The Blame The West Crowd
Mearsheimer, Chomsky, and the whole "blame the West" crowd. A few thoughts:
By this time you've probably heard John Mearsheimer, the international relations scholar, say that the West precipitated this crisis by expanding NATO too far eastward. And Chomsky, of course, never misses an opportunity to blame the West for whatever is happening in the world.
As it happens, I'm an IR scholar too (the Dr. Pepper jingle comes to mind here). So here are a few reasons why Mearsheimer is wrong and why — despite his baldness, oversized suit, and crooked tie which seem to inspire confidence in people for reasons I still don't understand — you should not accept this blame-the-West narrative. I'll be brief:
• Mearsheimer believes that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and U.S. discussions with Ukraine about joining NATO provoked Russia. But here's the funny thing about that argument. Ukraine doesn't seem to consider itself within Russia's sphere of influence and rather than responding to U.S. overtures, it is internally driven to look westward. That is, Ukraine's culture, history, preferences, ambitions, and fears have already placed it inside our sphere of influence. Why? Because of how it's been treated by Russia (either as the core of the USSR or since independence). Mearsheimer is prepared to place the preferences of Russia over those of Ukraine. Why? Because Russia is more powerful. Which is … wait for it … exactly why Ukraine wants to join NATO. If Russia wanted to be more influential in its near-abroad it should have produced a positive and attractive vision of the world. It is didn't. As for what Russia wants? Who cares?
• Mearsheimer believes Ukraine is a buffer state. That means, powerful forces from the west would have to cross through Ukraine to reach Russia giving it time to mobilize, defend itself, etc. From a strictly military perspective that's true. But it's not a territory. It's a country, with a territory of its own, a government, and a population (per international law). I reject the idea of buffer states because I don't believe there are any buffer people. You don't want the West to attack (which we're not planning to do anyway)? Don't be a bunch of assholes. The idea that Russia gets to be a bunch of assholes and then have territory as a buffer for when we get aggrevated is not a reasonable geopolitical or "rational" analysis.
• Mearsheimer — for real — advocates the controlled proliferation of nuclear weapons as a way to stabilize the world. All policymakers know this is madness but since he subscribes to a school of thought called Neo-realism, he's talked himself into it. But Neo-realism A) has generally proved itself to be non-falsifiable as a theory, which means that you can't find a way to test it so that the test can, at least conceivably, result in a negative and this is because B) it is based on "rational actor theory" and every time you say, "but … these people acted like this, which is the opposite of what you predicted" they just say, "ah, but to them it was rational" thereby redefining it and slipping away from the problem like jelly under a door and C) it can't account for non-state actors who can't be deterred which, if the world has learned anything from Islamic terrorism which seems to want to start a global war, deterrence against non-state actors without territory doesn't work.
• Lastly: Nations are not pool balls. They don't simply respond to external forces. They have ideas, ambitions, memories, interpretations, traumas and aspirations that are dymanic, rich, complex and are most often what drive their actions in the world. Far, far too often we think that a country acted because of something "we" did. Very often, it's because of who and what they are.
This war is Putin's fault.
— Derek B. Miller (Ph.D. summa cum laude in international relations and wearer of a leather jacket and boots).
By this time you've probably heard John Mearsheimer, the international relations scholar, say that the West precipitated this crisis by expanding NATO too far eastward. And Chomsky, of course, never misses an opportunity to blame the West for whatever is happening in the world.
As it happens, I'm an IR scholar too (the Dr. Pepper jingle comes to mind here). So here are a few reasons why Mearsheimer is wrong and why — despite his baldness, oversized suit, and crooked tie which seem to inspire confidence in people for reasons I still don't understand — you should not accept this blame-the-West narrative. I'll be brief:
• Mearsheimer believes that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and U.S. discussions with Ukraine about joining NATO provoked Russia. But here's the funny thing about that argument. Ukraine doesn't seem to consider itself within Russia's sphere of influence and rather than responding to U.S. overtures, it is internally driven to look westward. That is, Ukraine's culture, history, preferences, ambitions, and fears have already placed it inside our sphere of influence. Why? Because of how it's been treated by Russia (either as the core of the USSR or since independence). Mearsheimer is prepared to place the preferences of Russia over those of Ukraine. Why? Because Russia is more powerful. Which is … wait for it … exactly why Ukraine wants to join NATO. If Russia wanted to be more influential in its near-abroad it should have produced a positive and attractive vision of the world. It is didn't. As for what Russia wants? Who cares?
• Mearsheimer believes Ukraine is a buffer state. That means, powerful forces from the west would have to cross through Ukraine to reach Russia giving it time to mobilize, defend itself, etc. From a strictly military perspective that's true. But it's not a territory. It's a country, with a territory of its own, a government, and a population (per international law). I reject the idea of buffer states because I don't believe there are any buffer people. You don't want the West to attack (which we're not planning to do anyway)? Don't be a bunch of assholes. The idea that Russia gets to be a bunch of assholes and then have territory as a buffer for when we get aggrevated is not a reasonable geopolitical or "rational" analysis.
• Mearsheimer — for real — advocates the controlled proliferation of nuclear weapons as a way to stabilize the world. All policymakers know this is madness but since he subscribes to a school of thought called Neo-realism, he's talked himself into it. But Neo-realism A) has generally proved itself to be non-falsifiable as a theory, which means that you can't find a way to test it so that the test can, at least conceivably, result in a negative and this is because B) it is based on "rational actor theory" and every time you say, "but … these people acted like this, which is the opposite of what you predicted" they just say, "ah, but to them it was rational" thereby redefining it and slipping away from the problem like jelly under a door and C) it can't account for non-state actors who can't be deterred which, if the world has learned anything from Islamic terrorism which seems to want to start a global war, deterrence against non-state actors without territory doesn't work.
• Lastly: Nations are not pool balls. They don't simply respond to external forces. They have ideas, ambitions, memories, interpretations, traumas and aspirations that are dymanic, rich, complex and are most often what drive their actions in the world. Far, far too often we think that a country acted because of something "we" did. Very often, it's because of who and what they are.
This war is Putin's fault.
— Derek B. Miller (Ph.D. summa cum laude in international relations and wearer of a leather jacket and boots).
date
newest »
newest »
There's no detail apart from a glib Fox News style dismissal. Some explanation, please?