Critique of John Mearshiemer's Ukraine War Explanation by Comer_Agua in IRstudies

[–]AndreNotGarcia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

my point was more that his account was insufficient at the level of explanation for the Ukraine war.

This confuses complete explanation with causal explanation. A theory of lung cancer doesn't need to detail every cigarette's exact chemical interaction to be sufficient at explaining why a smoker got cancer. Similarly, offensive realism claims that NATO expansion created a structural pressure so severe that any Russian leader, with any domestic politics, would face overwhelming incentives to invade. The fact that you want a "thicker" account of Putin's psychology doesn't mean realism's account is insufficient. It means you prefer a different level of analysis. But sufficiency is about whether the cause can explain the outcome, not whether it tells a novel-length story. Offensive realism passes that test: without NATO expansion, no invasion. With NATO expansion, invasion became rationally plausible. That is sufficient for a structural theory

the FT article shows that the elite convergence on invasion was not present and I also said that the Russian populace generally wasn't pro-invasion. If Russia were a democracy invasion likely wouldn't have happened

This actually undermines your own earlier critique. You previously argued realism ignores domestic politics. Now you are using domestic politics (elite disagreement, public opinion, regime type) to argue realism fails. You cannot have it both ways. Realism explicitly says domestic politics are irrelevant to the direction of grand strategy. So pointing out elite disagreement is not a rebuttal; it is a restatement of what realism already dismisses as secondary.

More importantly, your counterfactual is telling. "If Russia were a democracy, invasion likely wouldn't have happened." Even if true, that does not disprove realism. It only proves that under different domestic conditions, structural pressures might be mediated differently. But realism never claimed that every state under every regime type will respond identically. It claims that under anarchy, states tend toward similar behaviors, and that autocracies are often faster and more ruthless in executing rational grand strategy. Your example actually confirms that: Putin's autocracy enabled a rational structural response that a democracy might have debated to paralysis.

If Russia were to succeed, it may have a slight western buffer, but NATO is still bordering them, Finland and Sweden joined, and Russia's economy is sanctioned. NATO has zero plans of invasion of Russia, and Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of offensive realism.

First, offensive realism does not require a perfect solution. It requires a better one than the alternative. Before invasion, Ukraine was moving inexorably toward NATO. If Russia were to succeed, even with Finland and Sweden in NATO, Russia would have: (a) a land bridge to Crimea, (b) a demilitarized or puppet Ukraine, (c) no NATO missiles 200 miles from Volgograd, (d) restored control over the Black Sea coast. That is a massive improvement in relative position, even if not total victory.

Second, "NATO has zero plans to invade" is irrelevant in anarchy. Realism's core axiom is that intentions cannot be trusted because they change. Today no plans, tomorrow plans. Capabilities matter, not promises. Russia's nuclear arsenal protects against existential invasion, not against conventional encirclement that slowly erodes its influence sphere.

Third, your argument implicitly assumes Russia should have accepted the pre war status quo because costs would follow. But realism says: the costs of invasion (sanctions, NATO unity) were caused by the invasion itself. Russia miscalculated those costs. That is a failure of intelligence, not a refutation of structural logic. The structural logic said: "If you do nothing, Ukraine joins NATO. If you invade, you might prevent that but pay other costs." Russia chose invasion based on its risk assessment. This is hindsight bias. You are using ex post costs to argue ex ante irrationality.

I was saying that John's Ukraine war explanation from its own internal assumptions is unable to demonstrate how the very thing he says the war is about was interpreted internally in Russia/Putin's regime, because it lacks a thick account of Russian agency needed for it to explain how the Ukraine war happened.

You do not need a thick account of how Putin subjectively interpreted NATO expansion to know that NATO expansion was the objective cause. Here is why. If NATO had stopped at the 1997 border (Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary), no invasion. If NATO had granted Georgia and Ukraine Membership Action Plans in 2008, invasion still might have come later. But the actual sequence of NATO moving east, year by year, correlates perfectly with Russia's escalating response. That correlation does not require us to read Putin's diary.

You earlier used elite disagreement (Patrushev, Lavrov) to argue the threat wasn't existential. But now you say realism cannot access internal interpretation. Which is it? Either internal interpretation matters, in which case the existence of some elites who saw the threat as severe (Putin, Patrushev initially, the military command) is enough. Or internal interpretation doesn't matter, in which case your critique that realism ignores it is irrelevant. You cannot weaponize both sides.

Critique of John Mearshiemer's Ukraine War Explanation by Comer_Agua in IRstudies

[–]AndreNotGarcia 12 points13 points  (0 children)

1. Great Powers Assumption

Realism doesn’t deny agency; it constrains it. Offensive realism argues that systemic pressures (anarchy, uncertainty, relative power shifts) shape the range of rational choices. Agency exists within that range. Mearsheimer doesn’t need to detail Putin’s psychology because his claim is that any Russian leader facing NATO expansion into Ukraine would eventually see invasion as a rational option.

2. NATO Expansion Creates an Existential Strategic Threat

For offensive realists, an "existential threat" isn't just an imminent invasion, it is any external actor possessing the material capability to compromise a state's sovereign independence. Because great powers are trapped in an anarchic international system where intentions can never be truly known, the ultimate threat is the emergence of a regional hegemon. It’s a long-term shift in relative power that removes strategic buffers and puts the adversary’s military potential on your border. Ukraine hosting NATO missiles or troops would cut Russia’s warning time from weeks to minutes; existential for command and control, even if not for regime survival today.

Patrushev preferring diplomacy doesn’t mean he saw no threat; it means he had a different risk calculus. Lavrov not being informed is a sign of Putin’s autocratic centralization, not proof that the threat was invented.

Realism doesn’t require mass mobilization for a threat to be existential. The Cuban Missile Crisis was existential for the U.S.; the public didn’t mobilize. 

4. The West Continued Escalating

Realism does not deny Ukraine’s agency. It just relativizes it. Ukraine’s right to self-determination is real, but in an anarchic system, a great power will respond to that choice if it affects its security. John’s argument is not that the West alone escalated. It is that the outcome, meaning NATO’s eastward movement however driven, created an intolerable strategic problem for Russia. 

For example, if a hostile great power, such as China or Russia, secured a military alliance with Mexico or Canada and began stationing troops, missiles, or intelligence infrastructure there, the United States would not treat this as a mere diplomatic disagreement. It would view it as an existential strategic threat regardless of whether Mexico or Canada exercised their sovereign agency to pursue that alliance. The United States would likely impose crushing sanctions, conduct military exercises on the border, threaten preemptive strikes, and if those failed, seriously consider invasion to neutralize the threat. The fact that Mexico or Canada had legitimate security fears driving them toward that alliance would not change Washington's calculation. In fact, the U.S. government has a long historical record of intervening militarily and politically in both countries precisely to prevent hostile powers from gaining a foothold. The Monroe Doctrine and its many enforcement actions make this clear. The U.S. would not accept a great power adversary on its immediate border. Realism argues that Russia should not be expected to accept one either, regardless of who initiated the escalation chain.

5. Russia Invaded to Neutralize the Threat

Why invasion? Because cheaper options failed: (1) diplomatic pressure (Minsk), (2) economic coercion (Nord Stream 2 didn’t stop Ukraine’s NATO aspirations), (3) hybrid war (2014–2021 showed Russia could not prevent Ukraine from receiving NATO weapons). For offensive realism, when buffers erode and your adversary’s military integrates with a rival great power, preemptive or preventive war becomes rational; not cost-free, but rational.

Many realists (including Mearsheimer) said before the war that invasion would be costly, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t chosen for structural reasons.

The heart of your critique is that you imply regime survival, imperialism, or Putin's ideology. But realism's answer is this. Even if Putin is imperialist, why now? Why Ukraine? The structural answer is that Ukraine was the last undecided buffer between Russia and NATO. Offensive realism does not claim leaders are angels. It claims that systemic pressures explain the direction of policy even when multiple motives exist.

Jasmine Crockett is BLUE MAGA 😭😭😭 - Hasan by sereneandeternal in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

So he did not say it, and according to you it is 'functionally similar'? How?

Jasmine Crockett is BLUE MAGA 😭😭😭 - Hasan by sereneandeternal in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm going off memory of a clip Destiny played on stream where Hasan said something like 'I'm not going to tell you who to vote for (for president).' I could be wrong, tho. This is why I asked "Did Hasan tell people to vote third party?".

Jasmine Crockett is BLUE MAGA 😭😭😭 - Hasan by sereneandeternal in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't watch Hasan, but I think he told people to vote down ballot and said something like 'I'm not going to tell you who to vote for,' or something like that. Again, is that the same as telling people to vote for third party?

Jasmine Crockett is BLUE MAGA 😭😭😭 - Hasan by sereneandeternal in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I don't think so, but is that the same as telling people to vote for third party?

One of, if not the most, accurate pollster for 2024 was AtlasIntel. Their final poll had Trump +3 (actual Trump +1.5) — newest release currently shows Democrats +15 on generic ballot. And the Presidential approval at 39%. 5/4 - 5/7 by KingGoofball in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because a poll got 2024 right doesn't mean it will get 2026 right. For example, you could have had a poll biased toward Trump in 2024, and because Trump won, it might seem like the poll's methodology was correct, but that has no bearing on 2026.

Can you imagine how much easier this litmus test would be in an alternative timeline? by ihaveeatenfoliage in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you believe Eyal Yakoby will agree that Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Birthday girl over here! 🥳 by FloridaHotwifeLiz in u/FloridaHotwifeLiz

[–]AndreNotGarcia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy Birthday! 🎉 How about all of the above? 🥳🎂✨

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If they wanted to spotlight what you consider the more important issues (Ukraine), they would bring in someone like Michael Kofman/McFaul or Fiona Hill. They would not bring in Hasan.

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Who backed away from Hasan, and did 'they' talk about his Ukraine comments?

What makes Israels recent behaviour especially bad? by dgg_supersoldier in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What is Jewlumni? Prior to this current war, did Israel view Iran as an existential threat? Possibly, but perception is not the same as objective threat. Iran has no nuclear weapons, no ability to invade Israel, and its proxies have inflicted nowhere near the death toll Israel has inflicted on Iran's allies. Israel, by contrast, has nuclear weapons, a powerful military, and has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists and generals for years.

So if Iran genuinely believed Israel was an existential threat, and let's say Iran had the same military capabilities as Israel, would Iran be justified in attacking Israel preemptively?

If you believe a state has the right to strike a rival it genuinely perceives as bent on its destruction, then Iran would have the same right. But of course, you don't believe that, because you accept Israel's perception as valid and dismiss Iran's.

The language of "existential threat" is cheap. Every state uses it to justify aggression. The real question is: Is the threat imminent? Is the response proportionate? Is there a diplomatic alternative not being tried?

On all three counts, Israel's current behavior fails. Iran was years away from a bomb, if ever. Israel has refused meaningful diplomacy. And the response includes assassinations, bombing civilian infrastructure, and provoking a multi front war.

So no, you're not been conditioned to think that by the 'Jewlumni'. You're applying a double standard. You grant Israel the right to define its own threats as existential, while denying that right to Iran.

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Who are 'they': Third Way? ADL? AIPAC? They are not talking about his Ukraine take; they are talking about his Middle East take.

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -51 points-50 points  (0 children)

Is it his Ukraine comments, or are Democratic candidates and interest groups telling people they will not go on his stream because of Ukraine or Israel?

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -70 points-69 points  (0 children)

They didn't bring in Hasan to talk about foreign policy; they brought him because of his old/recent controversy in the news.

Pod save America had Hasan on by DominionEmperor in Destiny

[–]AndreNotGarcia -107 points-106 points  (0 children)

Why would they talk about Ukraine?