after WWII, we essentially made deals with the oligarchs for resources rather than helping build up their public infrastructure. In other words, Russia is what happens when the oligarchs win, if that helps clarify the stakes for lefties. Not to speak better of the US obviously.

[@d0nj03]

This exactly: the US practically created the modern Russian monster, only to now paint itself as the savior we need to keep us safe from the monster, just like they did with Saddam, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc. etc. And US fanbois keep falling for the same trick over and over and fucking over again. Now let's all cheer for our precious hero and give him even more money to build up his MIC and increase CO2 emissions and world military instability while we should be doing the exact opposite. So strange how well this is working out for the US MIC at just the time its popularity was significantly eroding. Really interesting why they would chooss the non-negotiation/do-not-give-an-inch approach with Putin over this, must be because they love democracy and Ukraine so much.

[@ShivaTD420]

@@d0nj03 lol, imagine us so godly that it creates entire countries. They pull every string , Russians actions are just predictable responces for the meddling the us has the perfect solution to benifit from. Hear that Ukraine, yer the pawns in a big game USA manipulated Russia into. What a inept stooge theory you got. You loosers sound so desperate, this garbage tier theory shows. Just gotta keep repeating Kremlin narratives in KZbin comments, you are only a few away from convincing all of us that Russia is the good guys. Such evil USA making isis , who were fooled into hating the us, to get bombed by the us. Sounds like the rational thing to do is surrender to such a godly 4d chess player, cause you even playing means your being played like a fiddle.

[@leon06962]

>muh morals >muh sovereignty >muh freedom This literally proves his criticism of liberal foreign policy. You don't understand cause and effect and assume that countries have moral rights and responsibilities. Even Cold War diplomats acknowledged that this would lead to a conflict with Russia back in the 90s. The point of a theory is to predict and prescribe based on that, which neorealism does well enough.

[@leon06962]

@Aditya Chavarkar Appeasement is a literal meme that no one in academia takes seriously. There would have been no conflict if Ukraine stayed aligned with Russia or agreed to a neutral status. Liberal theories of international relations didn't predict this conflict, the Georgian conflict, the increasing tensions with China or the failure of nation building in the Middle East among many other things. Neorealist theories did.

[@exiledfrommyself]

@@leon06962 There would have been an invasion by Putin because in his mind Ukraine belongs to Russia. Russia is the crazy ex.

[@leon06962]

@@exiledfrommyself that is not a theory of international relations. Even ignoring diplomatic communications, the timing of the war in Georgia and the annexation of Crimea suggests that this is related to what Russia sees as unacceptable Western intervention near its borders. There is no reason to invade countries that don't negatively affect your relative power.

[@exiledfrommyself]

@@leon06962 What you described is a crazy ex. They don't want Ukraine to move on and they will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. Now Ukraine is fighting for its life against the crazy ex.

[@leon06962]

@@exiledfrommyself again, not a theory of international relations. States aren't people. States exist in an anarchical international system and don't choose their neighbours. You are needlessly moralizing this which provides no explanation for the international system nor any predictions for future developments.

[@ThePFD518]

But have you considered America bad?

[@GalacticNovaOverlord]

@@TrebleStarcrush America worst. There, solved the problem

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

mearsheimer is a offensive realist dude... if anything he would say that america good, but dumb sometimes (but mostly good). he is not a leftist, and he is not anti american.

[@classiclife7204]

Oh good, someone - VAUSH, no less - is watching this video, which has been pestering me in my Recs for about 6 months. I finally blocked that channel. At first it was because I wasn't interested; now knowing that the guy is wrong about everything, I feel better about it.

[@DMichienzi4]

That Historia Civilis video "Peace...? (1814)" goes over the arguments and what Vaush is saying pretty well.

[@procrastinator99]

I see you, too are a man of culture. HC is one of my favorite history channels.

[@lilacrimosa]

52:20 "China's not going to invade Japan" bruh you just pulled a Hasan "Russia's not going to invade Ukraine" China HAAAAAAAAAAAAATES Japan. Japan still hasn't apologized for the awful war crimes they committed against China. I absolutely would not bet on China not invading Japan if they feel the time is right. Otherwise, great video.

[@jeramysteve3394]

They have one of the biggest US bases in Asia. I think there's more merit to this claim than hasan's.

[@JakeBrancatellaClips]

@@jeramysteve3394 Japan isn't technically a NATO ally but yeah...there is now way in hell America doesn't declare war on China if they murder American soldiers. It would be interesting, however, If they simply invaded Japan without messing around with Americans(I'm not for it I'm just curious).

[@sterd1149]

@@JakeBrancatellaClips We have a legal agreement regarding their demilitarization. Because we forced them to give up their tanks, ships, and planes, we must defend them from acts of aggression. Think of it like a vassal state of sorts, or client state to America.

[@prpr8904]

Chinas Relation with Japan is a Bit more complicated since the CCP is in Power because of the Japanese invasion full stop. I imagine that a contained konflikt might be possible, like the falklands, but a full invasion of Japan Would be magnitudes more difficult than russias invasion of the Ukraine in virtuellely any capacity

[@chucku00]

@@prpr8904 A little reminder : "the Ukraine" former USSR region (or "socialist republic") "Ukraine" nowadays nation.

[@ostapkurtash6359]

Damn you put into words what I felt during the video but couldn't describe. Impressive how educated you are in this field. Definitely subscribing for more.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

How is he educated? He is just spouting common sense. Never went to a class about security in IR, does not even know realist theory... vaush had nothing relevant to say beside common sense talkin points.

[@MrHodoAstartes]

God, how I loathe Neorealists! Maersheimer is all but unreadable as he never cared so much about how to navigate conflict or understand and predict behavior as he wants to inflate his own importance and sell truisms as serious insights. I can conversely recommend Wendt for an understanding of the world that acknowledges how states are full of humans with ideas about other states. And Wendt's Social Theory is much better at explaining why Europe can, and is eager to, support Ukraine in this moment. Constructing an emerging democracy suffering under attack from a common enemy as similar, relevant and connected to the nations of the EU is very compelling motivation. And once the avoidance of Russian aggression and deescalation of the conflict become untenable, this newly reconstructed Ukraine suddenly turns into a friend in need. Putin accidentally a whole-ass European integration.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

I like how this guy thinks he is a realist lol utter garbage more like.

[@js8597]

Right, cus you’re more educated than a phd historian and foreign policy expert and are qualified to critique his position… smh 🤦‍♂️

[@MrHodoAstartes]

@@js8597 He's a neorealist. And his predictions failed hard. I read his shit for a course. It's not useful for understanding how states actually behave. Because he completely ignores the people in power, established interdependence, values and so on in favor of pure balance-of-power thinking. Which never truly existed. If you stand on a pulpit and proclaim to be the smartest guy ever because you know how to world works, just to turn around and say the guys in charge are stid because they don't follow your predictions, that doesn't mean you are smart. It means your model failed.

[@SlugSage]

Glad you did a react to this video. The algorithm had been begging me to watch it for years.

[@ArielLVT]

Um. What the actual fuck? Ukraine is not a "big piece of real state". It's a sovereign nation with it's own culture, language and history and it has the right to self determination. Ukrainian culture is far closer to that of Europe than Russia. Joining the European Union was a natural next step to reclaiming their unique identity. Do these folks not understand how incredibly offensive and borderline discriminatory it is to talk about Ukraine as a "buffer state", a piece of "real estate" or a NATO "pawn"? Have they actually internalized what they're saying?

[@knodelimperator8790]

"It's a sovereign nation with it's own culture, language and history" No it's not, "Ukrainian" is just a Russian dialect. They're no more a sovereign nation than Austria is, and just like Austria the only reason they formed their own nation state is historical happenstance as they got chewed up by different superpowers. Also fuck nationhood as a concept in general.

[@PitLord777]

I keep getting recommended this video and now it stopped. Thanks Vaush!

[@linat8268]

Thanks for talking about this video! I've been seeing it a lot in my recommended and was wondering why it has so many views.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

I cannot stop laughing, because one of the things he said can be paraphrased as "I'm so three thousand and eight, you so two thousand and late!", and the overlap between people who know the lyrics to Boom Boom Pow and people listening to this speech is so small.

[@PM-xu2nq]

Nah that was a pretty unavoidable song from like '09-'14, I say a lotta people are familiar.

[@godocs11]

I wonder if a comparison could be drawn between this conflict between Russia and Ukraine and North and South Vietnam? North Vietnam and the majority of the country wanting to become Communist = Ukraine wanting to join NATO and distance itself from Russia. Russia wanting to influence Ukraine away from the west as a safeguard against threats from the West = the US influencing South Vietnam to be more capitalist and distinguish itself from Communist China as much as possible. Thoughts?

[@sandshark2]

I’ve used this example as an almost 1 to 1 comparison for my own discussions. It’s scary how pro-Russian, anti-American people can’t use logic from Vietnam and apply it here. Perhaps that just shows the opinions they have on America and Vietnam are just parroted opinions, where they don’t actually understand why the US invasion of Vietnam was bad.

[@emmaeltringham91]

Didn't Ho Chi Minh originally go to America for support against France, but when rebuked he turned to Russia?

[@legion999]

You're implying wanting to go communist is more valid than wanting to go capitalist. Also North invaded South...Bad comparison.

[@sandshark2]

@@legion999 it doesnt imply that at all tho? It explicitly values country autonomy over the ability of super power countries to manhandle smaller nations into doing what they want for personal gain. No one actually cares about whether a country is communist or capitalist - as long as the people in said country choose it

[@emmaeltringham91]

@@sandshark2 'No one actually cares about whether a country is communist or capitalist - as long as the people in said country choose it'... History shows that not to be the case.

[@dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnish]

As someone with 3 degrees in International Relations and its subfields, whenever I see mearsheimer talking regarding offensive realism it makes me want to continually bang my head against a wall as that is a more enjoyable experience than listening to the same terrible talking points he's been harping on about for 40 years now.

[@prajwaljayaraj5887]

That's fascinating, I'm a second year student doing Poli Sci honours in college right now, and Mearsheimer is one of the people my professor cited while teaching International Relations. What are some of the things he gets wrong according to you?

[@dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnish]

@@prajwaljayaraj5887 it is one thing to cite an author in order to understand their theoretical perspectives, and for Mearsheimer he is arguably the most public face of offensive realism, so when learning IR its important to at least understand the major theory schools, hence why your professor probably cited him. In terms of his short comings, his approach argues that major powers, (completely avoids or ignores smaller states), should look to aggressively establish their own security future. In the case of the United States this implies looking to engage with a war with China, as he believes that eventually China will be too big economically in order to every properly dismantle from a US perspective, and that the US should aggressively get rid of China while it still has the military advantage. I could go further in depth regarding some of the underlying points behind his theory but that is the general point, that states should look to offensively establish their own security environments.

[@prajwaljayaraj5887]

@@dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnish Thank you, that was very insightful.

[@dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnish]

@@prajwaljayaraj5887 no problem bud

[@AmySavage6]

That map alone proves NATO expansion does not equal "Expansion of American control". Montenegro and North Macedonia are both now happy members and they apparently weren't even considered. This is the problem with how Americans view NATO. Americans who are terminally stuck on the cold war mode of goodie/baddie foreign politics seem to consider NATO membership as a sort of American pissmark, claiming a country as American turf. While looking at the map and considering the countries that have joined the alliance you can clearly see nations with somewhat recent or very recent history of being brutalized by their neighbours, notably Russia and Serbia. In short, it is a group of nations who have placed their trust in the American promise of tomorrow without violence. This in practice should be achieved by local defences backed up by American provided doomsday. Many countries have slipped in their defence but this war will surely wake them up. Second of all, use a proper map, Norway has a long land border with Russia, very close to Murmansk, their biggest naval installation this side of the world. That border has been there since like 1300's, it has never been an issue. And why not? Because Norway, USA and USSR long ago decided to be serious about not ending the world. There is a long history of sometimes very tense relations on that border, but because force was not going to work on that border both USSR and Russia have shown rather exemplary diplomatic posture in approaching any issues they might have there. Victim blaming Georgia is not really helpful. Especially when considering how when president Shevardnadze was in power he spent years attempting to solve the issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia through the submissive diplomacy that many say Ukraine should engage in today. It didn't work and his rule also led to a blossoming culture of corruption that eventually caused his downfall in a popular revolution. Considering he was a respected Soviet diplomat before becoming the president and this being all he ever achieved there is very little room to make claims that it would work any better for Ukraine. Also wouldn't say that Georgia is in very serious trouble today. Seeing how this war has put Russian aggression to the Western view without it all being so easy to ignore like back in '08, I'd say there's a decent chance that war will be drawn into the negotiations after this one is done. Not a coup, a revolution. Like in the Baltics in '91, in Georgia in '03 and in Ukraine in '04 (the actual orange revolution). It's a coup when the big players squabble amongst themselves. It's a revolution when the small rise against the big. There has been revolutions in Central Asia as well but they apparently slipped past the Western gaze like Ukraines '04 revolution so Russia could reassert its suzerainty over those countries. The language laws designed to curtail Russian influence were indeed iffy. They were also completely based on experiences in onther former Soviet nations. For example the Baltic countries initially offered to transfer their Russian population into Russia and even to assist in their resettlement. This was deemed unacceptable by Yeltsin due to the massive costs. After Yeltsin it was deemed unacceptable by Putin because he wanted Russian minorities that he could protect. The costs involved were not that great because Finnish construction companies were contracted to build new settlements for the old Russian armies in Eastern Europe for very small amounts of the projected final costs. Therefore there was almost 30 years of experience of Russia deliberately leaving Russian minorities behind, only appearing to defend them when it was convenient for them to appear as a defender. This was exactly what they did in 2014. After that Russia was happy. They have frozen conflicts all over the place that NATO simply won't dare to touch... Then Zelenskyy came with an anti-corruption platform. I'm not saying he achieved much, he was mainly like a Democrat. It might be one baby step forwards but there it's massive. And for this Russia decided to invade and sacrifice everything that they had built in the way of good will sonce at least '08... In the end his only problem with European allies is that they should be pawns to be sacrificed to Russia to secure their help against China... Perhaps the sickest and most disgusting geopolitical analysis there has ever been... Russia always claims there's only a few countries whose national opinion matters in the world stage. This guy is perfectly happy to agreee with them. Luckily American foreign policy has for decades appreciated even the smaller willing allies...

[@TheKeyser94]

Yeah, they are very happy to have U. S. bases and weapons in their countries, that is like putting a massive target in your back.

[@AmySavage6]

@@TheKeyser94 Considering Ukraine was neutral and got attacked I can't see how there's any difference between the targets on our backs...

[@TheKeyser94]

@@AmySavage6 Neutral that was considering entering the EU and NATO, neutral my ass, if Ukraine joined the EU and NATO it would be more problems for Russia, because basically nearly all the country at the north of Ukraine are part of NATO, good bye Warsaw pact, with missiles and soldiers, this situation was already bad, the question was who would throw the first stone.

[@exiledfrommyself]

All I heard from the guy's speech is that we have to appease the mob boss. He has a gun to all these people's head so we have to give him what he wants.

[@Elmoconvo]

This is literally the only american channel that has the correct reading of the situation

[@Fragenzeichenplatte]

Dylan Burns is fine, I think. Xanderhal or Demon Mama might be good as well, although I actually haven't seen their take yet.

[@CODDE117]

You haven't watched any Beau the Fifth Column

[@imonthevergeoftears1543]

This is so sad. These twitch streamers who read headlines and pretend to know everything are the only ones with the correct reading of the situation? Give me a break.

[@PengWinYoutube]

Another interesting comparison would be that canada starts building nukes because of US aggression, being that like ya is it bad for Canada to build nukes? Sure but they only are in response to them being threatened. This is in comparison to the talking point that Russia is justified in being aggressive towards Ukraine because it wants to join the west but one of the reasons it wants to join the west and do so quickly is because of Russian aggression.

[@leon06962]

There is no moral argument being made. The argument was that this would end badly for Ukraine because Russia wouldn't allow them to join NATO. Which is what happened. In your example Canada would never be allowed to develop nukes or otherwise ever military threaten the US. It is simply an explanation of how international politics work.

[@humericdollara5577]

Estonia isn't essential for NATO? You mean the country on the southern side of the Gulf of Finland (the entrance to the Baltic sea) and 150km from St. Petersburg?

[@QT5656]

This speaker John Mearsheimer is a classic example of style over content.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

The whole field of international relations is that way.

[@jascu4251]

another Richard Wolff

[@Imbalanxd]

I mean you're watching a youtuber though. Glass houses and all that.

[@QT5656]

@@Imbalanxd So: 1. Someone being a KZbinr doesn't necessarily mean that they are "style over substance" any more than someone giving an Academic talk must be scholarly. That assumption is a form of ad hominem fallacy. 2. Vaush has style and certainly be glib. However, Vaush has shown on multiple occasions that he has substance. He is explicit with respect to both his biases and and his inferences. He can seem forthright but he frequently cites sources and doesn't shy away from talking through the complexity of a situation. By contrast John Mearsheimer when evaluated with his words (not his credentials and platform) uses straw man after straw man and acts like he knows it all - seriously unimpressive - and he's supposed to be giving an academic talk not a video for PragerU. 3. If Vaush and John Mearsheimer were to debate on this topic I'm pretty confident that Vaush would win hands down.

[@QT5656]

@@hadronoftheseus8829 From what I've seen I suspect that you are correct.

[@charlesrm5817]

Apart from the bad neorealist takes Mearsheimer has, I personally find it strange this video was in everyone's recommended 2-3 weeks before the invasion. Yes the title might have been inviting for someone looking for answers about the conflict but looking at Social Blade you see that the channel has had an exponential growth since Jan 2022, sub and views. Not sus but sus.

[@subnetplayer490]

Google has been pretty active in quelling Russian propaganda. So it’s most likely just piqued interest

[@henrydorsett6076]

Maybe simply bc the conflict already ramping up even before the invasion.

[@CaBdosdos]

I still agree with the professor more. It was wrong of Nato to give Ukraine a false hope of allowing them membership knowing damn well they were never going to invest in the region long term.

[@iluvbbw6911]

They wanted oil first, one of the first things Russia did was blow up the gas pipeline that carries gas from Russia, through Ukraine, to Europe. Ukraine was trying to leverage their natural resources to make Europe less dependent on Russian gas and bargain their way into the EU and NATO. It's hard to fight a war when your opponent is your main gas supplier

[@IMMAOILMAN]

I'm so glad someone is finally blowing apart this hunk of old shoe leather. His grift masquerading as a lecture has been plaguing my recommended feed for at least half a year. Way before the current Ukraine War, the video alone had several million views; my guess is that the overtly USA BAD??? title pulled in a lot of pseudointellectuals who wanted to be a part of the USA BAD??? club (and judging by the comments in that video, that's definitely the case). Even on my first listen, I couldn't believe how naive Mearsheimer apparent understanding of Eastern European geopol was. He offered an overview of US contributions to the current political climate in Ukraine and... that's it. Like okay, yes, the west as a whole arguably did not do nearly enough to welcome former Soviet states onto the world stage. But America and the west as a whole are just one major intersection in the greater web of Ukrainian-Russian relations. Normally you could just let the video slide into the murk of other half-boiled professor lectures that crop up in your feed after watching just one decent lecture. But the Mearsheimer video is dangerous precisely because it stokes the babybrain USA BAD??? sentiment that blinds reactionary Americans to actual geopol.

[@Bartnick81]

Thanks from Poland, we appreciate Your sane commentary

[@keithrage6748]

I remember coming across this video a few days ago and being appalled at how many recent comments were gushing over this guy's analysis, even after getting so much wrong. His definition of "vital strategic interest" is so poor because you can only retroactively label something as such. People who think like him seem to have a variation of main character syndrome for the US. Putin MUST be super smart/rational, because he is our rival after all! Also, Russia has been aggressive for a long time. Their campaign of cyber attacks has been ongoing for years.

[@Imbalanxd]

thanks for your input random unknown internet man 😉

[@js8597]

Right, cus you’re more educated than a phd historian and foreign policy expert and are qualified to critique his position… smh 🤦‍♂️

[@keithrage6748]

@@js8597 You are aware that people with PhDs can be wrong, yes?

[@Imbalanxd]

@@keithrage6748 of course they can be wrong, but their definitions can't be "very poor". If his definitions are poor, then wtf are yours?

[@js8597]

@@keithrage6748 Ima take the phd over a youtube dude, and boggles me that 26 people are taking the youtube dudes take instead

[@Giorginho]

Chechnya was not separate from Russia, it was part of the Russian Federation. This alone proves Vaush should never be talking about this

[@henrymudgett2646]

?

[@Masterblader158]

Well they initially wanted to be separate, Russia's hard handedness was a pretty big indicator towards them treating not being their battered housewife as a threat to them.

[@maazbinaziz3676]

Its all would've worked out if he had just ended by saying "THAT ITS JUST A THEORY..."

[@timhocking529]

A Putin theory. Thanks for watching. Also being upset with how another Nation uses their Independence and Sovereignty and international relations is not a reason to invade a peaceful nation that poses no threat to your nation. Instead maybe actually offering them something in return in a treaty. You know using diplomacy. Yeash.

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

don´t blame me for copying reddit tankie threads and selling them as my own thoughts

[@taitkellogg4944]

Lmao the fact that this man was saying that “promoting democracy” was bad is really telling on how tankies think. They’re not leftists.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

how is this guy a tankie? lmaooo

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

ewveyone i disagree with is a tankie lol

[@TatoISR]

I know this is the least problematic thing about the lecture but this dude's powerpoint has so many typos lmao

[@jakuth99]

With regards to the idea of rationality in people, way too many people believe that systems on a macro level have perfect information. Edit: To clarify, actors have every reason to keep information from one another, and even the information you have is only as good as the tools you use to collect it.

[@iluvbbw6911]

Everything this man is saying is correct. And I'm not talking about Vaush

[@nathandrake5544]

@Aditya Chavarkar The only thing he got wrong was believing Putin is more rational than he apparently is

[@haqoe9857]

@Aditya Chavarkar he predicted everything

[@haqoe9857]

@@nathandrake5544 putin is very rational

[@henrymudgett2646]

@@haqoe9857 so why did he invade Ukraine lol. And also, how is the ruble doing for ya buddy?

[@haqoe9857]

@@henrymudgett2646 he inveded Ukraine because the current government is clearly not neutral but closer to the west. We would invade and destroy a hostile Mexico or Canada

[@Thunder-Chief]

What's truly amazing is to read all of the comments on that video (which, as of today, now has 15M views)... Even after Russia has invaded Ukraine, they're still lapping up this guy's "Russia's not gonna do it" BS. Soying so hard for "America bad!" that they can't think critically. Ugh!

[@iuric.528]

i mean... most international conflicts have a percentage of fault from the americans because they like to meddle with foreign politics a lot, but saying that the Ukrain Russia conflict is ALL their fault is just stupid.

[@iuric.528]

@Cassandra Tafoya It's totally fair to point out their hipocrisy, i also agree that the USA should be charged for their international misconducts. I just fear that people simple summaryse this entire conflict as just "USA is annoying Russia and that why we are here", what is happening in Ukrain has a lot layers of political bullshit.

25:22 would you also talk ethically about the wishes of people in South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk or elsewhere? Mearsheimer is telling us how things work, not how they should be working ideally. Of course, each of us would like to decide everything around according to our own wish... The whole show of having a „dialogue“ with a person who cannot answer you, when you are demonstrating misunderstanding of his every second take, is very weird. Hope people would find the original lecture and see it for themselves (I did).

[@runagaterampant]

I stubbed my toe. It was America's fault.

[@Comet-lc2ls]

Getting flamed for supporting you but your takes and Adam Somethings are the best so far. No apologies for that

[@kw8295]

Ay yo if any of my fellow earthling Ruskies and Ukrainians are reading this, I'm sorry about people like Prof. John. Please don't think that we would want this to happen.

[@kraio-sfu]

I mean what do you expect from a guy named “me arse heimer”

[@unknownPLfan]

wow he really does admit to having a 19th century attitude here by outright saying it.

[@CynicalBastard]

"I and they are 19th centruy men...we're 19th century men" - And people say you need your education. But for what...? To be told I am too 21st century to deal with geopolitics?

[@TheSpeep]

The answer to "Where should NATO expansion stop?" seems to me like a pretty simple one: wherever the countries that want to join NATO stop.

[@jeramysteve3394]

Solution : give them a reason not to join. I.e. Don't invade and occupy countries that try to get chummy with the west.

[@TheSpeep]

@@jeramysteve3394 Yeah its pretty ironic to hear Putin complain about countries joining NATO when he is the whole reason theyre doing so.

[@eelvis1674]

I can't say that it's good, but there is actually a claim to be made over the legitimacy of Russian language suppression in neighbouring countries, as Russia will often use these populations a leverage in the political military conquests. There are certainly ways to do it that are worse than others.

[@eoghan.5003]

The fact that a particular ethnic group might be useful to another power absolutely does not justify suppression of that ethnic group

[@eelvis1674]

@@eoghan.5003 I said suppression of Russian language not ethnicity. I don't think it's that bad to use certain incentives to get those populations to stop speaking Russian as their primary language

[@BackwardsPancake]

Now that you mention it, I feel like the "Russian language suppression" situation should actually be properly laid out somewhere in this discussion, so here goes. This situation exists mostly because of the Soviet Union's attempts at cultural suppression. While a lot of Russia's neighboring states had Russian minority populations before all that, they were generally independent states with their own constitutionally-official languages. However, when the Soviet Union occupied them before and after WW2, they were legally required to switch to using Russian, and had their populations shuffled around in order to head off any ideas of cultural independence - Locals (especially those who the Soviet system did not like, for reasons real or imagined) got sent off to various rural middle-of-nowheres (or gulags), while ethnic Russians were relocated to fill their place. Other cultural suppression tactics were also used. When the Soviet Union collapsed and those occupied nations regained independence, a lot of them saw it as very important to maintain continuity with the states that they were before the Soviet occupation. Therefore, they brought back their original constitutions. This is also coupled with the fact that rediscovering/reviving their suppressed culture carried a great deal of their drive for independence when the union was collapsing. The end result of all this is, they ended up as nation states with their own original constitutionally-official languages again, but this time they had much larger Russian minority populations, who were used to being able to do everything in the Russian language. Any attempt at adding Russian as a constitutionally-recognized official language would have been politically suicidal in the polarized climate of having just regained independence (often not without bloodshed), so they mostly half-assed the situation to varying degrees (e.g. Russian is not an official state language but a lot of people-facing jobs generally expect you to know it, some specific schools operate in Russian with the assumption that they will steadily transition to the official language, and so on). And from there comes the current complicated and shitty situation. On one hand, it's hard to fault the Russian minorities - They didn't choose to be relocated/born where they were, being forced to learn/use a new language can be hard and feel othering, and it's obviously understandable that they are not excited about the alternative choice of uprooting their lives to move (back) to Russia either. On the other hand, it's also not very palatable to argue the notion that these independent states must conduct their laws and affairs according to the whim of a former occupying power, and that they should just accept they're part-Russian forever and should conform accordingly (Which would leave a fifth column that can be very easily abused to advocate for re-occupation by Russia, as expertly demonstrated in Ukraine).

[@eelvis1674]

@@BackwardsPancake this is great, thanks for taking the time to comment :)

[@eoghan.5003]

@@eelvis1674 what backwards pancake has said does not lead to the conclusion that we should try to remove Russian as a language of everyday communication in Ukraine, which seems to be your view. Official affairs can be handled in Ukrainian but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people informally communicate however they please.

[@jeremyleyland1047]

52:00 "who is going to invade Japan" Weebs... Weebs are going to invade Japan.

[@mat3714]

So we should've let Russia's recover from the USSR fall , reform the Warsaw pact than be one's invading Poland because of Russian encroachment ? Wow... that guy would've thrived in pre world wars Europe. What a fuckin dinosaur.

[@jtbfii]

KZbin is pushing this video hard!

[@paddleduck5328]

The video of Mearsheimer?

[@desmondkurtz1936]

It’s at 12M

[@catnium]

wel he got 1 thing right EU > USA

[@tobiasL1991]

Dude when was this recorded? Like days before the invasion or something? Because he's looking at tweets possibly confirming an invasion. Also explains why he skips over the part where the "professor" says "putin won't invade Ukraine, he's too smart for that"...

[@asArsenic]

The primary overriding objective of anyone in power is to remain in power. Those who don't have this objective or aren't good at it don't remain in power for very long.

[@l2ti924]

How there is chat ? When was he live, i have notifications on, damn

[@fingersonmyhand.7612]

Probably recorded a couple days ago.

[@theguildhall3246]

Tbf, youtube notifications always show up like a week late... Mine at least, anywho

[@joshp4582]

Over 1000 comments and I can't find any signs of intelligent life...

[@zvendiearschficker6664]

Every fascists downfall is caused by the same thing. Their own arrogance & megalomania.

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

This fucking lecture was in my recommended for weeks, thank Christ I didn’t watch it before having the correct opinion, that being Vaush’s opinion

[@LizStaples]

It’s telling when he says “From the Mid 1990’s the Soviets we’re staunchly against” by the mid 1990s they weren’t soviets anymore 1991 USSR was ousted. Tankies will keep equating modern Russia and USSR. They point to the 1970s when US and Russian tensions were at their lowest “the Brezhnev era” as the ideal” most of Eastern Europe will disagree this was a bleak time for them and it shows in the celebrations of freedom they held when they ousted the USSR in the decades to come.

[@chucku00]

Right, Vaush could have clicked on it and stop watching this sh!tshow at the 3-minute mark.

[@knodelimperator8790]

"They point to the 1970s when US and Russian tensions were at their lowest “the Brezhnev era” as the ideal” most of Eastern Europe will disagree this was a bleak time for them and it shows in the celebrations of freedom they held when they ousted the USSR in the decades to come." Only naive fools believe that. Most Eastern Europeans are worse off now than they were in the 1970s.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

why is he a tankie?

[@amurrjuan]

Hold up. What is the point of politics if you are not seeing it through an ethical lens? To not see it through an ethical lens is to admit that you are either a sadist or a selfish prick. I don’t see a charitable interpretation of that

[@iluvbbw6911]

Because ethics are considered up to certain point and are flexible. Russia was never going to be okay with NATO on it's border, they made that extremely clear to Ukraine and the U.S.

[@amurrjuan]

@@iluvbbw6911 that can be accounted for in your moral consideration if you’re a utilitarian, so the decisions would still be morally based

[@localistmagic641]

Is this the science teacher from Ned's Declassified?

[@pranays]

China is also a military expansionist empire Vaush They Captured part of India and Nepal during Covid 19 They Occupy Tibet as well.