Presumably the ardor for Greenland and the Panama Canal is part of the modern-day Spheres of Influence conception of international relations favored by Putin and now promoted stateside by The Party.
"I claim this arctic island and all its grateful inhabitants by the authority of the Marilyn Monroe Doctrine."
Trump is a waddling human turd, but… and this but is bigger than Trump’s…
One should read Mearsheimer on the topic. It’s a more complicated issue than the simplistic single idea flogged by everyone’s favorite news that’s fit to print.
I'm very familiar with Mearsheimer's views on this topic: He was a professor of mine in grad school, and we were friendly on a personal level despite agreeing on little-to-nothing. And I know that his career project is his theory of offensive realism, and he describes this conflict through that lens. But I frankly think that's a ridiculous warping of reality; Russia may see NATO as a looming threat -- I mean, to some extent they do -- but that doesn't mean that their fear is rational. Moreover, we don't have to accept whatever aggressive actions a country might take based on paranoid beliefs. There's a legitimate debate to be had about whether NATO should have expanded and when and how far, and you can approach that question from a moral perspective, a strategic perspective, or a 30,000-foot Grand Poly Sci Theory That Explains Everything perspective, but I think that when that discussion leads someone to conclude that it's fine for Country A to invade and annex Country B, that person's perception has become badly distorted.
I think Putin undervalues what Russian greatness could be. They have a lot of talent and resources. But in dating a Russian woman I hear the power of nationalism. She is very conflicted. She understands that Russia is oppressive to its people and others. But she also believes in a kind of great Russia vision and semi-supports Putin on this basis.
She really doesn’t like US criticism of Russia. It’s not so different than a white guy criticizing black culture in America. Blacks are going to circle the wagons. Russians do the same.
Definitely. You're right. I've run up against it. Dostoyevsky isn't what made Russia what it is. A weird hyper-nationalist bent insistent on Russia's greatness combined with self hating pathology is my lame attempt at describing it.
Thanks for responding rationally. No one including me said anything about approving of the invasion. I said it’s complicated, and you listed the complications and acted like a grown up by not calling me names or implying I’m Goebbels reincarnated like that other guy. Most folks are not even aware of the various arguments and counter arguments on the topic, which some mope probably recited to Trump, who liked it and now we got the POTUS promoting WWIII. This is why I rarely engage in internet comments section drivel. Even the guy that wrote the piece us folks are commenting on gets cranked. You know, this might be why no publication has written an article about your humor chops….just a thought.
I think "Russia had legitimate concerns about Ukraine getting into NATO and the West should have realized Russia would take steps to counter that" is a decent thesis.
But Russia already had done something about that. The multiple militarily-active border disputes would have kept Ukraine out until they were resolved.
Agreed. Thank you for engaging like a grown up and explaining a very important point...something the guy writing this column doesn't seem familiar with.
Jesus, shut the fuck up. You got the response you want, and you're still crying about how other people are mean to you on the internet. You sound like a giant fucking baby, and that's probably why people hate you.
Have you ever considered responding to his views directly here? I sometimes read him say something like "Russia is essentially implementing a version of the Monroe Doctrine" and don't know how to respond. Similarly, while I think Taiwan or Ukraine is a country and the "Dohnetsk People's Republic" is not, I don't have a strong argument for why that is. Mersheimer instead argues that all countries are made-up and that the difference between Ukraine/Taiwan and the DNR (or Catalonia, Khalistan, Palestine, the Confederacy, etc.)is that they've supported their claims of legitimacy with force (military or otherwise). That seems logically coherent and I'm not sure how to reject it except with some axiomatic statement that he is wrong.
Also, my understanding is that he thinks of moral considerations as orthogonal to strategic ones and that actors should be expected to make the strategic choice. So I wouldn't assume he thinks Country A invading Country B is morally "fine", just that it is what happens.
(Sorry, I don't really know how to make it funny. Ed Harris once starred in a movie where American helicopters invaded 1850s Nicaragua. It was meant to be post-modern critique of American imperialism, but ended up just destroying the career of the director. Maybe work that in?)
One additional thought... You've often lamented Dems inability to get traction in the current political shit fest and you've managed to illustrate and execute a few points you've previously criticized, to whit....
1. You not so subtly let us know your academic credentials by listing your grad school experience at an elite university to start the conversation, with the also not so subtle implication of superior understanding for having done so.
2. You self righteously imply that I, and apparently Mearsheimer advocate for aggression and war, completely mistating my or Mearsheimer's position on the matter. Neither of us advocated for anything. Mearscheimer explained how and why shit happens. Accept it or not, he's a guy a lot of assholes reference when they're pushing their points. Maybe I got that wrong, and with your experience with the guy, you could better explain it. But, explanation and achieving understanding is never the Dems approach; it's always...uh...the approach you've knee jerked to which is to shout down anyone talking and imply they're an asshole.
Just another thought... if you'd ever like a snowball's chance in Hell of having intelligent people win elections....or get your ass into print that would get you a humor gig. Maybe try engaging folks that are reading your column and trying to talk about it instead of knee jerking into the typical Dem response of shouting down any idea that's not immediately in lockstep with their own ideas.
Mentioning that you were personally taught by someone is a completely reasonable response to being asked about that person's work. And it's entirely justified to believe that someone that has worked personally with an academic has a thorough understanding of that academic.
If anything, you're the one appealing to academic authority! It's just that you're using someone else's. You've given no support for your view besides waving vaguely towards a professor and insisting that anyone that read him would agree with you. Well, someone has read him thoroughly and does not find the argument convincing. Ideally, you'd now explain why people should agree with Mearsheimer rather than just whining that people don't.
Maurer gives some specific examples of where he disagrees with his old professor (and presumably you). These include things like how much of a threat NATO poses to Russia and what a reasonable response to the perceived threat should be. He also seems to reject the basic premises that foreign policy should only be motivated by strategic concerns and that there's no value in assigning moral blame. Maybe explain why he should accept those premises?
Finally, if you're not advocating for anything, but then what are even saying? Everyone else (Maurer, Putin, Trump, other commenters) is advocating for some specific action by the US and muttering about cause (without explaining how that should affect what people are advocating for) is irrelevant and going to be met with hostility.
(and just as a side note: It's ridiculous that you complain about someone "starting a conversation" with something when they're replying to you directly. They're not starting the conversation if they're answering you!)
OK, shouted down isn't accurate, and it definitely wasn't precise.
To start, I didn't state a position or advocate for anything other than the idea Mearsheimer had opinions that were relevant, because they are. They may not be right, but a lot of other people apparently think so, and those other people are now in control of the levers of power. One might think that's something worthy of discussing. But....I think the specific language Dem response is (adopt sneering condescending attitude while saying)..."Yeah, no."
The first guy didn't address any aspect of what I was alluding to. He just lectured and implied anyone not in line with his thinking was a Kremlin operative.
The second guy...the guy writing the column...didn't address what I said and immediately cited his elite university academic credentials...great opener, Barack would be impressed. Mr. Author didn't even attempt to engage in conversation on why there might be ideas or political positions other than his own. Period.
Pretty much the definition of why Dems are in the political wilderness with not a clue on how to get out. You know, in a lot of ways, this piece was highly educational, and not at all in the manner the author intended.
You said that “one should read Mearsheimer on the topic.”
Jeff seemed to talk about his grad school experience as it was very directly relevant to the topic. That didn’t seem like a flex to show he went to a fancy school, it seemed like a way to demonstrate that he is familiar with the author through significant past contact.
He just simply disagrees with the framework that Mearscheimer using to assess this and other situations. That seems to be an actual direct attempt to engage with you.
There are plenty of arguments that I understand but fundamentally disagree with; something that I’m sure you experience as well.
My read of this is that you find Mearscheimers arguments quite convincing and seem to find other peoples rejection of them offensive. Your “Barack would be impressed” and mention of the dems serves to undercut your message. You don’t seem to me to be rationally discussing this in the way that you probably feel you are.
Everyone sees everything differently. That's why we're here.
To start, any discussion in a comments section is only tangentially rational. If you’re saying I thought his referencing of his academic credentials was bullshit, you are correct. It's bullshit. No one cares except other elite university alumni; it's the secret handshake, self-bestowing some appeal to authority. Fuck that.
Where did I say Mearsheimer's arguments are "convincing" and "other people's rejection offensive“...(?) Pure projection. I said, or implied, they're relevant. They are. Few in the world are even aware of them. They ought to be. It might provide understanding of other perspectives, which they do.
Last sentence...is why I don't normally engage in internet comments sections. Snide (small) attempt at the undercut. OK. It does make me feel good that someone out there understands how I "probably feel".
The guy writing an article puts himself out there for whatever comes at them; that's what writing is. In comments sections, it seems everyone is attempting to one-up anyone else voicing anything. I'm not an experienced comments section operator. I get it now.
You are a giant fucking baby. It's actually funny. You seriously sound like a giant sad sack of shit. No one fucking cares about your feelings, you loser.
By definition, if realpolitik permits Russia to invade her neighbor and rape the women and steal the children and terror bomb the hospitals- Great Powers doing what they do to Small Powers in their orbit- realpolitik also allows us to back a Small Powers to the hilt to throw a monkey wrench into a rival’s expansionism.
If you subscribe to a 17th century-style amorality of zero-sum statism when Russia attacks, but insist on post-modern pacifism when America sends tanks and javelins to a country playing defense, you can just go ahead and stop any pretense at intellectualism and admit bluntly that the propaganda of Moscow appeals to you personally.
I think you have neatly stated the reasons that the former Warsaw Pact countries sought membership in NATO as nothing more than an act of sovereign self-preservation.
The very phrasing of NATO expansion is misleading as it conjures an organization aggressively seeking out new members rather than the reality which is counties voluntarily applying for and going through the process of membership.
Even if he prevails in some way, shape or form in Ukraine, Putin has caused the neutral countries of Sweden and Finland to join NATO. And as a collateral consequence of Trump’s foreign policy, Western European rearmament will finally be happening.
It is unlikely that Ukraine will sign a peace treaty formally surrendering territory rather than an armistice. And who can say what might happen to Russia’s economy or Putin himself in the next few years.
Mearsheimer does not argue that the US is not "allowed" to support Ukraine or that NATO is not "allowed" to expand, but that it is a strategic mistake to do so. That's debatable but not hypocritical.
Also, why did you choose 17th century, an era mostly defined by religious conflict in Europe, as a reference for realpolitik? Usually people consider the 19th century, when the term was coined, as the example to use.
While I can’t speak for McJunker, I suspect he’s referencing the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Many see that as the beginning of the nation state and sovereignty doctrines and of the principle (even if honored in the breach, as the saying goes) of the prohibition of an outsider power interfering in another’s internal affairs.
I thought they might be referring to the 30 years war (ended by that treaty) which was a religious conflict but some countries fought against their coreligionists for strategic reasons. I'm sure that someone like Cardinal Richelieu did not have a moral issue with Catholicism being imposed in various German states, but thought fighting against that would weaken rivals and allow expansion.
I don't think it's incorrect, but an odd choice and I thought I might be missing something.
People are attacking you, but I agree that Mearsheimer's take is interesting. At the very least, the Minsk Agreements are looking more and more reasonable every day compared to what we ended up with.
Yeah, thanks. His take is interesting because there's a broad contingent that thinks it's right, and that contingent is now in power. Whether or not those in power are exercising good judgement in interpreting and/or applying those ideas (they're not) is another matter...which I thought might be an interesting conversation. I am not interested in establishing my own opinions; I am interested in finding out what other people think. What I am finding is they're not thinking.
I hate internet comments sections. I've spent a total of about 3 1/2 minutes on Xitter, and avoid most other stuff like it's weapons grade herpes. Someone told me Substack has good essays and intelligent conversation, and IMBW was a good place to start, and the guy is funny. OK. Sign me up. The last few days, it's more like he WAS funny, and is intent on alienating folks that might otherwise be amenable to getting on board with a better way to think about our political mess.
Norm McDonald was taken from us too early.
Her mistake was not doing it in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
If only President Trump hadn’t chosen us to be his constituents…
In a related story, Poland finally apologizes for starting World War II.
Finally, she admits it!
Presumably the ardor for Greenland and the Panama Canal is part of the modern-day Spheres of Influence conception of international relations favored by Putin and now promoted stateside by The Party.
"I claim this arctic island and all its grateful inhabitants by the authority of the Marilyn Monroe Doctrine."
Trump is a waddling human turd, but… and this but is bigger than Trump’s…
One should read Mearsheimer on the topic. It’s a more complicated issue than the simplistic single idea flogged by everyone’s favorite news that’s fit to print.
I'm very familiar with Mearsheimer's views on this topic: He was a professor of mine in grad school, and we were friendly on a personal level despite agreeing on little-to-nothing. And I know that his career project is his theory of offensive realism, and he describes this conflict through that lens. But I frankly think that's a ridiculous warping of reality; Russia may see NATO as a looming threat -- I mean, to some extent they do -- but that doesn't mean that their fear is rational. Moreover, we don't have to accept whatever aggressive actions a country might take based on paranoid beliefs. There's a legitimate debate to be had about whether NATO should have expanded and when and how far, and you can approach that question from a moral perspective, a strategic perspective, or a 30,000-foot Grand Poly Sci Theory That Explains Everything perspective, but I think that when that discussion leads someone to conclude that it's fine for Country A to invade and annex Country B, that person's perception has become badly distorted.
I think Putin undervalues what Russian greatness could be. They have a lot of talent and resources. But in dating a Russian woman I hear the power of nationalism. She is very conflicted. She understands that Russia is oppressive to its people and others. But she also believes in a kind of great Russia vision and semi-supports Putin on this basis.
She really doesn’t like US criticism of Russia. It’s not so different than a white guy criticizing black culture in America. Blacks are going to circle the wagons. Russians do the same.
She can self deport to Russia, and you can eat American pussy.
MAGA will be happy.
Your dick can feel patriotic
Your GF can rectum sniff and circle her wagons and around some chap named Igor.
Let's deport white unpatriotic ppl back to their genetic Eurotrash dustbin for a change.
Every one will be happy.
Definitely. You're right. I've run up against it. Dostoyevsky isn't what made Russia what it is. A weird hyper-nationalist bent insistent on Russia's greatness combined with self hating pathology is my lame attempt at describing it.
Thanks for responding rationally. No one including me said anything about approving of the invasion. I said it’s complicated, and you listed the complications and acted like a grown up by not calling me names or implying I’m Goebbels reincarnated like that other guy. Most folks are not even aware of the various arguments and counter arguments on the topic, which some mope probably recited to Trump, who liked it and now we got the POTUS promoting WWIII. This is why I rarely engage in internet comments section drivel. Even the guy that wrote the piece us folks are commenting on gets cranked. You know, this might be why no publication has written an article about your humor chops….just a thought.
I think "Russia had legitimate concerns about Ukraine getting into NATO and the West should have realized Russia would take steps to counter that" is a decent thesis.
But Russia already had done something about that. The multiple militarily-active border disputes would have kept Ukraine out until they were resolved.
Agreed. Thank you for engaging like a grown up and explaining a very important point...something the guy writing this column doesn't seem familiar with.
Jesus, shut the fuck up. You got the response you want, and you're still crying about how other people are mean to you on the internet. You sound like a giant fucking baby, and that's probably why people hate you.
Have you ever considered responding to his views directly here? I sometimes read him say something like "Russia is essentially implementing a version of the Monroe Doctrine" and don't know how to respond. Similarly, while I think Taiwan or Ukraine is a country and the "Dohnetsk People's Republic" is not, I don't have a strong argument for why that is. Mersheimer instead argues that all countries are made-up and that the difference between Ukraine/Taiwan and the DNR (or Catalonia, Khalistan, Palestine, the Confederacy, etc.)is that they've supported their claims of legitimacy with force (military or otherwise). That seems logically coherent and I'm not sure how to reject it except with some axiomatic statement that he is wrong.
Also, my understanding is that he thinks of moral considerations as orthogonal to strategic ones and that actors should be expected to make the strategic choice. So I wouldn't assume he thinks Country A invading Country B is morally "fine", just that it is what happens.
(Sorry, I don't really know how to make it funny. Ed Harris once starred in a movie where American helicopters invaded 1850s Nicaragua. It was meant to be post-modern critique of American imperialism, but ended up just destroying the career of the director. Maybe work that in?)
One additional thought... You've often lamented Dems inability to get traction in the current political shit fest and you've managed to illustrate and execute a few points you've previously criticized, to whit....
1. You not so subtly let us know your academic credentials by listing your grad school experience at an elite university to start the conversation, with the also not so subtle implication of superior understanding for having done so.
2. You self righteously imply that I, and apparently Mearsheimer advocate for aggression and war, completely mistating my or Mearsheimer's position on the matter. Neither of us advocated for anything. Mearscheimer explained how and why shit happens. Accept it or not, he's a guy a lot of assholes reference when they're pushing their points. Maybe I got that wrong, and with your experience with the guy, you could better explain it. But, explanation and achieving understanding is never the Dems approach; it's always...uh...the approach you've knee jerked to which is to shout down anyone talking and imply they're an asshole.
Just another thought... if you'd ever like a snowball's chance in Hell of having intelligent people win elections....or get your ass into print that would get you a humor gig. Maybe try engaging folks that are reading your column and trying to talk about it instead of knee jerking into the typical Dem response of shouting down any idea that's not immediately in lockstep with their own ideas.
Mentioning that you were personally taught by someone is a completely reasonable response to being asked about that person's work. And it's entirely justified to believe that someone that has worked personally with an academic has a thorough understanding of that academic.
If anything, you're the one appealing to academic authority! It's just that you're using someone else's. You've given no support for your view besides waving vaguely towards a professor and insisting that anyone that read him would agree with you. Well, someone has read him thoroughly and does not find the argument convincing. Ideally, you'd now explain why people should agree with Mearsheimer rather than just whining that people don't.
Maurer gives some specific examples of where he disagrees with his old professor (and presumably you). These include things like how much of a threat NATO poses to Russia and what a reasonable response to the perceived threat should be. He also seems to reject the basic premises that foreign policy should only be motivated by strategic concerns and that there's no value in assigning moral blame. Maybe explain why he should accept those premises?
Finally, if you're not advocating for anything, but then what are even saying? Everyone else (Maurer, Putin, Trump, other commenters) is advocating for some specific action by the US and muttering about cause (without explaining how that should affect what people are advocating for) is irrelevant and going to be met with hostility.
(and just as a side note: It's ridiculous that you complain about someone "starting a conversation" with something when they're replying to you directly. They're not starting the conversation if they're answering you!)
Where did you get shouted down? I saw someone disagree with you.
OK, shouted down isn't accurate, and it definitely wasn't precise.
To start, I didn't state a position or advocate for anything other than the idea Mearsheimer had opinions that were relevant, because they are. They may not be right, but a lot of other people apparently think so, and those other people are now in control of the levers of power. One might think that's something worthy of discussing. But....I think the specific language Dem response is (adopt sneering condescending attitude while saying)..."Yeah, no."
The first guy didn't address any aspect of what I was alluding to. He just lectured and implied anyone not in line with his thinking was a Kremlin operative.
The second guy...the guy writing the column...didn't address what I said and immediately cited his elite university academic credentials...great opener, Barack would be impressed. Mr. Author didn't even attempt to engage in conversation on why there might be ideas or political positions other than his own. Period.
Pretty much the definition of why Dems are in the political wilderness with not a clue on how to get out. You know, in a lot of ways, this piece was highly educational, and not at all in the manner the author intended.
I saw it go a bit differently.
You said that “one should read Mearsheimer on the topic.”
Jeff seemed to talk about his grad school experience as it was very directly relevant to the topic. That didn’t seem like a flex to show he went to a fancy school, it seemed like a way to demonstrate that he is familiar with the author through significant past contact.
He just simply disagrees with the framework that Mearscheimer using to assess this and other situations. That seems to be an actual direct attempt to engage with you.
There are plenty of arguments that I understand but fundamentally disagree with; something that I’m sure you experience as well.
My read of this is that you find Mearscheimers arguments quite convincing and seem to find other peoples rejection of them offensive. Your “Barack would be impressed” and mention of the dems serves to undercut your message. You don’t seem to me to be rationally discussing this in the way that you probably feel you are.
Everyone sees everything differently. That's why we're here.
To start, any discussion in a comments section is only tangentially rational. If you’re saying I thought his referencing of his academic credentials was bullshit, you are correct. It's bullshit. No one cares except other elite university alumni; it's the secret handshake, self-bestowing some appeal to authority. Fuck that.
Where did I say Mearsheimer's arguments are "convincing" and "other people's rejection offensive“...(?) Pure projection. I said, or implied, they're relevant. They are. Few in the world are even aware of them. They ought to be. It might provide understanding of other perspectives, which they do.
Last sentence...is why I don't normally engage in internet comments sections. Snide (small) attempt at the undercut. OK. It does make me feel good that someone out there understands how I "probably feel".
The guy writing an article puts himself out there for whatever comes at them; that's what writing is. In comments sections, it seems everyone is attempting to one-up anyone else voicing anything. I'm not an experienced comments section operator. I get it now.
You are a giant fucking baby. It's actually funny. You seriously sound like a giant sad sack of shit. No one fucking cares about your feelings, you loser.
No one gives a fuck about YOU and Mearsheimer. You sound like the biggest self-important dork on the entire internet. Insufferable.
By definition, if realpolitik permits Russia to invade her neighbor and rape the women and steal the children and terror bomb the hospitals- Great Powers doing what they do to Small Powers in their orbit- realpolitik also allows us to back a Small Powers to the hilt to throw a monkey wrench into a rival’s expansionism.
If you subscribe to a 17th century-style amorality of zero-sum statism when Russia attacks, but insist on post-modern pacifism when America sends tanks and javelins to a country playing defense, you can just go ahead and stop any pretense at intellectualism and admit bluntly that the propaganda of Moscow appeals to you personally.
I think you have neatly stated the reasons that the former Warsaw Pact countries sought membership in NATO as nothing more than an act of sovereign self-preservation.
The very phrasing of NATO expansion is misleading as it conjures an organization aggressively seeking out new members rather than the reality which is counties voluntarily applying for and going through the process of membership.
Even if he prevails in some way, shape or form in Ukraine, Putin has caused the neutral countries of Sweden and Finland to join NATO. And as a collateral consequence of Trump’s foreign policy, Western European rearmament will finally be happening.
It is unlikely that Ukraine will sign a peace treaty formally surrendering territory rather than an armistice. And who can say what might happen to Russia’s economy or Putin himself in the next few years.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
Mearsheimer does not argue that the US is not "allowed" to support Ukraine or that NATO is not "allowed" to expand, but that it is a strategic mistake to do so. That's debatable but not hypocritical.
Also, why did you choose 17th century, an era mostly defined by religious conflict in Europe, as a reference for realpolitik? Usually people consider the 19th century, when the term was coined, as the example to use.
While I can’t speak for McJunker, I suspect he’s referencing the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Many see that as the beginning of the nation state and sovereignty doctrines and of the principle (even if honored in the breach, as the saying goes) of the prohibition of an outsider power interfering in another’s internal affairs.
I thought they might be referring to the 30 years war (ended by that treaty) which was a religious conflict but some countries fought against their coreligionists for strategic reasons. I'm sure that someone like Cardinal Richelieu did not have a moral issue with Catholicism being imposed in various German states, but thought fighting against that would weaken rivals and allow expansion.
I don't think it's incorrect, but an odd choice and I thought I might be missing something.
People are attacking you, but I agree that Mearsheimer's take is interesting. At the very least, the Minsk Agreements are looking more and more reasonable every day compared to what we ended up with.
Yeah, thanks. His take is interesting because there's a broad contingent that thinks it's right, and that contingent is now in power. Whether or not those in power are exercising good judgement in interpreting and/or applying those ideas (they're not) is another matter...which I thought might be an interesting conversation. I am not interested in establishing my own opinions; I am interested in finding out what other people think. What I am finding is they're not thinking.
I hate internet comments sections. I've spent a total of about 3 1/2 minutes on Xitter, and avoid most other stuff like it's weapons grade herpes. Someone told me Substack has good essays and intelligent conversation, and IMBW was a good place to start, and the guy is funny. OK. Sign me up. The last few days, it's more like he WAS funny, and is intent on alienating folks that might otherwise be amenable to getting on board with a better way to think about our political mess.
“Hate has no home here” cried the most hateful, bitter, and violent people I’ve ever met. Total frauds
One could say that this Ukrainian president is literally Mościcki.
Reductio ad Mościckum, yawn.
Well that was an unexpected take…
While I appreciate the attempt, the situation is too dire to make me smile.
"the dove of the Steppes" 😂😂
DAMN lol
Dude. Crapping in your depends again.
You bidens …..😂