Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine. Five arguments from Alexander Stubb.

In the 18th episode of the 'Understanding the War', Prof Alexander Stubb responds to the claims of Prof John Mearsheimer about what led to the war in Ukraine.
Prof Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, who recently gave a lecture at the EUI's Robert Schuman Centre, argues that Russia had no other choice but to attack Ukraine following aggressive behaviour by the United States and Europe, driving Ukraine, Georgia and other countries on the Eastern flank towards NATO and EU membership. In this episode, Alex Stubb presents five arguments against this thesis.
Watch also: 'The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war', a lecture by John J. Mearsheimer delievered at the Robert Schuman Centre on 16 June 2022: • The causes and consequ...
Read: 'In praise of reality, not realism: An answer to Mearsheimer', EUIdeas blog post by Veronica Anghel and Dietlind Stolle: euideas.eui.eu/2022/06/28/in-...
More via bit.ly/3lNanrs
#Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #UkraineWar #AlexanderStubb #Mearsheimer #JohnMearsheimer #USA #America #Europe #EU #NATO #Reaslism #Russia #Putin

[@grimaldiij]

Who wants to see a face to face debate between John and Alexander? 🙋🏻‍♂️

[@drmodestoesq]

Well, we already had the Sikorski vs Mearshimer Munk debate in which Mearshimer got utterly annihilated.

[@alexmood6407]

@@drmodestoesq really? Only if you take populist rhetoric of someone like Sikorsky seriously. He’s a great speaker, but there’s no substance there. He won the debate with Maersheimer the way Trump won the debate with Clinton. This doesn’t mean he was right.

[@drmodestoesq]

@@alexmood6407 Sikorski won the debate with historical and present facts. Maesheimer simply started playing his American global chess game. Where he was throwing hundreds of millions of Eastern Europeans under the bus to fight his greater adversary.....which he states, is China.

[@alexmood6407]

@@drmodestoesq China? Country on which there’s political consensus in Washington will be America’s main adversary in 21st century.? You’re blaming Maersheimer for stating the obvious.

[@drmodestoesq]

@@alexmood6407 There doesn't seem to be any political consensus in Washington to throwing Ukraine under the bus to form an alliance with Russia against China. Indeed, there's an overwhelming political, and cultural consensus to supporting and aiding Ukraine to fight the Russian invasion.

[@bernardtado7310]

Can Cuba choose whom they want to be friends with without sanctions

[@tistelnilsson]

Soviet lost 1989

[@kevinfernandez6532]

The citizens of Cuba cannot decide to trade with other countries. The goberment ban's it. And, if US were Russia, Cuba had been invaded and annexed long ago.

[@Lunatic4Bizcas]

@@kevinfernandez6532 : No need. A weakened Cuba is what the U.S wants in its hemisphere so that it can use Cuba as an example of a failed 'commie' state. No different than a Mafia boss who humiliates an opponent. The same goes with U.S interventionism and the French sacking of Haiti, which also stands as a failed state in the hemisphere; although as a weaker state, the U.S has actually had power to depose leaders like 'Aristeed' in the early 2000's for instance and continue its usual policy of upholding a kowtowing puppet, thus keeping Haiti in a perpetual state of stagnation and poverty.

[@0zRevolution]

So true, Alexander Stubb's rebuttal is incredibly hypocritical

[@a55tech]

lol he didn’t even watch a full Mearsheimer talk

[@Benheart10]

I like the example that Mearsheimer gives about CUBA. " Cuba was a country that decided to go its own way and aligned with the Soviet Union but the USA did not allow that" They strangled the country and even invaded it, Why? because that's what Powers do, Powers are ruthless.

[@zemstafreda]

Well, I would argue if those 1500 Cuban exiles that were left behind within 3 days was actuall invasion

[@emiledin2183]

No, it's what dictatorships do. Cuba was a dictatorship and therefore acted out of evil.

[@Benheart10]

@@emiledin2183 Nations when they have absolut power tend to become dictatorships How do you think the US has remained in power till today? because it's a ruthless state! you don't do as they say, you're dead! but they have the power of the Media, they are sweet liars, we see them killing innocent and we don't say anything. So you think it would be different because we wave Facebook , youtube and tiktok chicks saying how good humans we are living in a globalized world? we are the same, ruthless, evil beings!

[@emiledin2183]

@@Benheart10 yes individual citizens are the same in the US as in Russia, but you are a brainwashed russian so it's pointless to say that I was talking about the cuban state, not people! I find it pretty funny how you live in the west, you are on youtube which is a website from the west, and you are againts the west XD. Try saying the same thing in Russia or China and you will end up in prison. Get medication buddy.

[@Sk-po9dx]

@@emiledin2183 Doesn't matter which form of govt Cuba was, it's a sovereign and independent nation. One size doesn't fit all. My country is a democratic country, we love our form of Govt and we respect other authoritarian, Marx or Communist or whatever form of Govt.

[@monicamurphy1792]

You can look up the Bucharest Declaration and see that signatories agreed to language that "Welcomed Georgia's and Ukraine's Nato aspirations"

[@stanemarchiotti6306]

I must admit that you are an interesting speaker. Excuse me Sir, but I have to ask you something here. Your statement at 12:37 quote "NATO has never attacked another country" !!! If I remember correctly, NATO under the patronage of the USA bombed Serbia WITHOUT a UN decision or resolution. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you and best regards.

[@savajovic2179]

You are not wrong, he is wrong. I am amazed at how he can utter such a statement under his academic stance. Ruins his credibility for sure. Very biased character he is, as is Maersheimer. But not surprised, given the role of Finland’s certain figures and institutions during the Kosovo 1999 crisis

[@cosmopolitanbay9508]

and then Lybia. and then its role in Afghanistan. It looks like it is about to become an aggressive pact use to "appease" certain people.

[@hovstacoolianz2197]

That one statement alone loses all the credibility of his full speech😂

[@hovstacoolianz2197]

@@dancingduckling1435 so you are saying, those attacks on Yugoslavia and Libya weren't done by NATO but only its members countries😂 they only ganged up on those poor countries and say technically we didn't do it??😆

[@logikus8638]

@@dancingduckling1435 What insane mental gymnastics. NATO invaded Serbia, not independent NATO members on their own. That's like saying Russian Federation didn't attack Ukraine. the 26 Russian Republics did. NATO launched the military operation, using their own military, logistics, and even dubbed it as their intervention. They appointed a NATO supreme commander to run it(Wesley Clark). Your cope/mental gymnastic is the worst i have ever seen.

[@SergeiDumnov]

"... NATO has never attacked foreign countries" It is a very bold statement that reduces the value of this analysis almost to nill.

[@President.GeorgeWashington]

I think what he means by that statement is NATO has never attacked a powerful nation with nuclear capabilities. Both Western leaders and Putin know that a war between Russia and NATO would result in mutually assured destruction. Therefore Putin's argument that Ukraine becoming a NATO member is an existential threat is not rational, It is mere propaganda. Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania border Russia and have been NATO countries for over 20 years, none of them have fired a shot at Russia.

[@Strusprawa]

When?

[@igorm2573]

@@Strusprawa Bombing Yugoslavia 1999

[@lancehilt7536]

The bombing of Serbia.

[@Kenneth_James]

Compared to this shit with Russia over n over for land...yeah. Ya dummy

[@BruceMullen-iv8hx]

I don’t think this poor man has heard of Victoria Numan .( Nuddleman) or Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea , Libya, Syria 22:00 , Iraq, Rwanda etc.

[@spaced4448]

What do you expect.. he is petrified of Russians and a good example of the modern transformer 🤣

[@user-bq7uf1gg2m]

He's her buddy!

[@pleasemisguideme345]

Everybody has heard of the Nuland call. But only brainless Russian simps believe everything Putin says so it’s not worth bringing up

[@squamish4244]

What does Rwanda have to do with this?

[@jonnyaxelsson9940]

Have you? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, except having seen some Kremlin propaganda that Victoria Nuland is some kind of supervillain, which she obviously is not.

[@frankrohde7449]

Stubb: "NATO enlargement took place because the countries that had been soviet satellites during the cold war wanted to get extra protection - and for fully understandable reasons - but that expansion was not aggressive: NATO has never attacked another country. Its mere existence has been a guarantee for peace. Now, Putin has used NATO expansion as an excuse." (this video 12:23) Mearsheimer: "There are a good number of people in the West who say that it is not an existential threat, that NATO's presence in Ukraine does not threaten Russias survival. My response to them is: I don't care what they think, the only thing that matters is what Wladimir Putin thinks, and if Putin and his lieutenants think that it is an existential threat, then we should be very careful in dealing with him, because he has 10.000 of nuclear weapons." (at 2:14 in video "John Mearsheimer responds to criticism of his Ukraine theory")

[@arturincloud9892]

Bravo

[@MrMSalexanderMK]

This idiot is told what to say by the big boss USA or CIA

[@Mortablunt]

If I was living next to a neighbor who had a habit of just randomly kicking in peoples houses, killing their occupants and making up with their stuff and he had a gang that helped him do it I wouldn’t give a good goddamn if he swore he was only defensive alliance. I’d be increasingly fucking worried that he’s taken over more and more houses and now I’m right next-door to him.!

[@nonyabiznaszh148]

@@Mortablunt Now imagine being Ukraine - who is allied ostensibly on good terms or even friends with many of those people in the gang, actually. And your next door neighbor lives in a giant plot of land, with tons of people at his command, and historically he's made a point of doing the exact same thing as that gang, and the gang kinda dances around him a bit because the guy keeps threatening (like constantly) to burn the whole neighborhood down and everyone in it and has the potential power to actually make good on that threat. Now you're in your much smaller house, stuck between a gang that has a lot of problems, but at least you're buds with enough people in there to be more or less fine with them...and a big mansion with a madman inside that over a bit of time has decided he just kinda owns parts of your house and land, and is constantly at least sabre rattling about taking more and more of it...pointing at the Gang being kinda friendly with you and maybe wanting to invite you into their gang for protection from the big madman, but can't really do it because the big madman keeps laying claim over your house and causing problems in your house. So you can't join a "Gang" that at the very least is against literally burning the whole neighborhood down because the guy with the mansion and a bunch of power keeps threatening to burn the neighborhood down if you join the gang. Seems like there's a far greater evil here and perhaps allowing them to just do what they want might cause more long term problems than it's worth. Cause they said they want a lot of the houses next to you, too. They aren't gonna stop with you. They used to own a huge chunk of that neighborhood, basically, and they've explicitly said they want to take it back. So while the NATO Gang may suck a lot, they usually don't burn entire houses down and threaten to burn the neighborhood down if they don't get their way, at least. Also, it's not just ONE fuckin' douchebag with a stupid amount of power because a while ago he invested a lot in like fire bombs and shit. This analogy is getting out of hand.

[@Mortablunt]

@@nonyabiznaszh148 Your analogy is totally off. NATO overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 and formented Nazism for years to do it. Russia has never say they want it back, Big Boss even explicitly said he DOESN'T want it back. NATO doesn't demand their way? Have you seen their attempts at "diplomacy" the past 8 years? "GIVE US EVERYTHING WE WANT OR ELSE!" Have you not heard of the Middle East? Once upon a time, there was a country called Iran. It held elections and elected a Communist. This made NATO overthrow its government, install an absolutist dictator, and preemptively work to do so to the rest of the Middle East. And once upon a time NATO's biggest member had a president who wanted to make his friends richer, so he invaded iraq, killed about 2,500,000 people over the next 18 years, and plunged the region into chaos with no strong secular governments to contain the religious insurgent movements left.

[@nischalshrestha9293]

That means if Cuba independently wishes to be with Russia, then US would not have any problems! What a great theory

[@ikonofcoil]

So, you're backing US policies against Cuba?

[@nexusseven4203]

Infact, saying that, Stubb stepped on a gigantic shit. No one has the right to do whatever he wants. You cant' do it in your house, imagine in an International Relations context...!

[@rezakarampour6286]

Search . ' Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told . '

[@billcollis9477]

What possible threat is Cuba?

[@psychologianiestacjonarna6558]

Hasn't Cuba chosen to be on Russia's side long time ago already? 😅

[@divyadas6153]

Sorry Mr. Alexander, you are miles behind Prof. Mearsheimer

[@mastermariner490]

And you know better,right cope harder

[@robertvanslooten9475]

If, in Stubb' arguments, you fill up the word America in place of the word Russia, you get an exact description of American geopolitics.

[@armanmkhitaryan27]

To the point. Many (not all) liberal thinking people in the West just can't admit/see how every argument they make against Russia's perceived strategic or geopolitical interest and act is perfectly mirrored by the US and its Western allies.

[@Nauda999]

Someone should read about Wolfowitz Doctrine, only USA is allowed to dominate the planet as the sole super power. And any means to subdue a rise of rival super power are justified under so called "rules based order" - the rules written by USA for others. This includes the use of Ukraine and Taiwan as proxy to defeat Russia and China.

[@WangAiHua]

That is exactly what RuZZian propagandists do---They swap exactly those two words. For instance "RuZZia attacks Ukraine!" They replace it with "America attacks Ukraine!" It's quick and easy!

[@belen3732]

😊omg, I entered the comments to write this very same comment.

[@Teaspun]

"NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO." -- NATO's Final Declaration, Bucharest Summit, April 3rd 2008

[@Mortablunt]

And if you’re Russia, this would mean an army of 4 million anti-Russia fanatics with two axes of attack directly into your heartland.

[@akwakaelizabeth2778]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@whatelse1222]

NATO is in the hands of a small minority who is intent on destroying Europe through mass migration and having Eastern Europeans attack Russia so they can control the world.

[@BrentWalker999]

​@@Mortabluntlol no

[@ChalrieD]

This guy did not convince me at all, in fact he made me think Mearsheimer knows more about the history than this guy who lived a tiny part of it.

[@antoniom1352]

12:40 fake. Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libia 2011. All it happens after cold war were ended. And it happens because USSR disappear.

[@kvici]

your reference is taken out of context.

[@ianlouden7939]

Not NATO! You are confusing the UN, the USA and NATO as one! Also Remember USSR/Russia had been involved previously. Not blaming anyone here but these countries mentioned do have recent prior history with conflicts.

[@emunozq]

@@ianlouden7939 It is a public well known fact that NATO bombed Serbia. Lybia was also a NATO Operation. I see no confusion on Antonio's message.

[@ianlouden7939]

@@emunozq NATO did not invade these countries nor did it claim them as their own, it is questionable if their involvement was legal or not but as soon as the internal conflicts were over (even if not in favour of the west) they left! These conflicts should have been dealt with by the UN but as is true today the UN needs the backing of all members that it didn't get.

[@emunozq]

@@ianlouden7939 whether it claimed territory or not is irrelevant. The claim that NATO has not attacked any country is a blatant lie... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

[@xtrachrisb488]

10 minutes in and I'm still waiting for compelling insights, just platitudes

[@luke2041]

Typical politician then

[@thulsadoom544]

Platitudes my arse

[@Coconautify]

Platitudes????? You must be reading an alternate comments section than me.

[@Fact_Check_2023]

Unfortunately, truth does not need insight’s. There is no platitudes. Listen twice… you can learn a lot.

[@borali26]

Obrigado. Esse foi importante para esclarecer. Você poderiam fazer em forma de entrevista com duração de 60 minutos.

[@illomens2766]

A year after this video was made, turns out Mearsheimer was completely right.

[@gerhard7323]

Why, exactly, don't the 60 years long and counting US sanctions on Cuba fall into the category of being in breach of the UN Charter and Helsinki Accords?

[@arpandey698]

They do

[@karinfroller7403]

Obama lifted the sanctions.

[@superchargerone]

no countries want to stand up for cuba against the USa.

[@The_Maze_Is_Not_Meant_For_You]

Three reasons come to mind: 1. Cuba is inhabited by Brown people 2. The US only listens to the United Nations when they agree with them. 3. No American president or Congress wants to be seen as the one who let Cuba win, not without a revolution in the Cuban government

[@carlossaraiva8213]

Whataboutism does nothing to cleance or justify the wrongs fone by russia, putinoid boy. Each country answers for their own wrongdoings, putinoid boy. Russia's wrongdoings are entirely on its head and bitching about the USA's wrongdoings doesnt chance that, putinoid boy. Both russia and USA are big enough to know how to tie their own shoelaces. Got it, putinoid boy?

[@renoesmaeilian9489]

I think it would be very helpful to all of us if you and professor Measheimer have a face to face debate.

[@johnforde7735]

I would doubt that very much. Measheimer is too far gone.

[@hozlopez]

I respectfully think that prof. Mearsheimer is at a deeper level of understanding.

[@johnforde7735]

@@hozlopez You would think so, but he makes too many errors to indicate that he does. My guess is that he is too wedded to his single idea of NATO expansionism to see the evidence of Putin's imperialism, which he completely ignores.

[@jamesriepe]

@@johnforde7735 and you haven’t a clue. This guy is expressing his opinion which is not based on the fact.

[@johnforde7735]

@Matthias Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, when Europe was strongly opposed to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. After the invasion, NATO and the West did nothing. Can't be blamed on NATO, but pure imperialism. In 2013, when Ukraine was looking to join the EU, Putin blackmailed Yanukovych to reverse course, so that Ukraine would be Russian, not Europe aligned. That triggered the Maidan people's uprising and the events after that leading to Putin's annexation of Crimea and starting the war in the Dombas. Even the speech that Putin used when declaring war (sorry, special military operation) on Ukraine, he set out his belief more forcefully than ever before that Ukraine is intrinsically Russian. Then there is Second Chechen War. The list goes on, not enough room here, but do some digging, there is plenty of evidence.

[@davidjubb5527]

My God. Are you for real! Open your eyes

[@bogdancrnokrak1589]

This man invests extreme energy to make us forget what was really happening. The whole post is based on prejudices and opinions. John Mearsheimer pinpoints the key events that gave rise to new events, the relationship between action and reaction. This man does the opposite. The mention of Peter the Great and Stalin throws dust in the eyes and underestimates anyone who followed the events

[@ngkeam9491]

@bodg- concur, what do you think his ultimate goal/ agenda aims at?

[@sampohonkala4195]

I think you are mistaken. The discussion Putin opened at the end of 2021 about NATO was a carefully planned plot to enter a situation that would give Russia and Putin a semi legitimate reason to invade Ukraine - "as you did not want to guarantee that NATO will not take new members, I had to invade Ukraine to guarantee Russian safety". That was total bullshit, Putin had already decided to invade Ukraine. The tactics was pretty much the same that Stalin used against neutral Finland in 1939 - as Finland did not agree to exchange territory with Russia it was obviously a hostile reaction and therefore the USSR had to invade Finland to guarantee the safety of the country.

[@user-mn2rz1pr4r]

Absolutely...& besides him being full of shayte he deliberately trows emotional & buzz words smoke grenades hoping to get at least couple of idiots who could fall for his pretentious attitude & his haircut...

[@dannyredbridge1372]

Funny he says that Russia should let Ukraine be independent and free to choose which side they want. But when Cuba wants to side with Russia, that’s not allowed.

[@gaoxiaen1]

Cuba's gov't IS siding with Russia. The Cuban people not so much. Do you have a point? By the way put a little work into your fake account with no content. Add some random junk like the other trolls.

[@jamesnadell1998]

@@gaoxiaen1 His point is that whatever the assessment one makes of Ukraine, you can be sure that American ruling class power does not care about human rights, justice, or peace in any substantial way whatsoever, regardless of their bluster and empty pronouncements. Any material analysis of the American Empire makes this more than clear. By all means access Ben Norton's Multipolarista program, especially his series of interviews with Prof. Aaron Good, author of American Exception: Empire & the Deep State. That would be some useful content with which to enlighten yourself and help you recognize the flaming hypocrisy and raw deception of the American state and its collaborators.

[@dannyredbridge1372]

@@gaoxiaen1 firstly that’s not the same and secondly you don’t even have any content yourself? Lol. The point is that he’s trying to ridicule the fact that Russia would feel threatened with Ukraine joining NATO but when the roles were reversed, the USA acted just as bad. What’s so confusing about that?

[@Solbm27]

@@dannyredbridge1372 you strike me as someone who has but some superficial knowledge of Cuba’s history and/or politics, or of what Castro was or wasn’t “allowed” to do.

[@Czar369]

Russia has the ability and desire to invade its neighbors as you see in Ukraine and Georgia. Cuba doesn't have the ability to feed itself nevertheless invade anyone, Russia will give it that ability. Don't feed Evil because evil will poke your eyes out and eat you alive.

[@marctorrez774]

He says in this video “This is not a world where the big can rule over the small.” Does that apply to every Nation everywhere?

[@markkostelic485]

To avoid that situation, you want a republic, not a democracy. A pure democracy is majority rule. Like two wolves and a sheep voting as to what is for dinner!

[@bjornborg4849]

It's complete bullshit. He is a liberal living in a fantasy 21st century world that is somehow fair and where no one rules over anybody. While EU export subsidies destroyed agricultural markets in Africa, while 99% of profits from diamond mining in some African states lands in Switzerland. Common. The West is still exploiting the world, from Iraq to Lybia. But it can't accept when others want the same or even, if others don't want to be exploited by the US

[@giantarcsfora9279]

I know. Every century the big have ruled over the small including USA...

[@jorgebalarinbenavides2172]

Of course that is a complte stupid aseveration. The european powers and USA did that every time.

[@jossiasmutize1870]

Go to USA and say that. You will see what happens

[@memory-nownow-anticipation7087]

Arguments start @ 3:40

[@litbmeinnick]

9:00 but from what I understand, the clubs are not required to accept the new members-application. They may have the right to choose to be with Nato. But that means making an application which can be rejected.

[@nathanhiggers4606]

I always point at this. Why didn't they just reject Ukraine for the sake of saving good relations? Did they want this to happen?

[@nikoniortnike]

@@nathanhiggers4606 Why should a country's right to decide for itself be restricted by an autocratic dictatorship which has a dubious history of aggressiveness (up to the point of invasion) towards the nations adjacent to it?

[@simonasanislav9165]

I am all for academic freedom but this was not a academic argument... rather an emotional one...it lacks logic and it dismisses facts

[@truthviolatescommunityguid3019]

Exactly. Professor Mearsheimer speaks for well over an hour, provides substance to support his line of thinking, takes LOTS of questions from academics and ultimately says he could very well be proved wrong when more evidence becomes available.

[@truthviolatescommunityguid3019]

Exactly. Professor Mearsheimer speaks for well over an hour, provides substance to support his line of thinking, takes LOTS of questions from academics and ultimately says he could very well be proved wrong when more evidence becomes available .

[@edwardvakhovsky891]

100%

[@FragLord]

This is the classic debate between the realist and the liberalist perspective of international relations. Mearsheimer is looking at it from the realist, international system structure perspective and how anarchy and the balance of power, etc. makes countries react for their own surivival. Stubb's perspective looks at the issue from a liberal perspective looking at the characteristics of the country and the individual. Every debate of international relations has been like that for years.

[@truthviolatescommunityguid3019]

@Kamil S LoL You wrote a lot of words but JyoooToobCENS0RTooob didn’t allow your comment onto the thread. That’s the world we live in. They can’t handle the troofth

[@keithbrown3045]

I take your points but Marshheimer wasn't assigning blame or wrongdoing to anyone. Mersheimer's point was, if you do this that will happen. Countries will always act in their own National interest regardless of what others think.

[@wilddynamine8017]

Mearsheimer literally says the West is “at fault”, that is literally assigning blame and making a moral argument in relation to nato expansion

[@agvit4755]

@@wilddynamine8017 Mearsheimer just says that the West acts irresponsible thinking whatever it makes is for the better. As for the NATO expansion - the promise was given but not honored. That lead to certain consequences.

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@wilddynamine8017 Yes, and Mearshimer is correct.

[@wilddynamine8017]

@@suburbanyobbo9412 nah, he never mentions how all of these countries wanted to join nato and Russia’s actions have vindicated all of their suspicions. Also he never mentions Russia’s delegitimising rhetoric towards Ukraine, they’ve never considered them a real country or people, it’s borderline genocidal, but that’s an inconvenient circumstance for Mearsheimer

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@wilddynamine8017 >”Never mentions how all these countries wanted to join nato.” If you had read Mearsheimer or had a basic understand of this conflict, you would understand that there was no will among the Ukraine population to join NATO at the point that Yanukovych was illegally ousted. >”Russia’s actions have vindicated all of their suspicions.” You think this because you don’t understand that it is Western Intervention that has driven Ukraine to join NATO which in turn has driven a Russian invasion, not the other way around. Mearsheimer makes this argument again and again, but you are clearly unfamiliar with Mearsheimer. >”Russia’s delegitimising rhetoric... never considered them a real country or people, it’s borderline genocidal” Mearsheimer does consider Russian rhetoric, though I’m not sure how such rhetoric that you mention, is all that important for understanding Russian foreign policy. Also, Russian rhetoric on Ukraine clearly illustrates that the Russian administration view Ukraine and a close nation with which Russian’s have familial ties. I don’t think you understand Mearsheimer, you clearly haven’t read Mearsheimer. You seem to have bought into the conspiratorial disinformation narratives that case Mearshimer as pro-Russian or pro-Putin. This conspiracy theory and disinformation has its roots with Liberal foreign policy hawks, who openly misrepresent Mearshimer.

[@josechavezboggio8963]

Why did Finland send troops to Afghanistan and also to Iraq?

[@MajorCaliber]

I don't think former PM A. Stubb gets enough credit as a deadpan comedian! 😆

[@uglybeutyful]

Unbelievable how one well educated and experienced person may be so disengaged from reality.

[@ThomasTomiczek]

Most academics are - in fact traitors to academia and woefully unqualified. Sadly.

[@ireneyacyna6425]

When in grip of ideology one becomes blind to what IS on the ground. I'm an.82 years old idealist but gosh! I feel thankful to life having taught me some realitiesbased pragmatism. Mr Stubb stubbornly resides only in the clouds

[@tistelnilsson]

Yes Mearsheimer are not that intelligent, you are right.

[@RUBANAMedia]

Prof. Alex Stubb, you are totally detached from reality. May be you just arrived from a another planet.

[@fresatx]

Well said! He's a pompous ass. He talks real tough with America behind him. Why are WE (USA) even in NATO?? Its a great deal for them, for us? Can someone explain how it benefits America??

[@ivanludinic983]

Except that Mearshimer predicted this 5 years ago. What did you predict?

[@igorlinhart8491]

7 years ago

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

The Baltics also predicted this. Which is why they joined NATO.

[@meatrealwishes]

Nope, he wrote in the 90s that russia would invade ukraine. Reasons Putin is using are written in dugin's book also. Published in 1997.

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

Considering Russia invaded Ukraine 8 years ago anyway, Mearshimer was a bit late in his predictions.

[@xide3rigga01]

He said it and it happened. So he is right all long

[@pgpagaia]

It happened literally the opposite of what he said. Ukraine didn't get crashed.

[@kevinu.k.7042]

Thank you. A superb presentation. For me it is not possible to ignore the impact of Russia potentially being hemmed in by both NATO and the EU. The first brings with it the loss of face and the second, the potential loss of economic markets and even security.

[@franzpiribauer_diem5850]

Stubb is a rather dishonest academic here. (Min 3:20). The first argument he wants to refute, allegedly put forward by Mearsheimer (M), was never put forward by M verbatim in the lecture at Florence one month before. Stubb said, that M had argued : Putin had no choice but to attack. Mearheimer never said it that way.

[@inzhener2007]

No. Stubb's observation is fully substantiated here. He bases his opinion on excellent knowledge of their neighbour and personal meetings with top Ru officials and elits. As a Russian living in Russia for 40 years, I can confirm all his words. Bby the way, Prof Mearsheimer now started lying directly, which is unusual for him: "Until the eve of the invasion, Russia was committed to implementing the Minsk II agreement, which would have kept the Donbas as part of Ukraine." (Foreign Affairs, August 17, 2022). Putin acknowledged "the independence of the LNR and DNR" thus broke the MInsk-II on 22 Feb 2022. Needless to say that Putin never wanted to comply with p.10 of the M-II accord -- "withdraw all foreign troops and weapons from the Ukr territory" he had built two big army corps under full Rus supply and command and control in the L/DRN since 2014. Professor's manipulation example: "Russian ambitions have also expanded. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it and make it part of a Greater Russia. It was principally concerned with preventing Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border." "The threat to Russia today is even greater than it was before the war, mainly because the Biden administration is now determined to roll back Russia’s territorial gains and permanently cripple Russian power." How could he assertaine the ambitions and goals Russia had before the invasion? From their words? That's laughable: Putin and his cronies lie constantly.

[@tinamitchell7496]

I thought that when he said 'Russia couldn't help itself'. I didn't recall that from M at all. I just assumed I had missed something. It is simply not a statement a realist would make, it's far too emotion driven.

[@wilddynamine8017]

A distinction without a difference, he says “if you poke the bear (Russia), eventually it’s gonna fight back”.

[@inzhener2007]

@@wilddynamine8017 no one poked Russia, and no one was going to. Putin all made up the pretext and reasons. Notice: that for the Western auditorium Russian propoganda says one thing, for internal affairs he says other things. All are lies, inlcuidng that Russia is a bear. Russia is a not a bear in any sense. Russia is a totalitarian state, a Mordor who sent ors to kill and destroy a neighboring country.

[@tinamitchell7496]

@@wilddynamine8017 no. I know full well the comment he was pretending to reference, he simply choose to misrepresent it.

[@jskerritt74]

"This is a war of propaganda" John Pilger

[@nissene1]

I have great respect for Pilger, but I belive his position on Ukraine is colored by his beliefs more than by facts. This IS a war of propaganda too, but I think Stubb is right, and that Putin miscalculated grossly the response of Europe and the USA.

[@imaginemetoo]

@@nissene1 👍🏻👏

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

John Pilger sitting this one out I guess.

[@TheLocalLt]

John Pilger is a lackey for Russia and China, he produces English-language anti-Western propaganda and has for years

[@lucay2222]

All wars are wars of propaganda. And Russia is still the fascist aggressor.

[@sirfrozsomji3984]

3:42. "American imperialism refers to the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of the United States. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened". American Imperialism - wiki.

[@petekeberlein5577]

As an American I grotesquely agree with the definition..........

[@drscopeify]

The thing is that the USA is not doing it on purpose it is the world that has chosen to adopt American content. American movies were never meant for foreigners, American clothing was never designed for foreigners but now everyone is living that lifestyle by their own choice. The USA is an internal country 90% of Americans do not know anything about the world outside the USA. This is not the USA being imperialist but the world adopting the USA as its own.

[@sirfrozsomji3984]

@@drscopeify Not true. It was deliberate polices by the American Governments to spread Americana and the American way of doing things and culture in the form of movies - the promotion of American culture through Hollywood - Hollywood movie is a cultural product where America is trying to imperialize the world.... The International Journal of Engineering and Technology. Also check out - Americanization - Wikipedia

[@jmorris4416]

Thank you, President Stubb

[@lfrancescamichela5230]

When intelligent learned people make claims that are clearly untrue, I sniff a strong smell of money. Can't help it!

[@alexmood6407]

I have the same suspicions about Stubb.

[@christianevanherck6023]

Do you get your money from Cyber Front Z to post Russian propaganda lies ?

[@qbe1]

Salaam, Sir,this "rules based order that you mentioned,could you please provide evidence of this "list of rules" you mentioned.The UN charter and international law you mentioned,are the sanctions Finland instituted against Russia in compliance with the charter and international law?

[@NLTops]

How about Article 1 of the UN Charter: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and *self-determination of peoples* , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. I've marked the breach by Russia which legitimized any economic action against Russia in bold letters.

[@corradoroeper7092]

@@NLTops what about the self determination of the pro Russian people in Crimea and Donbass? Don't they also have a right to leave Ukraine?

[@NLTops]

@@corradoroeper7092 There's a 100% legal way of "leaving a country". It's called emigration. Ukraine is a UN member state. As such, the UN does not recognize the annexation of its territories. So you can talk about "self-determination of the pro-Russian people in Crimea and Donbass", but since they've had to kill and displace pro-Ukrainian people in those areas in order to "leave Ukraine", what they did was unlawful. Conquest by a different name. Does that answer your question? Where are you from?

[@corradoroeper7092]

@@NLTops are you aware that the Ukrainians killed about 3000 pro-Russian civilians prior to Russia's invasion. These are UN sources. Donbass and Crimea are predominantly Russian. What I am trying to say is that it's not only Russia's fault, but Ukraine's as well. There is effectively a civil war going on in Ukraine. I'm from Italy, by the way.

[@NLTops]

@@corradoroeper7092 Yes. I'm aware. But what wasn't "prior to those citizens dying", was Russia arming and funding separatist groups in the Donbas, who took up arms and took control of government buildings. Over those 8 years 3000 civilians died. Are you saying they all died by shelling from Ukraine? What was in the artillery of the separatists then, confetti? Tell me, what would Italy do if a foreign country funded an insurgency in Italy? Would you throw them a big party? What would Russia do if one of its "subject states" wanted independence? Is there ANY country in the world that doesn't respond to an armed insurgency with a military response? Most countries don't even recognize the right to secede peacefully. As far as international law goes, whilst it's well on its way to declaring migration a human right, declaring independence is not one. If they wanted to be Russian because they're a minority in the country and no longer feel at home in a pro-European Ukraine...they are free to move to Russia. We might argue that Crimea was at least a bloodless annexation. But those referendums weren't open to neutral observers. But lets say we accept their results as legitimate, why was the same bloodless annexation not possible in Donbass? Perhaps not everyone was as enthusiastic about joining Russia as Russia wants you to believe? That's why that 8 year long conflict already internally displaced over a million people (don't recall the exact number). In any case, they can call referendums and proclaim it's the will of the people all they like, but since they had to chase people out of town and kill them to get there, it's nothing but conquest by a different name. Ergo the international community will never recognize it. It would be too easy of a loophole. Migration would become a tool for conquest, instead of a tool for individual opportunity (with risks). All of Ukraine belongs to all Ukrainians. These borders can't change without the consent of all of Ukraine. THAT is international law. Oh, and Russia doesn't need more land, it needs more people. Yet it's sacrificing people (and over a million emigrants and counting) for land. If Russia, the largest country in the world and the 21st least densely populated country in the world, needs more land, then every country in the world would need more land. And it turns out, land is finite and has already been distributed. So if anyone wants to gain any, they'd have to take it from someone else. Which inevitably leads to violence, death and destruction.

[@karifakamara4727]

What about the attack on Libya?

[@squamish4244]

What of it? Whataboutism is a logical fallacy. Every case must be examined on its own merits.

[@karlanal1]

Nah , NATO would never.Hem obviously is a finnish drunket, after the cokehead before him

[@drscopeify]

You mean the Arab spring revolution against Ghaddafi? yes the people of Libya got tired of being slaves to a madman and got rid of him. GOOD

[@sillygoose9070]

Wherever Mearsheimer goes, his army of bots and accolytes follow. Every video of him on youtube has 10 times more comments than the channel usually has.

[@boleslawzajaczkowski9392]

Is it up to Cuba to be sanctioned by USA since 1960?

[@tistelnilsson]

Why do you lie?

[@anneslot7013]

@@tistelnilsson lol he not lie

[@dfsdffvdsvsdfdsfsdf]

The US can chose to trade with anyone they wish or NOT TRADE with anyone they wish. The US is not attacking Cuba, but Russia IS attacking Ukraine.

[@johnwagner8953]

Your «rebuttal» of Mearsheimer is a straw man argument. Mearsheimer’s realist argument is not that Russia «could not help itself» but to attack Ukraine. It is rather that it was predictable as a way of action given the security concerns expressed again and again by Russia in recent years. The US should have known (or indeed knew) that it could end like this. The crux of the matter is that the US officially refuses to portray this conflict in realist terms and instead pushes a moral argument having to do with the freedom and autonomy of Ukraine. The same argument, incidentally, also takes away any guilt on the part of the US. While it is easy to sympathise with Ukraine in this conflict, this should not blind anyone to the context that has created this situation, including the agency of the US and NATO. Seeing the world exclusively from a liberalist perspective is a dangerous form of narrow-mindedness.

[@isldstormhawaii4084]

Factually incorrect, either sovereignty is a real thing or it isn’t. Ukraine as an independent nation has the sovereign right to determine its own future. The moral argument is centered on this very simple concept. Russia has no legitimate security concerns in Ukraine and has no legitimate justification for their actions. To pretend this was is anything but an expansionist move by Russia is the height of intellectually dishonesty.

[@Bosavi100]

I completly agry

[@mrgyani]

Realist theory assumes it was a rational, 'predictable' action from Russia. Well then can Mearshimer answer why Putin didn't stop when this was already offered to him in the initial stages ? 1. Zelensky offered neutrality wrt NATO to Russia. And this was the basic minimum he was ready to concede. 2. European leaders talked to him repeatedly in the initial stages, trying to come to a settlement and end the war. If this was the sole cause, they would have given it to him on a silver platter. 3. By not agreeing, they were set to lose every security objective they started with. And come out weaker in every possible way. How was this a rational act in any way? This isn't realism, this is how ideological states act.

[@tistelnilsson]

Mearsheimer have no argument at all. There is your problem.

[@santisav2]

Its like saying that its Gorbachev's fault..

[@vikramaditya2473]

I found most of the arguments to be absolutely rhetorical. I believe it is arguments such as these that have resulted in the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Whilst it is absolutely understood that any sovereign nation can aspire to join any organisation/ group, including NATO; it is the responsibility of NATO and the West to ensure that such aspirations do not impinge on the security concerns of other big powers.

[@stefan-xaverscherrer7648]

A question for the Mearsheim defenders/side. Today, September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan attacks Armenia. What should the weaker Armenia do, in Mearsheimer's opinion?

[@toncoumans6985]

We need a whole new set of leaders.

[@richardloach610]

And this sums up why people like Stubb don't fundamentally understand Mearsheimer's realist logic. It's not about democratic or dictatorship, or about personalities or internal political machinations. It's purely about nation states in an anarchic world where there is no higher authority. This is why Mearsheimer's theories are presented in his seminal book as a tragedy, because no matter what time in history, what form of government exists, or how technologically enlightened nations become, this dog eat dog world will always drive states to act in their own interests at the expense of others, sometimes barbarically

[@af699]

No, we need to get rid of all the leaders

[@jurgenparkour9337]

@@richardloach610 nah, this nigga is completly wrong on all sides. There is a moral superiority ans it lies in the West. Russia is wrong, dude, because Putin is a fucking dictator

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@@richardloach610 We understand his logic, we just categorically refuse it as a method of justification for war since it would drag us all back to 19th century imperialist conflicts where borders shift and massacres are commonplace because "its in our national interest to do so".

[@ABCABC-hd8iq]

@@stephenjenkins7971 Then don't provoke. Don't go into the other's playgrounds.

[@xena6894]

When listening to his point number 1 I thought he was describing the USA or France

[@mouradbelkas598]

He is giving his opinion without really knowing what he is talking about. He should read history

[@somerandomguy6028]

That is whataboutism. Even if you think that the US and France are expansionalist imperialist powers, that doesn't discredit the argument that Russia is those things.

[@xena6894]

@@somerandomguy6028 There are instances where " whataboutism" is relevant and should be used used to call out the virtue / moral signaling bodies because they are still doing and won't stop doing what they want the rest of the world to condemn. They must lead by example.

[@somerandomguy6028]

@@xena6894 Except that this isn't a conflict between "always innocent Russia vs. Big Bad USA". Rather, this is a conflict between Russia and the rest of the world. Thus, it simply isn't relevant to talk about the flaws of US foreign policy. Since the alternative to Russia isn't the US. The alternative to what Russia is doing is the entire rules-based international order that the world agreed upon post-WWII.

[@xena6894]

@@somerandomguy6028 i get your point. Except that it's not Russia against "the world" . It's Russia against the West (Nato). If you follow some international news with independent analysts , national analysts , they are continuously debunking this concept of " the rest of the World" . What you mean is Nato/Europe or the West in general. I hope you know what's the current position of India, China, Africa , Brazil , Mexico , Middle East , Caribbean, etc... on the Russia- Ukraine conflict. Analysts says more 3/4 of humanity is encompassed in those geographic areas . Do you still think its" the rest of the World "?. Even news MSM channels are using less that wording with time.

[@edhom5148]

I am grateful that you have the experience and presenting a contrasting view. Please invite John Mearsheimer to join you.

[@zoltanbarath7371]

Prof. Mearsheimer was right in almost every point. He didn't mention that time half a dozen other reasons why Russia shouldn't allow Ukraine to join NATO.

[@L0kias1]

Well now Russia has forced Ukraine into natos arms so great job

[@zoltanbarath7371]

@@L0kias1 look up the 2008 Bucharest NATO meating, George W. Bush's announcement, the phone conversation between Victoria "F... the EU" Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt *before* the "Euromaidan" and the coup in 2014 and learn.

[@borgorjonsson4120]

@@L0kias1 I would say that Ukraine is probably not feeling too comfortablle in NATOs arms. They were promsed , all it takes "as long as it takes". Now NATO is loosing the Ukrainian war and will soon stop sending money and weaposns Classic NATO move. The proxy nation is soon on their own. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dead ,because NATO demanded that Ukraine keep on fighting ,even after Ukraine had negotiated peace with Russia in Istambul. There are many ways to be in anothers arms. Sometimes the one that is holding you will brake your neck. NATO is braking Ukraines neck. NATO is not a organisation like many think ,it is the European branch of the US army. Finland has no say in what is done. Their role is to take orders. Same goes for all European countries. That is why this akademic is only spewing the US fake narrative and nothing else. There are few things that irretate me more than a academic that talke lies for political reasons. It is the role of politicians to lie. Akademicks role is to be truthful.

[@gameofthronestours]

​@L0kias1 Ukraine is not a member of NATO and despite bullsh*t promises of NATO membership at some point in the future it will never happen! US Congress won't even release $60bn to save Ukraine at this critical time, also EU €50bn is being withheld by Hungary's veto. So the idea Ukraine is on a path to NATO membership is nonsense, exactly the opposite is happening and everyone not brainwashed can see it clearly

[@MrSenses33]

​@@zoltanbarath7371Precisely. People somehow act, as if now "Putin", (and always singeling him out as if the entire Russian elite does not support him) has pushed Ukraine and Nato together. As if that wasn't already happening. The truth of the matter is, the West and Ukraine, were constantly flirting, disregarding the warnings from Russia. And I love how Mersheimer puts it, if the situation was reversed, and Mexico was flirting with an alliance with Russia, you can bet the farm that the US would have invaded Mexico. These people's "world building" of Good and Evil, painting the world in black and white and then preaching, is so naive, I find it unbearable. Can't even listen to western news anymore, and this coming from someone born and raised in the west!

[@leonardmsele6464]

But you did not mention Cuba, Libya and when you mentioned Syria it was not for the sake of its sovereignty. But you used it to blame Putin and not US. Very balanced and very academic.

[@AR-rn8ok]

It’s just such a stupid argument. Usa never invaded and commit genocide against Cuba. Nor Mexico. They’re too smart to do this in todays world, against a peaceful neighbor. But Putin, he lost his mind.

[@tammykennedy4165]

@@AR-rn8ok why do people like you who know less then nothing keep commenting it’s really a disservice to others

[@aoeu256]

US did invade Cuba, but the Cuban deaths came from the total embargo. US give weapons to Mexican drug cartels in covert operations.

[@josephbetubetu863]

Would you please define the Monroe doctrine of the USA and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Why Russia isn't allowed to apply its own version of monroe doctrine to its borders? Mr Mearsheimer is right in his analysis of the Ukrainian war.

[@user-wm5rt9pw5l]

because Russia does not make its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, it is trying to destroy another state. You need to listen to what Putin says about Ukraine, and not the nonsense of Western intellectuals about how the world supposedly works.

[@josephbetubetu863]

@@user-wm5rt9pw5l international law has to be consistent and respected by everyone across the board.

[@user-wm5rt9pw5l]

@@josephbetubetu863 yes, it should be like that. But if you think that Putin was offended by the fact that someone violated the world order and therefore attacked Ukraine, you are mistaken, Putin wants a Cold War world order in which the rules hardly existed at all.

[@samliew6610]

@@josephbetubetu863 Yes, that's right. The current so-called 'rule based order' are rules made by US/West only. It's not the common International Rule-based order.

[@inzhener2007]

No. Prof Mearsheimer is not right. Yet he is not mistaken, he knows exactly what he says. He plays Putin's games since at least 2013. Putin never wanted and planned to stay on borders of North America. The "NATO expansion" has nothing to do with Putin invade Ukraine -- when Finland, with 1100 km border with Russia, enters NATO, what Putin does? He withdraws all capable troops from the finnish borders and sends them to Ukraine. The only reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is to take it over and annex to re-establish the USSR/Rus empire. Prof Mearsheimer still plays Putin's game with far obsolete stuff even now, after it's been proved that the Z army is sh*t and when the Ukrainians destroy military air bases, munition depots and railways in sacrosanct Crimea: "And given that the consequences of escalation could include a major war in Europe and possibly even nuclear annihilation, there is good reason for extra concern. www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine There is no escalation that Putin can do anymore. Putin is waging the war at the max possible escalation since 24 Feb 2022.

[@rcsverige]

I fundamentally disagree with Alexander here. The argument I would put forward is hypothetical in nature but nonetheless serves to illustrate Russia´s behaviour. Imagine that Canada or some geographically connected state to the US decides to abandon liberal democracy in favour the alternative. Say that China, it being the fastest growing superpower, creates an alliance of members on the basis of "defense". However this alliance has done things like bombed another country without international approval from an international institution which could present itself as not being really defensive. Canada views the beneficial relationship with China and decides to enter into its alliance at the dissaproval of the US. Now Canada can house Chinese militarized equipment on the border of the US. Do we seriously think that the US would NOT respond? We can also highlight the real world example of the Cuban missle crises where both the USSR and the US were in an arms race. The US had put missiles on the border of the USSR and in response, the USSR did the same in Cuba... It was ok, to the US at least, that they have missile on the border of the USSR because every state should be allowed to self determine; it wasnt ok however, that the USSR do the same and in fact the US made a huge fuss about it... eventually it sizzled down and we avoided a serious catastrophe. The point is, Russia isnt this state disimilar from the US... In fact, provided similar circumstance, as pointed out in the hypothetical scenario, the US is likely to act in a similar capacity when it feels it is in direct threat to external entitites. Even if you argue from the "well putin wants to maintain power as an autocrat" you still find yourself in a realist scenario where achieving those ends would have to entail the engagement of power politics. So no matter the scenario, Putin is engaging in power politics whether it is meant to protect the state, his status, or some other interest. I think a lot of people deflect the expalantory power of realism in international relations because they want Putin to seem like this otherwordly person who is bent on destruction rather than just being another state engaging with other states in the international arena without any higher authority. Additionally, mentioning the Maidan without acknowledging the phone conversations with Victoria Nuland tries to frame it as an act that occurred naturally rather than being backed by the hegemon. Id imagine if Russia backed a coup in Canada, then the US would view that as an external threat also.... He also ignores how the US has fundamentally broken the "rules based system" on numerous occassions yet it doesnt receive the same backlash as Russia has despite Russia not nearly being as aggressive internationally. The US was behind Kosovo, Syria, Libya, several regions in Africa, the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and on and on the list goes... yet somehow Russia is the worst of them all. Im sorry but I cannot buy what the arguments put forward by Alexander.

[@moonrakingmilksop]

This is a well constructed argument. It is unfortunate that at best it is based upon false assumptions and prejudices. It is a description of a world that doesn't exist. I'd be interested to hear what you believe now, thirteen months after you posted this argument. How do you feel about the stability of the NATO alliance, the EU solidarity, the stability of European governments, the motivation of the US, the position of the world outside the West on this war and Russia's prospects?

[@mohamedpenelope8109]

Half truth is equally or more dangerous as the outlie lies

[@briarboy11]

outright lies, you mean.

[@carlossaraiva8213]

Goebbles said as much, but in his case as a nazi he saw that as a good thing.

[@abdel57quaddi80]

Ukrane has attaked russians first 😅

[@deankravos9275]

Totaly agree

[@genelarson6849]

​@@abdel57quaddi80pure bullshit Russia annexed crimea in 2014 the Ukrainian army was too weak at the time. ask yourself why would Ukraine endeavor to join NATO

[@gottfriedmathis7356]

And what is it about US aggression around the world since the Second World War?

[@marinasmith4772]

Good point. American aggression is always in the spirit of spreading democracy and freedom. I don't see it unfortunately. Putin probably felt the walls closing in on Russia and the US controls NATO so i think his strategy was the best defense is a good offense. I wish there was more compromise in an effort to end the war. Give a portion of eastern Ukraine to Russia? Commitment for Ukraine to remain sovereign and agree not to join NATO?

[@MrThatwasepic]

What about the US? This video is about Russia?

[@skdfdjkdfjkd]

USA did bad stuff, so Russia can do bad stuff? Someone killed someone on the street so I can do it too? 😵‍💫

[@nosrac19]

​@@MrThatwasepic no, this video is about the thesis of mearsheimer that the US involvement/aggression/ whatever is a reason of this war an stupp is trying to counter his argument. So the question about the us involment and what price (for them ore for others) they are willing to accept to reach their goals is right in this context.

[@robertorovida2108]

Well, I watched "The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war. A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer". By the way it is also interesting to learn that Florence, in my country, is the place of "The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies". I promise I'll watch this video on the five arguments "Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine" again, in order to single out some points for discussion in a future editing of this comment of mine. However just to give you my first impression, the thesis of John Mearsheimer seems to be more logically convincing, than the five points explained in this video. P.S.and disclaimer: I like Alexander Stubb's crystal clarity of the language and his logical flow of thoughts and the way he presents his lecture, even more than John Mearsheimer's. So when I say that John Mearsheimer's thesis appears to me as more convincing, it is not a question of emotional liking of the person, or of the presentation, but just the evaluation of the sheer concepts.

[@artinvartanian4631]

I knew it was going to be all BS from the first few minutes.

[@sirlancair]

If anyone pays attention ...Mearsheumer is absolutely on point. His argument is apolitical, logical and as free from emotional bias as I have heard.

[@ngkeam9491]

@robertoro- glad to notice some readers having an antagonistic views! talking head reiterates that NATO is a peace-loving nation of defense rather than offense? guess there are lots of cynics of what he claims here! after the cold war, no requisition for NATO to exist, yet it is reluctant to dissolve, after breakup of Russia, it poses no threats to EU. NATO joins US in its offense against Iraq and Libya, its conspicuous proof that NATO is belligerent, self-absorbed with its own agendas, yet this talking head is in straight denial! recalling the Cuba crisis during the '60, US considers Russia setting up a missile base in Pig's Bay is provocative and belligerent, yet this detractor disavows its not a provocation for Ukraine to attack Eastern region of Donetsk, appear he is double speak on this context. add oil.....

[@carlosandresmojicasanabria1272]

his guy was wrong at least in 2 things, 1. Putin doesn´t hate the West. He was trying so hard to integrated more with the European Union, and even makes an intention to Join Nato in Bush Administration (something that Lt. Colonell Wilkinson who works in the D.O.D. by that time has confirmed in the past) even a former president of my country, Juan Manuel Santos Knows personally Putin, and talked about the future of Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. So This Guy, ¿what Putin did he says he Know? The second One, is where he is talking about his familiar Trauma of his GrandParents in Carellia, ¿why do you talk about your personal and familiar hate with the Russians, and still talking about Russia is the 100% guilty at all? at least, save your personal traumas in order people doesnt get you are on a Bias.

[@carlosmarcelovellosowendt4598]

Mearsheimer more logically convincing? At one time, when he wants to excuse Russia, he says it would be under an existencial threat if Ukraine joined NATO. Then, when his point is convincing that Ukraine has no chance to win (and it should just give up and try a compromisse by delivering territories and signing some promisse of never joing NATO and EU), he goes all the way on "Russia is unbeatable, cause they got nukes, infinite ammo and personnel and can weaponize gás supply. Wait a minute: if this country is that invincible, how can it have felt an existential threat?

[@umairahmed2459]

What a joke NATO never attacked another country? just to name some: yogoslovakia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

[@Azdroc96]

"yogoslovakia"

[@donaldfarris2952]

Seems your discarding all references to The Cuban Crises

[@davidwestwater2219]

American actions in Syria had nothing to do with liberal democracy and everything to do with stopping arms flows to the Palestinians that were being done by Syria. We use democracy as a convenient label but when it's inconvenient like in Egypt we are more than happy to get rid of it.

[@MyPetrushka]

Again, you are partly right, but bringing in this false argument about the Palestinians is simply wrong. Syria is, has been one of the blocks in the destroying-destabilizing approaches to the Middle East by this regime called Israel. They have been instrumental in all the wars in the Middle East for the pure purpose of weakening the countries around them. Syria's crime was defending the Palestinians and was not prostituting itself to the U.S. like Morocco, Jordan and Egypt.

[@harryhatter2962]

ACTUALLY DAVID US actions in Syria did NOT inlcude trying to grind down the average citizen to subject them to a dictarorial government - some the Russians tried to prop up!

[@meatrealwishes]

We do provide help to those who want democracy while russia's policy is to support dictators.

[@valentineezegwu9668]

Exactly, when will these guys learn they are none the wiser?

[@saffrontimpani9605]

Now let's see, US partners are also Japan, Europe, UK, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland etc. Whereas Russia's allies are North Korea, China, Iran, Belarussia etc. China and Russia vetoed a UN resolution to condemn the coup in Myanmar.

[@perryblanco1446]

Thank you for presenting your own view. There is no need to rectify Mearsheimer's, as just like you, he is entitled to present his own view. When I put the two of you side by side, he is more logical and convincing.

[@oleeb]

Prof. Stubb completely misrepresents Mearsheimer's thesis from the start. Mearsheimer never said "Russia couldn't help itself". What he has consistently said is that Russia felt threatened by the expansion of NATO on its doorstep and that it stands to reason at some point, after repeatedly warning the US that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, Russia ultimately invaded Ukraine. That makes perfect sense. And there's no question that the United States was pushing the expansion of NATO to Ukraine which still continues. Mearsheimer has consistently said that ultimately, Russia's invasion was predictable because they view an additional NATO member on their border as a security threat which is perfectly rational just as we in the US would consider a military alliance with Canada or Mexico or any nation in the western hemisphere as a security threat to America. Any Russian leader would come to the same conclusion. Putin's personal beliefs are not the key to understanding why Russia has taken this action. Mearsheimer has never said that the Russian invasion was justified. The opposite is true. Mearsheimer has said he thinks the invasion was wrong, a mistake and also unwise despite being predictable. Prof. Stubb is creating a straw man here by misrepresenting Mearsheimer's very clear, very cogent and very reasonable conclusions about what led to the war. The US kept pushing the Russians (not just Putin: this was never about Putin no matter how much Prof. Stubb wants to focus on personality over what the entire Russian foreign policy establishment believes). By pretending this is all nothing but Putin's dictatorial personality is unrealistic, ignores the objective facts and is an argument that allows people who want to personalize everything like Prof. Stubb to pretend that states don't have permanent interests that any government led by any personality would try and protect. Unlike Stubb, Mearsheimer acknowledges that the state of Russia has interests that exist independent of Putin's personality. He never says Putin's personality plays no role, but he does accurately point out that his personality is not the primary reason he unwisely chose to invade Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine is intended to destroy the value of Ukraine to the west and seize more Ukrainian territory that is occupied primarily by Russian speakers in order to create a larger buffer between Russia and the west. It is self evident that the US' aggressive pursuit of the expansion of NATO was provocative and it is no surprise that by overthrowing the Russian friendly elected government in 2014 and installing a US friendly government that the US was daring the Russians to defend their interests. The US support for overthrowing the Ukraine government was not disguised. Everyone knows the central role the US played in getting rid of the former government by violent means led in large part by the followers of Bandera. Likewise, it is no secret at all that many in the US government wanted this war in order to harm Russia in the long term. Likewise, the Georgian war vs Russia was in part provoked by George Bush's empty promises to defend Georgia so Georgia was more contentious in its relations with Russia but the US had no intention of defending Georgia's hostile moves to Russia.

[@ShakaCthulu]

Explain this then, written in 1993, six years before there was any “NATO expansion” for him to blame: “Most western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea. President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake. A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons” - John J. Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66

[@mafijatom3828]

I'm waiting for his speech on the Solomon islands having such freedom to choose an alliance with China instead of the West. I'm sure it will never come.

[@susannamarker2582]

You're right. It won't.

[@HensonGeorge2]

How do you feel about the US invasion of Iraq, et. al

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

I feel the Kuweiti people were very happy that Iraq was kicked out of their country I am sad that the USSR invaded Finland, Estonia, Lavtia, Lithuania, Iran twice, Afghanistan, Hungary in 1956, Chechoslovakia a bit later

[@a55tech]

no response bc according to this professor nato ain’t never invaded nobody

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

@@a55tech please point out ONE square mile of territory annexed by a NATO member during a NATO invasion.... Russia is not just invading Ukraine but also ANNEXING their territory. Try to deny the Crimea annexation. No. No. I said no! I did not ask for a justification! I only asked you to deny Russia has annexed Crimea

[@a55tech]

@@sjonnieplayfull5859 bro I will give u 1 shot to show that u not a troll. Annexation of Crimea is a simple fact that nobody denies. But if u stop there then u kinda naive. Do u know how Crimea was ever part of Ukraine? And more importantly, the question is about attack not just annex. NATO knows how to annex without officially annexing. It's not black and white. U think NATO members are as independent as non-NATO? Not quite. But it fools those who don't pay much attention to international relations.

[@sjonnieplayfull5859]

@@a55tech truth does not scare me, but if that surprises you, then you misjudged me. The simple truth is that it was gifted, as a gesture of good will from Nikita Chrustev to Ukraine, maybe because of the Holodomor that happened under Stalin who ruled right before him, and maybe due to his Ukrainian wife. But whatever the reason, a gift is not a loan... And if you want to claim it was still part of Russia, then why did Pravda wrote this: "Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic." Either they spoke the pravda and it was a gift that could not be taken back, let alone violently, or they were just printing as they were told and are likely to do the same today If gifts can be taken back, then might I take back violently the knowledge that modernized the Russian fleet under Peter the Great? Sure, Russia build more on those foundations, just like Ukraine build more in Crimea on Russian foundations. You took back the Russian foundation plus everything the Ukrainians build on it, so we would like the entire Russian fleet that was build on tje foundations we laid for you. You can sail them into any Dutch port. You got one thing right: Nato countries are not as free as other countries. Take Poland for example: if they had not beem Nato, they would have sent their airforce and army into Ukraine months ago. Good luck explaining Nato holding back Poland as agression....

[@robertvanslooten9475]

I doubt the healthy sense of this man.

[@AbzScotland]

Alexander forgot to mention his bias.

[@cosmopolitanbay9508]

15 mins into the vid. All points made are easily rebutted. I was expecting more from this speaker. He nicely sums up the basic points of MSM.

[@christianevanherck6023]

You should provide an argument, if you have one.

[@squid11160]

@@christianevanherck6023 Just go watch the Mearshimers lecture as this was an attempt at a counter. An attempt that fell flat on its face

[@christianevanherck6023]

@@squid11160 I'm definitely not buying Mearsheimer's attempt at pleasing Putin and his cronies.

[@7ebr830]

👍👍

[@MelGibsonFan]

@@squid11160 Should be easy for the OP. But evidently not. Mearsheimer’s not even an anti interventionist, he thinks we need to ally with Russia to posture against China.

[@vbanks1956]

this is about the third leg of the Monroe doctrine as its applied to the russian state REMEMBER the US threatened hostilities when this happened in Cuba

[@skdfdjkdfjkd]

the US didn't invade Cuba though..

[@andyjackson2901]

Yes they did. They armed and trained Cuban “dissidents” to attack cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and had the CIA fly air support for them. It failed miserably and was the very reason why Kruschev agreed to provide Castro with nuclear missiles.

[@skdfdjkdfjkd]

@@andyjackson2901 No. That wasn't a full scale invasion like this. Kennedy didn't support them ..

[@WangAiHua]

No! It was the Soviets that actually PUT missiles in Cuba (which was an ally of the Soviet Union) NO one put missiles in Ukraine!----Besides now the technology is much better---it is not necessary to have missiles right next door! Don't forget the RuZZians lie, lie, lie! The attack on Ukraine was planned well in advance. I am certain that they had planned to attack once the North Stream2 pipeline was completed (it need not have been in use, only operational) just in case Ukraine were to destroy its pipeline to Europe. Putler got his army in place but because the North Stream2 pipeline was delayed Putler postponed the strike till 2022 just after the completion of the pipeline!

[@ngkeam9491]

@vbank- third leg. third pillar?

[@zafarBaccha]

Listen to this guy west my 30 minutes

[@lechuck312]

Saying that Russia was the aggressor in Georgia is a bit rich. Even OSCE reports claimed otherwise. Now of course the narrative is absolutely different. Saakashvili thought he could have his own special military operation in rebel regions and hoped for US military support but I guess he misinterpreted their promises

[@asiamontecristo]

Please can you conduct your analysis looking at USA?

[@omglolbbqftw]

Yeah let's all look at Russia now, when Russia is an aggressor committing war crimes invading a country it wants to control, that just wants to be independent. Just like we looked at America when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We really did. We looked at them hard, talked about them HARD, do you not even remember? Do you not remember even the "MSM" that you hate being on the US like wasps every single day, every single outlet? Now it is Russia's turn, as they are an aggressor in a "conflict".

[@lewispeaks1518]

Yes

[@yustinusbona8087]

Then it's OK for China and Russia to open their military base in Cuba, right ?

[@Kokozaftran]

What stupid equivalence.

[@yustinusbona8087]

@@Kokozaftran then what is smart equivalence like ? Saying stupid without giving counter argument is the true definition of stupid.

[@scaleyback217]

@Jon Little Gets my vote.

[@thomasromanelli2561]

No, it's not. For the same reason that it is not OK for NATO or the US to station nuclear weapons in Poland or the Baltic states. Please don't compare apples and oranges, in so far as trying to oversimplify the strategic implications between nuclear rivals. If is wasn't OK for Cuba to host missiles in the 1960s, it's not OK now. The time may come in the near future when the PLAN conducts its own FNOS ops off the Jersey shore within sight of the Statue of Liberty. That naval group will be closely shadowed by US assets (both USN and USCG), as is prudent and is exactly what China does now when US DDGs traverse the Taiwan Straight. Opening a fully operational PLAN military/naval/special ops base some 90 miles from Miami? Completely different. The US supports Taiwan- but we don't have a military base of any kind there for the same reason.

[@scaleyback217]

@@thomasromanelli2561 Russia deployed their nuclear weapons in Poland! Poland has asked for the US to base nuclear weapons on Polish soil. The only difference there is that in the former Poland had no say in the matter in the latter it is Poland asking for US weapons to be deployed there.

[@joannag.]

Everything what he said resonates to me as a Pole (knowing people who were raped by Russians, living in a city being looted by Russians is not helping to change that standpoint).

[@beyondrecall9446]

12:34 Wait, brother, hold on there... Not that everything is based on falsehoods and fabrication, but this.. this one wins . Total win

[@SonicLeute]

Now apply the same line of thinking on Iraqi invasion and tell me to what conclusions you came.

[@TheHighlanderprime]

Your trying to make false equivalences between two wars with differing goals, you’re comparing a cherry to a watermelon. You’re also using false whataboutism and finger pointing as you ignore the immediate tragedy at hand. I oppose wars including the Bush administration’s. But even his bad administration did not aim on stealing Iraq and occupy it as America’s new territory. America went in to support an Iraqi democratic opposition to oust Saddam’s brutal and sadistic reign; and the US left when asked to … Unfortunately, Iraq was so corrupt and volatile, it would have always been choosing between two evils. New elected administrations in the US would learn from Bush’s mistakes in the Iraq war and not repeat it … Russians don’t have the luxury to vote in a new administration. They’re stuck with a corrupt dictator bent on world domination just like Adolf Hitler was. His aim in Ukraine is to destroy, terrorize and occupy the country in the name of expansionism… That’s the fundamental difference between the two wars. So it’s intellectually dishonest to bring up wars that attempted to bring democracy as opposed to wars that aimed for hostile take overs.

[@cl4re4d4ms]

Whatever the conclusion, that would have zero relevance to Ukraine.

[@purity_control]

Zero relevance regarding Ukraine. But that was a nicely framed and decorated way to do some whataboutism ;-)

[@TheDynamicmarket]

@@cl4re4d4ms if a group of people in a society stops following the rules, the rest of the society will do that too. rules have changed and preemptive invasions are ok now for everybody.

[@cl4re4d4ms]

@@TheDynamicmarket So you are using phoney logic to justify indiscriminate killing - sounds like you are just a massive hypocrite and you probably don’t give a shit about the death of anyone. You are just a fascist barbarian.

[@ahyaok100]

The reason Putin has respected Finland's boarders is very simple: Finland has learned very well from Stalin's invasion to never to trust Russia and as a result armed themselves to the teeth.

[@johanpetersson2547]

30 likes? And you mention stalin, You do know that Finland joined the nazis in the invation of Russia? Stalin as you say did not go to war with finland. Finland exist because he agreed to peace with finland when the Russians started to push the nazis back to berlin.

[@ahyaok100]

@@johanpetersson2547 You failed to mention that Finland aligned with the Nazi's to win back land that was lost to Russia but no further. Even so they acknowledged it as a mistake and fought the Nazi's too. Context is important. Stalin was an imperialist dictator like Putin and killed more people than Hitler not to excuse Hitler of course..

[@user-qf7tk2cw1g]

Putin respected Finland's borders because he has no any interest to violate the Finnish border. As simple as that. Just like Putin has no any interest to violate the Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan border.

[@ahyaok100]

@@user-qf7tk2cw1g And no one had any interest to violate Russia's border. Dictators like Putin lie to scare their people. That's what they do.

[@UppedOne]

That's wrong reasoning and romantic oriented thinking. Finland has never been seen as an unstable post-Soviet regime stealing Russian gas from pipes and trying to Euro-integrate (I don't have a problem with that, but the Russians think that it's a problem, and if they think it's a problem, then it's a problem). Also, Finland does not have a pro-Russian community that could be used as a leverage to counter the EU's expansion to the East which Russian elites consider to be a threat. Finland is a good partner for Russia, but Ukraine has never been one.

[@abc124420]

Thank you for uploading this video. Having Listned to Mershmeimer, I had certain doubts if he was right or not. You cleared all the doubts. After listening to you, it becomes very clear that Mershmeimer was and is right. This war is indeed a product of the brains of the Elits of the western countries i.e. people like you. I am sure Foreign Ministers of UK, USA, Germany, France must be thinking like you only which led to this war.

[@moonrakingmilksop]

Well, I'm certain those leaders did try to present themselves as thinking like this. They probably entertained different thoughts and closed conversations about world domination. But they fooled this yokel. He's got years and years of education. My father never finished grade 10 and he pegged down what was the real game here in the midst of the Maiden Coup. Just goes to show that extended eduction is no guarantee to developing clear, critical thinking. I'm certain Western leaders are now thinking somthing along the lines of, "How the hell do we get out of this now!?!" The Russians are beyond my influence and appear more than capable of walking the thin line that migjt see humanity survive this debacle. We in the West, "we" who are the vast majority in the West, need to be on alert and ready to react coherently for whatever our so called "leaders" are going to do with us once they withdraw from conflict. They're still advancing the "you will own nothing and be happy" domination plans to subjugate their domestic populations. It's also unfortunate that the "free market, profit driven capitalist" plague has infected near all the world's human societies. It's what led to "own nothing - be happy with it" and the Ukraine conflict. But without a challenge nothing reaches for the sky, I suppose.

[@carlosandresmojicasanabria1272]

his guy was wrong at least in 2 things, 1. Putin doesn´t hate the West. He was trying so hard to integrated more with the European Union, and even makes an intention to Join Nato in Bush Administration (something that Lt. Colonell Wilkinson who works in the D.O.D. by that time has confirmed in the past) even a former president of my country, Juan Manuel Santos Knows personally Putin, and talked about the future of Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. So This Guy, ¿what Putin did he says he Know? The second One, is where he is talking about his familiar Trauma of his GrandParents in Carellia, ¿why do you talk about your personal and familiar hate with the Russians, and still talking about Russia is the 100% guilty at all? at least, save your personal traumas in order people doesnt get you are on a Bias.

[@joem0088]

As a result Russia has change 300y of West looking foreign policy to now East looking. Well done. Either China paid big bribes to European elites to do that or they did as free service to China. Either way China owes Western elites a big thanks 😅😅🤣😂

[@nicholasconnolly2227]

you are entitled to your view; Vladimir.

[@joem0088]

@@nicholasconnolly2227 Stubb is no intellectual. History will remember Mearsheimer. Nobody will remember Stubb.

[@apexxxx10]

*Kiitos. Hyvä esitys! John K. Lindgren. Born in Suomi-Finland. Resident in THAILAND*

[@kaan9876]

1st argument: "I believe that Russia is an imperialist, revisionist, aggressive state". Its hard to argue with such a based "argumentation". I would even go so far to say impossible. As impossible, as tolerating competency level of modern decision makers in USA and, especially, EU. I'm genuinely sad for the amount of troubles regular people are and wll be forced to deal with because of it. The best proof of someone's competence is the predictive ability of his or her statements and views. Prof. Measheimer was exceptionally close, and much closer than anyone else in 2014, to complete and detailed prediction of the situation we can all witness now. Comparing arguments like those of the narrator, to prof. Measheimer's lectures is the one of the best ways to illustrate the process of degradation of the institutes of power and state funded media in Global West. Honestly, if there would be a single "independant" TV channel, Mearsheimer would have to be their most requested guest for politics related themes since February 24th.

[@user-wm5rt9pw5l]

The only thing I see here is the degradation of the judgments of people like you under the influence of Russian propaganda and the thoughts of useful idiots. You can be offended by these words, be offended. But how else to characterize your comment in light of the following contradictions? Russia for the first time since World War II annexed the territory of another state in Europe - not aggressive. The Russian leader consistently denies the existence of a nation in a neighboring country, denying its subjectivity and the right to self-determination outside the Russian state - not imperialistic. The Russian leader claims that the neighboring state is part of "historical Russia" and has always been part of larger Russian states - not revanchist.

[@FragLord]

This is the classic debate between the realist and the liberalist perspective of international relations. Mearsheimer is looking at it from the realist, international system structure perspective and how anarchy and the balance of power, etc. makes countries react for their own surivival. Stubb's perspective looks at the issue from a liberal perspective looking at the characteristics of the country and the individual. Every debate of international relations has been like that for years.

[@fabiaf3814]

@@FragLord Maersheimer is 100% imperialist, surely he understands Russia. USA isn't a dictatorship, people with various opinions are living and debating there, something that isn't possible in Russia right now. You can't justify a war with geopolitical arguments, when the state you're defending keeps putting people in jail for holding up blank signs.

[@FragLord]

@@fabiaf3814 I completely agree with you. People in the west don't realize how good they have it and they need to start standing up for their values. Appeasing Putin will have the same affect as the appeasement of Hitler. It will only fuel him, his military, his boldness and his expansionism. Time for the west to stand up to these authoritarian regimes. If you want to trade with the west, you have to respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to protest, democracy and preferably don't lock up, kill or poison opposition leaders. If you don't do this, then sell your crappy bullshit elsewhere.

[@7ebr830]

@Ka An Well put. 👍

[@drunkdrftr]

What would happen if russia puts bases and missiles in cuba? The exact same thing russia is doing now….

[@Strusprawa]

Russia isn't empire anymore and never will be

[@TheMajortanner]

You seem to be suggesting the US invade Cuba just like Putin invaded Ukraine?

[@drunkdrftr]

@@TheMajortanner exactly, and sanction cuba and embargo cuba with ships

[@drunkdrftr]

@@TheMajortanner nearly had a nuclear holocaust due to cuban missile crisis

[@TheMajortanner]

@@drunkdrftr That was 60 years ago. The WAR on Ukraine is happening now.

[@pleasemisguideme345]

I would like Mearshiemer to debate anyone that can oppose him on this. Because he would get destroyed and his relevance in the world is tied to this lie.

[@thomasrice9102]

22 min video boiled down to 1 word. YES

[@jenniferabel2811]

I'm just two points in, but I'm shocked by the weakness of these first counter-arguments.

[@user-yg2ob2sh4t]

Yeah, go ahead and keep your blindfolds on and keep on believing your lies. All of your arguments don't hold water.

[@kentriat2426]

I agree with you. The presentation was of how the white washed view of western democracy wants to be presented. It was I will admit going well up until about 1980 when suddenly graft and corruption took hold of the USA and democracy on individuals views disappeared and overt and covert means of control were introduced by the west as it tried to control the world via its control over world finances.

[@Birdylockso]

Did he say NATO never attacked any country? What about Kosovo? (I'm in John's camp, but could pivot to Alexander's) On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commenced air strikes against Yugoslavia with the bombing of Serbian military positions in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Secondly, what does Alexander think of the US meddling in Ukraine's politics and its role in the Orange Revolution? (This is an interesting debate).

[@winforyou4630]

A very valuable perspective and thank you for the clip. I do feel that you are defending your nation, as you should, and its position. There are many other countries that never had your fotunate outcome of keeping its sovereignty and citizens intact. But I do appreciate the perspectives you have added to my novice understanding of the situation in Ukraine. I will go listen to the references you have provided. Thank you.

[@pablox352]

So first 2 minutes he already spent one of themsaying "my opinion is good because of my experience and the fact that I met Putin in person"...

[@pablox352]

Damn it is so hard to watch! He justifies everything psychologically, then sais any free nation can join any club, forgetting the little soviet cuban missile crisis... B*** please

[@kuthulakhuluse4962]

I am actually disappointed because I think most of the arguments points are weakly presented. The argument points are too simplistic, sometimes false and they don’t take into consideration geopolitical issues. There are always two sides of the story, the truth in between and unfortunately it’s usually silent.

[@mikeandersson7962]

I agree. Stubb's exlanation is simplyfied version or i call it as white wash version of the crisis. Finnish are mostly honor (they like to talk alot about rules of law and they really are commited to obey the law or rules), but they also are very gullible people. Finnish can be rules obeyers, but american doesn't. Geopolitic is real and Superpowers play it all the time. Stubb is an idealistic. He simply doesn't well know what Superpowers do at their back.

[@mikeandersson7962]

@Bad Example , first of all russia is not declining, its america who is going to. EU is not a big deal for russia, because its a economic union. In fact its benefits for the russia, because russia needs a sustainable neighbours and who can be their energy consumers (like finland). But Nato is defferent. For the russian point of view Nato is a military block. U can ask from any global leaders ( except the western leaders), Nato is not a defend allience. Also stubb think china can't back up the russia because of their tradepartnership with the west, well he was wrong. The chinese choose the russian, not the west. Because russian are more sustainable and reliable than the flip flop-policy western and the arragont attitudes with their double standard when its about the trust.

[@kuthulakhuluse4962]

@. Bad Example The truth is missing because the stories from both sides are known. It’s untrue tha Russia has not complained about NATO expansion in the past and sadly Ukraine is suffering. In an ideal world countries like Ukraine and Cuba make decisions freely and don’t have to worry about geopolitical interest of the US(not NATO because we all know who controls NATO)and Russia but in the real world geopolitical interest of those two countries always takes precedence. It’s actually wise to remain neutral, less chances of nuclear weapons facings your country. Sadly in the near future China will be a factor too, geopolitics again of the powerful.

[@mikeandersson7962]

@ROFL , i agree. If Putin really wanted ukraine back to russian empire, he could done it for long time ago, way before the maiden crisis.

[@mikeandersson7962]

@@kuthulakhuluse4962 , not only china is the future superpower, also india and many countries. So is USA and Nato tries to stop them all?

[@JohnSmith-cs4sk]

Might be a petty point of contention, but when he talks about Putin's ambitions and ideological aims he says to 'read Stalin'. Pretty emotive point, but arguably meaningless. If his point is that Putin wants to continue the ML tradition of Soviet leaders like Stalin then he would recommend reading Lenin, in that Stalin was hardly a scholar and like Mao considered himself a student of Lenin. More generally, the point that Putin is a continuation of Soviet policies under Stalin is demonstrably false in every possible measure.

[@martinborgen]

I'm generally of a similar mind, but I find these arguments somewhat underwhelming. While it has some merit to say "believe me" when you actually were there, offeing no elaboration on that argument is not very convincing.

[@shahlaaghdaie3903]

Since when has NATO become a Club?

[@acidsurfers]

Since day one…

[@mplapp1908]

You are right about NATO taking on a different role after 1991- but its new role was not peacekeeping. Its new role was acting as the business end of US imperial ambitions, to facilitate regime changes that the US felt were desirable. Witness NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya… If you see NATO as the good guys you are hopelessly myopic and obviously don’t care much about all the millions (yes millions) of lives lost or ruined by US interventions.

[@billbogg3857]

They were not NATO forces. They were the US + a few willing allies. NATO is a defensive alliance of some 30 member nations. Like the UN they must have the consent of all which largely prevents aggression.

[@istiaqmujibtafader]

Purported rule base world policy and NATO have performed the worst massacres through regime change and wars. So-called human rights laws are openly being flouted in the Abu Garib, Guantanamo and Afghanistan torture. NATO has been accomplice with the US. Propaganda makes a distorted fact truer.

[@billbogg3857]

@@istiaqmujibtafader They were not NATO wars. This is a NATO war and I would point out that NATO includes some Islamic countries.

[@billbogg3857]

The wars in Bosnia , Kosovo ,Herzegovina were NATO wars because they took place in Europe against an aggressor - Serbia. The leader of the Bosnian Serbs was indicted at the Hague Tribunal for war crimes. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were not NATO wars and certainly in the case of the last two could not be justified on moral or legal grounds as just wars. The war in Ukraine can be classified as a just war as there is an obvious aggressor.

[@stephendouglas4870]

@@billbogg3857 Which NATO members are Islamic?

[@JaneSoole]

How I agree with every word you say. Jane Soole (again but Feb 8, 2024).

[@surajdubey23]

"NATO is a peaceful alliance." - where were the people making this arguments when NATO was invading and destroying Middle Easter countries for 30 years and many other countries for many more years earlier before that? "The world needs to see rule of law and that big cannot rule over the small." - Again, where were these people when far-right extremism was prosecuting Russian minority in Ukraine for decades? Where were these people when NATO was destroying smaller countries world over and taking over their resources? "Putin sees himself as a global powerful Russian leader and the protector of Russian culture and values." - well that's simply protecting ones culture, values, and people. And ever wondered how Russians inside russia would perceive Putin if he can't even protect/ support the people who were literally Russians just a few decades ago? Would Americans/ NATO continue to back their leaders if they abandoned their core values? "The EU was doing business with Russia. Hence there was no malice on their part." Business is fot mutual economic and other benefits. They were not doing charity or any favor. At a time when oil prices were soaring, EU sought out an economic option to control energy costs. Pretty weak arguments by the presenter if you ask me.

[@FranzBieberkopf]

NATO as an entity deployed in Afghanistan-nowhere else in west Asia. Afghanistan is a long way from west Asia Britain and France (not NATO) intervened in Egypt in 1956. A few European countries took part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq-not NATO. You obviously don't understand NATO and what it does

[@kaisuski]

As Finns say " he is a wannabe American " and they dropped him.

[@ajisup]

A lot of the info in this video are just this man’s own beliefs and opinions. He has a very liberal mindset and ideology who thinks he knows what is right and wrong. But dont forget that your opinion of right and wrong might be different from someone else’s.

[@existentoneness]

Exactly 💯 We don't necessarily have to hear his beliefs, but the actuality of actions and reactions of decisions taken.

[@fabiaf3814]

I do not support his claims in NATO not being aggressive, but no whataboutism in this world will make any action of Russia less evil. No matter how evil NATO is, what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now is a new height of human disgrace in modern times.

[@MyPetrushka]

He is "liberal" in a very topsy turvy way. Maybe just biased.

[@suburbanyobbo9412]

@@fabiaf3814 Arguing that Mearsheimer’s perspective is whataboutism either demonstrates you don’t understand Mearsheimer or it illustrates you are being dishonest in a desperate attempt to misrepresent Mearsheimer.

[@odiferousmusky1299]

not only very liberal, but very neoliberal.

[@iijarvie]

That's a BBC article covering Russia opposition to Georgia and Ukraine joining Nato as a "red line", and a Nato press release 1 months later inviting Georgia and Ukraine to join. Interested to know your interpretation?

[@johnholt9975]

😅😅😅So, funny!

[@RR-sh6gr]

Considering Mearshiemer spoke on this subject years ago and the pieces of the puzzle he gave are playing out exactly how he said it would, says a lot about his insights. Hes been spot on.

[@brianmacker1288]

Plus the strawman version of Mearshiemer's argument left out the most important points. No mention of US interests, odds of nuclear escalation, comparisons to what the US will tolerate and has done, etc. Also no mention of Mearshiemer's preexisting arguments countering these 5 points. Of which none were addressed. Also at no point has Mearshiemer argued that "the Russians can't help themselves". Plus this video uses the term rational with a different meaning than normal. It doesn't mean moral or prescient. It means acting with a goal in mind with a specific understanding of reality. You can be wrong, immoral, and rational.

[@andrejsurdevics6476]

Mearscheimer has been wrong many times.

[@twangbarfly]

@@andrejsurdevics6476 Examples.

[@ThorSuzuki1]

He spoke about it after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbass? This war did not start in 2022.

[@andrejsurdevics6476]

And Russia invaded in 2014 when Russia's troops first entered Ukraine. Of course they were just Russian soldiers on leave.@@ThorSuzuki1

[@lephonz1]

Germany's energy dependence is due to the fact that it closed down its nuclear power stations.

[@multedyr5164]

Germany is paying Denmark not to produce wind energy, so that they can sell us energy. pushing energy prices up. The energy companies stand to make an 700% increase in profit. The state has now issued loans to the people, so they can pay for the increased prices on energy, despite them making the deals that created the spiked prices. Still windmills are turned off and have been all summer and Solar was only permitted to have a 60% output... Interesting no? And they say we do not have corruption.

[@morefiction3264]

Another bit of idealism over reality.

[@ralfg.9989]

And how abut France now desperately asking for electric power, since half of the nuclear stations had to be closed down, some others are missing water for coiling?

[@ubroc]

They did that in the good faith belief that Russia could be a reliable partner who would play by the rules. That would have been good for everyone. They took a risk and lost. But they took it with the best of intentions.

[@ralfg.9989]

@@ubroc And that faith was backed by the experience that throughout even the darkest time of cold war the deliveries of energy and raw materials were reliable. But now, after the western countries started an economic war as a response to the invasion of Ukraine Russia responded in the same manner - with an economic war, targeting where Europe is most vulnerable, the gas. Europe's and especially Germany's industrial base will shrink for sure as a consequence. That's the way sanctions backfire.

[@pida689]

Thank you very much, I don't trust too much in your angle of view. Probably as a politician you have to speak in so " politically correct" way, and surely you trust in it. Anyway, we don't want to deliver our lives to Putin reaction, nor to most of Western politician faulty and empty strategy, when they are going to push the whole Europe into a tragedy: instead of practising an healthy e really safety foreign policy it seems to me they HAVE NO- EXIT STRATEGY. I'll try to explain: you say at 8.40 , quote: "Every indipendent and sovereign nation state should have the freedom to choose which club it wants to join..." I should add " ....except for a military alliance that allows his membres to place rocket near your borders". U.S. agree with that (and me too) when we talk about Monroe lessons and Cuba crisis: why should it make any difference in the reverse case? Really I can't understand that. To my opinion U.S and Western countries should have push Ucrayne to become neutral as G Kennan and Kissinger thought about. Furthermore you say: Putin is imperialist and so on...probably it's right. But Mr.Mearsheimer distinguishes territorial conquering from the self- russian defense, and I think this is crucial, because the Russia's feelings and speeches about Nato enlargememt almost since 2008 is a basic fact (if you dont'want to run towards a war) and this was wellknown in Western countries, no matter the given assurances about Nato is not aggressive alliance (I can believe so, Putin doesn't and this - I repeat- is a FACT). Infact, when U.S. drove regime change in Ukrayne in 2014, U.S. should have known that this would have meant that Ukrayne would run towards an announced disaster, as we can see now. Did Finland live almost safety till today nevertheless Russia is his great neighboor? Perhaps thanks to reciprocal agreement about not including it in Nato. I hope strongly Finland continues to live in peace for ever and ever, but I'm afraid the whole Europe (and not only Finnish) is carrying out a terrific disaster to come. You say" the only place to blame is Kremlin and Russia " . I partially disagree with you, I would blame U.S. (and Europe) as well, and Biden is not a good president, because he pushes the conflict with Russia by criminalizing and ignoring Putin as soon as he was elected president USA long before February 24, 2022. You can say : I was there, I know Putin.... ok, I' m sure you know lot of things, I'm the perfect Nobody to say the opposite, but I strongly feel something is going terribly wrong nowadays..... Ask people bombed in Ukrayne if they desired to join Nato, if they're interested in this orribile competition with U.S. close to defend their international prestige and Putin killing civilians in Ukrayne. Only the Governments want war, not civilians, nor Ucraynian soldiers "forced" also by Western policies to defend their poor country. Sorry to disagree almost evertyhing you said.

[@coscinaippogrifo]

I have no knowledge on the matter and appreciate hearing different point of views, but I'm unsatisfied with some points he makes: 1) European idealism as the driver to search for energy dependency towards Russia? I don't think it makes logical sense. I think Russia supplying Europe with very cheap gas and allowing Europe to pay with their own currency, that I heard it allowed a loophole in Gov't finance as energy imports weren't counted as imports (or something similar, I don't remember) looks like a much more credible reason. 2) I am very surprised that historians cannot agree on what was told or not during a public meeting or conference. How can there be disagreement on something so trivial to verify, do I really have to go and check every single source at its origin? 3) Mearsheimer also said that the US was at least supporting, or helping, the orange revolution and the choice for democracy in Ukraine. Besides this doesn't necessarily look unethical, it is still an intrusion of some ways of a foreign country. I'm not saying I would oppose it, I would probably have approved it, but I think this aligns better with Dr Mearsheimer's points (if true). 4) To his NATO point, it looks fair to think that a general threat of democracy was the real driver for Putin. Again, I have no deep knowledge whatsoever, but I would love to see these points discussed.