[Unthinking Majority]

John Mearsheimer is a well respected American academic and professor of International Relations who should be familiar to anyone who has studied the field. He’s no lefty and no anti-American, he’s a very logical guy.

His argument back in 2015 in the lecture below, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014, is that the West has driven Russia to make these military incursions. He argues that Ukraine is of vital strategic importance to Russia given that Ukraine has the largest border shared with Russia of any European country.

Mearsheimer says that NATO’s promises of expansion to add Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members is an existential security threat to Russia that they won’t tolerate. He compares it to Cuba when their turning communist and adding nukes on the island was seen as an existential threat to the USA that led the US to launch coup attemps and economic embargos etc. He compares Ukraine to if China decided to become allies with Canada or Mexico and stationed Chinese troops in the country, the US wouldn’t act kindly.

In early 2008 during a NATO summit, the Bucharest Declaration by NATO promised eventual NATO membership to the Ukraine and Georgia. This was threatening to Russia, and led to Russia’s military incursion of Georgia months later. Putin even names NATO expansion in Ukraine as his main reason for the current military invasion (see video below).

Mearsheimer also states in 2015 that Russia would rather break Ukraine rather than let NATO have it, and his prediction is now coming true. He also states that the optimal solution for the West is to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state, which I agree.

[Unthinking Majority]

Here's an update from Mearsheimer on Feb 15 2022 talking about the current crisis in Ukraine, echoing things he's said for years:

[quetzalcoatl]

US foreign policy in the post-Soviet era could be summed up as constantly poking sticks into bees' nests and being surprised at getting stung.

[wat0n]

The US proposed that declaration in 2008, but I think other NATO members actually voted it down.

I agree that's part of the reasons for Russia to do what it's doing but it's only that, a part. This is a broadly popular move among Russians since it appeals to a deep-seated national narrative, one that was echoed by the Kremlin itself as late as July last year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220206230 ... upSOHtg7No

(Unfortunately, the Kremlin's website seems to be down for now).

I also doubt Russia would have ever thought about the whole Crimea stunt if Obama had enforced his own red line in Syria.

[Rancid]

Putin even names NATO expansion in Ukraine as his main reason for the current military invasion (see video below).

Domestically, he say's the reason is to stop genocides against Russians and to stop a Nazi regime. Why does he need to say this to sell it to his own public as opposed to the NATO argument?

In other words, does the Russian public feel as threatened by NATO as Putin does?

[Unthinking Majority]

Domestically, he say's the reason is to stop genocides against Russians and to stop a Nazi regime. Why does he need to say this to sell it to his own public as opposed to the NATO argument?

In other words, does the Russian public feel as threatened by NATO as Putin does?

In the lecture Mearsheimer shows where the annexation of Crimea led to Putin's polling numbers skyrocketing, since Crimea is made of virtually all ethnic Russians.

He also says there are legit fascist elements within Ukraine. Russia basically defeated the Nazis in WWII, a big part of the Russian nationalist narrative. Probably just something he says to sell the war.

I'd recommend the 1st video. His speech is about ~45 mins long, the rest is Q&A. He lays out the context of everything going on in Crimea, everyone's motivations etc.

[Rancid]

He also says there are legit fascist elements within Ukraine

This is true of most nations. Including the US. Ukraine is a flawed democracy (as is the US). Everyone understands that part.

I'll find some time to watch the video. Can't do it now.

Russia basically defeated the Nazis in WWII, a big part of the Russian nationalist narrative. Probably just something he says to sell the war.

Right, but my question remains. Does the Russian public see NATO as an existential threat? Shouldn't that be the reason Putin sells to the public? Shouldn't it be an easy sell to the Russian public? Why is there no nationalist fervor in Russia around beating back NATO?

There is something that's missing here that I don't understand. That is, if we just ignore Putin's personal ambitions of making his mark as the great savior of the Russian empire or whatever.... seems like regular Russians don't give a shit about that or NATO, and simply want peace. Maybe they don't believe the Russian empire needs to be restored in order to achieve peace.

[Fasces]

I think the basic point is that we're somewhat tolerant of American "red lines", even when those lines violate the sovereignty of other nations - but are hypocritical less respectful of those same red lines abroad. Certain actions are avoidable provocations, and even US law recognizes provocation when it comes to incidents of violence.

[Unthinking Majority]

Right, but my question remains. Does the Russian public see NATO as an existential threat? Shouldn't that be the reason Putin sells to the public? Shouldn't it be an easy sell to the Russian public? Why is there no nationalist fervor in Russia around beating back NATO?

There is something that's missing here that I don't understand. That is, if we just ignore Putin's personal ambitions of making his mark as the great savior of the Russian empire or whatever.... seems like regular Russians don't give a shit about that or NATO, and simply want peace. Maybe they don't believe the Russian empire needs to be restored in order to achieve peace.

But the argument about NATO incursion is the first thing Putin mentions in his address to Russians announcing the war:

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

[Rancid]

But the argument about NATO incursion is the first thing Putin mentions in his address to Russians announcing the war:

Oh, I serious missed that bit. Alright then. Apparently that is not a big enough reason it seems, as he had to tack on the Nazi and genocide stuff.

[Wellsy]

I think the basic point is that we're somewhat tolerant of American "red lines", even when those lines violate the sovereignty of other nations - but are hypocritical less respectful of those same red lines abroad. Certain actions are avoidable provocations, and even US law recognizes provocation when it comes to incidents of violence.

Basically, the US has had a position of such power to do as it pleases and others are to weak to challenge it.
I believe Mearsheimer mentions that the rise of China as a real competitor will force the US to think strategically again and not act without thought to the consequences because it will pose real concerns for the US’ interests.

[Fasces]

The fear I have is the generation of foreign policy makers in the US that came of age in the last 30 years and who may trigger WW3 before they come to accept that American hyperpower is a thing of the past, @Wellsy .

[Rancid]

Basically, the US has had a position of such power to do as it pleases and others are to weak to challenge it.
I believe Mearsheimer mentions that the rise of China as a real competitor will force the US to think strategically again and not act without thought to the consequences because it will pose real concerns for the US’ interests.

Could it not be said that the first sign of this shift is happening right now? The US didn't make unilateral decisions on Russia-Ukraine. They didn't send in troops willy nilly.

[Wellsy]

The fear I have is the generation of foreign policy makers in the US that came of age in the last 30 years and who may trigger WW3 before they come to accept that American hyperpower is a thing of the past, @Wellsy .

Ah, that they’ll push things thinking they swing the biggest dick and unnecessarily escalate things.
Heres hoping we aren’t heading towards that.

Could it not be said that the first sign of this shift is happening right now? The US didn't make unilateral decisions on Russia-Ukraine. They didn't send in troops willy nilly.

Perhaps, in the sense that US interests have pivoted from Europe to China.

[Unthinking Majority]

Oh, I serious missed that bit. Alright then. Apparently that is not a big enough reason it seems, as he had to tack on the Nazi and genocide stuff.

He also predicted the US/NATO would not get involved in Ukraine militarily because it's just not a vital strategic interest to them. The USSR had Ukraine during the whole Cold War, it doesn't mean that much.

[wat0n]

In other words, does the Russian public feel as threatened by NATO as Putin does?

Yes, it certainly does:

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/202 ... index.html

I wouldn't be surprised if Russian pollsters find even greater percentages of Russians being OK with using military force to keep Ukraine out of NATO.

The issue of NATO's threat to Russia, however, is not mutually exclusive with the nationalist angle. That is, maybe the US did commit a big mistake by proposing admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and the final decision to say they wanted to admit them "some day" helped feed the threat perception among many Russians (completely understandable in my view), but these may have also legitimized, among the Russian public, reuniting Russian-populated territories in those countries not just to live with their bros but also as means to enhance the security of Russia as a whole. This is important because one mistake realists like Mearsheimer or Walt may be making is to assume the nationalist/ideological/identity politics angle is not important. It definitely is, it is important for many regular Russians, it may as well be important for Putin personally and it may also be important for the Russian military. And they also probably see these two as being intertwined, maybe even equivalent ("make Russia great again so our borders will be secure through force and deterrence"). I can actually understand that, given Russia's history and geography, and in a way it's a belief that is grounded both in emotional and rational terms.

If so, then it is also possible that there's nothing NATO could have done to truly change that perception among the Russians (regular, Putin, security establishment). But expansion may have made things worse, although I also believe that the fact that it has been voluntary and not by force is also of key relevance. After all, another key Western interest Mearsheimer, Walt, @Fasces and @Wellsy might be forgetting is that that such NATO expansion also paved the way for the (partial) westernization of the former Soviet satellites and the Baltic states - itself a clear interest for the US and its traditional European allies and one way to improve security for the Cold War era NATO members. Each and every of those former satellites and Soviet Republics that joined NATO is one big step Russia will have to climb were it ever try to threaten Western Europe or the US like the Soviets did at some point.

If Western interest is narrowly defined on terms of security then it is entirely possible to make the case that Ukraine and Georgia are unfortunate cases but that Western hard interests have still been served overall. And if Putin fails in Ukraine with NATO fighting proxy warfare against him then even more so.

I also wonder what would realists like Walt and Mearsheimer have to say about what Russia has been doing under Putin. One would think, if anything, it also has a security interest in joining the EU. Whatever happened to IR realism here? How can they explain Russia not joining the EU and then NATO?

[Fasces]

Russia asked and was rejected (at least for NATO), so that's the explanation.

[Rancid]

I'd imagine Russia has to not be an authoritarian state to be considered for the EU.

[wat0n]

@Fasces ...And the EU? Wouldn't that be the safest way to guarantee Russia's security, even if that meant changing its domestic politics and giving up some sovereignty?

[Fasces]

Wouldn't that be the safest way to guarantee Russia's security, even if that meant changing its domestic politics and giving up some sovereignty?

I think the latter answers the former. Security is generally a shorthand for 'preserving independence/sovereignty' for most IR realists, so giving up sovereignty to preserve sovereignty is an oxymoron.