I agree with you here when you look at the terrible record of the US, and also the UK, in the middle East. Geopolitics is a mess, but we are where we are and who is going to stop the narrative of enmity and war? Russia certainly is not ready to do so as demonstrated by its illegal invasion, on top of its other invasions in recent years.
Was that the biscuit that Russia offered him by sending troops into Ukraine for a "special operation". Perhaps he should not have taken the biscuit but just let Russia invade. Right up until the last minute Zelensky did not believe that Russia was planning the invasion.
It Is not enough to 'feel' threatened, there has to be some evidence that that threat is real. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia, especially not its borders, and there was no likelihood of Ukraine being given NATO membership. Ironically the invasion of Ukraine has made it more likely that countries bordering Russia will join NATO...and who can blame them. It is also possible that Putin needs to claim via his stranglehold on power and the internal media, that the West/NATO wants to somehow destroy Russia, to justify the war and maintain support for it to his people.
It is pointless for you to use the debate between Mearsheimer and Bildt as proof positive that you are correct as people who do not agree with you will equally say that Bildt was correct. It was a debate and both sides were describing their truth.
The five assumptions in the Hungary talk are interesting, with a lot of truth, but provide only an explanation of why geopolitics are a mess, and dangerous, rather than an explanation of how things can improved or what Russia/Ukraine/The West can do to resolve this current crisis.
I notice from that talk that in your post above you have virtually used Mearsheimer's words as your own about Russia not needing justification for its actions.
Regarding threat felt by Russia, please see my response to Stowie below. Regarding Zelensky taking the biscuit, with hindsight, if you were him, would you have picked military neutrality, or is what he decided to do still the right decision, or some better option you care to explain?
I don't use the Mearsheimer v Bildt debate as "proof" that I am correct - I am just a student of politics using what I learnt from intellects like him (to whom I have clearly attributed - but all mistakes are mine). I greatly welcome all cogent challenges - isn't this one purpose of a forum like this?
Glad you like the 5 assumptions. I think it is important not to confuse what has been since the beginning of mankind, with what we like it to be. I think our discourse of the mess (as you say, in geopolitics) is seriously distorted by refusing to seeing and saying what is. How can one have clear eyes for what is best under the circumstance, if one starts off with the wrong premise (e.g. ignoring system is anarchic with zero prospect of change in foreseeable future) and wrong measure of success (e.g. it's a battle of good vs evil and like all Disney cartoons good must prevail)?
It's bollocks. Unmitigated bollocks.
RecordAce is trying to use western intervention in Iraq/Afghanistan as justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, without realising that he has trapped himself in a contradiction. If western invasion of Iraq was wrong, then so is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The hypocrisy of the west is neither here nor there.
Rusty is quite correct in noting that if Russia is using NATO encroachment as justification then it has been self-defeating as Sweden and Finland are now seeking to expedite joining NATO. Equally, those former Eastern bloc countries who have already joined NATO will see Russia's actions as proof that their decisions were correct.
Goodness. You can be hard work.
I never said Western crimes justify Russian crimes - I have said in more ways than one that moral justification is nearly irrelevant in geopolitics - except by politicians or the press to enrol citizens to their cause (in both the East and West alike).
I disagree hypocrisy is neither here nor there when "supporters" like you insist one side good other side bad while spewing moralistic opinions, because you then become part of the problem that obfuscate truth and solutions.
I think, unlike Ukraine, modern Sweden and Finland aren't hostile to Russia, so their NATO membership and increased military expenditures are moot in Russian eyes. Chance is it will cause increased economic headwind for the two countries for zero benefit. A weak Russia can't be an imperialist Russia - that's the gist of Putin's reference re heart / brain on the passing of USSR (see below).
Let's assume that Putin's primary motivation for the Ukraine war is security of Russian borders. I don't believe this, and think it is much more to do with Putin's narcissistic desire for a legacy harking back to the USSR but it is worth considering this motivation.
Russia has a geographic problem on the western border and has done for centuries. Defending it is incredibly difficult and impossible for Russia with its poor infrastructure.
Occupation of Ukraine does nothing for Russian western border security. It would merely be a stepping stone to get to the countries that would provide geographic security.
To provide Russia with geographic security would take most of Eastern Europe and quite possibly a bit out of Western Europe as well. And it would have to be assumed that for Russia to be secure these areas would need to have administrations highly compliant and dependent upon Russia and Putin.
To give Russia a feeling of security would require approximately 180M people living under regimes similar to that in Belarus.
Stowie like you I don't believe it is just about Russian borders either.
Logically, if US, which has by far the most powerful military on earth, still needs to invade sovereign countries, sponsor colour revolutions, wage proxy wars, impose sanctions and corral others to contain "foes" on the other side of the planet, all partly if not wholly "for security", why do you struggle to find Russian justification, given they are weaker, so less "secure"? And why at the receiving end of a long hostile US, they wouldn't do likewise to squish a US armed and trained thorn on their side, also "for security"?
Have you been trying to find a legal and moral justification (and hence subconsciously imposing a standard they are bound to fail) for Russia's invasion? That's not useful for geopolitics, because it is anarchic.
Similarly, I think those who say Russia is weak (like you have), while believing Putin has imperial design (as you say) and therefore other Europeans are threatened if Russia is unprovoked should make up their mind which is true - what is obvious is such logically contradictory narratives do explain why all our foes must also be mad megalomaniacs. I also think it hard to reconcile someone who said "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brain." as a narcissistic expansionist (as you say you believe). A cornered beast more like, imho.
I hope you don't mind me saying this since you often write thoughtful posts, but don't comments such as yours illuminate how emotionally invested so many here are in this fight, that they have lost the ability to look at the situation objectively? Of course Russian invasion of its weaker neighbour is immoral, but isn't the country leading the fight against them the biggest, most murderous bully on earth? So how is this a fight of good vs evil, and why not consider the likelihood (voiced by numerous senior Western security officials for decades) that if the world's biggest bully had left the lesser bully alone, and ensured Ukraine staying neutral militarily, the devastation today would not have happened?
Regarding your latest post - I can't figure out from your train of thought whether you agree or disagree with me that the West can't let Ukraine "win". There was a superior Machiavellian possibility for the US - clue is China is a FAR stronger competitor than Russia. I have commented already re your belief of Russian imperialistic design. Regarding potential settlement, do try a thought experiment - if Minsk 1 or 2 had been fulfilled by Ukraine (i.e. not as a ruse by Ukraine signing them just to buy time as Merkel and Hollande said recently), would the war have happened?
I shan't be responding to blokes like Ship shape Dave - I found since very little that people who only play the man, not the ball are best ignored.
