Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

A random youtube suggestion I got which was an interesting listen.
This guy is basically echoing my thoughts on the situation. But putting them in a better way of course.

Meirsheimer also blames Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the West.  Probably should look elsewhere.

Define "blame". From what I gather his view is far more complex than the tankie "Ukraine is America's fault. Evil American expansionism gave the peaceful Russians no choice but to liberate Ukraine".
It's definitely true that ukraines westward drift was a key trigger for Moscow and Russia has a ridiculous paranoia about nato.
His "blame" is more they should have managed the situation better than they're actually the  guilty party. Like thatcher and the Falklands.
Though he certainly lays it on strong.

But still. Ignoring the subtitles
Nobody is perfect.  He also seems to have gotten a lot about the world right and is a respected voice in international politics. The broken clock thing works in reverse too.
I wouldn't write off someone speaking a lot of sense on one topic because they may be wrong on another.
Supreme ad hom.

[Barrister]

A random youtube suggestion I got which was an interesting listen.
This guy is basically echoing my thoughts on the situation. But putting them in a better way of course.

Meirsheimer also blames Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the West.  Probably should look elsewhere.

Define "blame". From what I gather his view is far more complex than the tankie "Ukraine is America's fault. Evil American expansionism gave the peaceful Russians no choice but to liberate Ukraine".
It's definitely true that ukraines westward drift was a key trigger for Moscow and Russia has a ridiculous paranoia about nato.
His "blame" is more they should have managed the situation better than they're actually the  guilty party. Like thatcher and the Falklands.

But still. Ignoring the subtitles
Nobody is perfect.  He also seems to have gotten a lot about the world right and is a respected voice in international politics.
I wouldn't write off someone speaking a lot of sense on one topic because they may be wrong on another.
Supreme ad hom.

John Mearsheimer is not a respected voice in international politics.

He is indeed a tankie crank.

[Josquius]

A random youtube suggestion I got which was an interesting listen.
This guy is basically echoing my thoughts on the situation. But putting them in a better way of course.

Meirsheimer also blames Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the West.  Probably should look elsewhere.

Define "blame". From what I gather his view is far more complex than the tankie "Ukraine is America's fault. Evil American expansionism gave the peaceful Russians no choice but to liberate Ukraine".
It's definitely true that ukraines westward drift was a key trigger for Moscow and Russia has a ridiculous paranoia about nato.
His "blame" is more they should have managed the situation better than they're actually the  guilty party. Like thatcher and the Falklands.

But still. Ignoring the subtitles
Nobody is perfect.  He also seems to have gotten a lot about the world right and is a respected voice in international politics.
I wouldn't write off someone speaking a lot of sense on one topic because they may be wrong on another.
Supreme ad hom.

John Mearsheimer is not a respected voice in international politics.

He is indeed a tankie crank.

I've seen no evidence for him being a tankie. Though a lot of people taking a line or two from him out of all context and spinning it that way. This kind of detailed realist outlook doesn't fit into a social media one liner black and white purely feels based world view.

He seems to support Ukraine BTW.
He absolutely is a respected voice. Daft to insist otherwise because you disagree with some of his conclusions.
And again - he speaks a lot of sense on the current Israel situation.. A major interest of his for decades.

Try to actually engage with the points. I've noticed nobody in the thread with a coherent answer yet to what Israels endgame is and how the hell the usual path defeats Hamas.

[Syt]

I watch a fair amount of woke/leftie YT, but yeah - this one popped up in my feed and I was, "nope."

[Josquius]

I watch a fair amount of woke/leftie YT, but yeah - this one popped up in my feed and I was, "nope."

Why?
Purely length (forgivable.i had it on in the background whilst doing something) or Chinese whispers about this guy?

[Admiral Yi]

Lots of daft people.

[Tamas]

Isn't he the same guy (or just a lookalike?) whom I remember explaining how realpolitik says Russia should have its sphere of influence where it can play around?

[Josquius]

Isn't he the same guy (or just a lookalike?) whom I remember explaining how realpolitik says Russia should have its sphere of influence where it can play around?

Less "should" and more "that's the way things work". He is probably the world's main realpolitik scholar though from what I gather his personal views are quite the opposite to being in favour of this.
His core view on Ukraine is they should never have given up their nukes (which he said before they gave up their nukes) as this was the only way they could really ensure they remained out of the Russian sphere.

But anyway. I just posted it as  I thought it really interesting how his views were really well put together but largely aligned with those I've come up with for myself. The constant cycle of Israel "mowing the lawn" in Gaza has only two obvious solutions, neither of which are particularly likely for different reasons. I found it an interesting listen. Watch it or don't, its not important, but folk just assuming its nonsense and attacking it out of hand...pff.

[Tamas]

Isn't he the same guy (or just a lookalike?) whom I remember explaining how realpolitik says Russia should have its sphere of influence where it can play around?

Less "should" and more "that's the way things work". He is probably the world's main realpolitik scholar though from what I gather his personal views are quite the opposite to being in favour of this.
His core view on Ukraine is they should never have given up their nukes (which he said before they gave up their nukes) as this was the only way they could really ensure they remained out of the Russian sphere.

But anyway. I just posted it as  I thought it really interesting how his views were really well put together but largely aligned with those I've come up with for myself. The constant cycle of Israel "mowing the lawn" in Gaza has only two obvious solutions, neither of which are particularly likely for different reasons. I found it an interesting listen. Watch it or don't, its not important, but folk just assuming its nonsense and attacking it out of hand...pff.

If it's the same guy I remember him being very obnoxious and clearly implying Russia is within its natural right to do this. But I did see the start of a recent video with this guy here saying the West should have given more support earlier (although then he said because Russia is winning the game of constant escalation).

Anyways, he was suggesting passively standing aside due to "realpolitik" which sounds like a very stupid realpolitik stance. Metternich when seeing France being a danger to the world order he preferred didn't go "ok they are strong let them play"

[grumbler]

Isn't he the same guy (or just a lookalike?) whom I remember explaining how realpolitik says Russia should have its sphere of influence where it can play around?

He didn't say Russia should have its sphere of influence, he said that Russia, like any other nation, considered, where possible, its neighbors as buffer zones that should cleave to the larger power in mutual self-interest.  That was the basis for his argument against Ukrainian de-nuclearization:  Ukraine needed a nuclear deterrent to prevent Russia from invading when it strayed too far from its role as a buffer between Russia and NATO.

Arguing that Mearsheimer is "not a respected voice in international politics" is ludicrous, disproven by the lively debate about his ideas in foreign policy circles every time he releases a book or makes a major announcement.

I don't agree with him, but I don't need to pretend that he's a nobody unworthy of our time just because I don't agree.

[The Minsky Moment]

Arguing that Mearsheimer is "not a respected voice in international politics" is ludicrous, disproven by the lively debate about his ideas in foreign policy circles every time he releases a book or makes a major announcement..

Reputations go up and down for different reasons and Mearsheimer's rep has been on a downward trend. His statements on the Russia-Ukraine conflict have contributed and not just because of the substance, but because his opinions have been contradictory and not well-reasoned.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, lots of people go from respected to not. Alan Dershowitz for example was far more respected 25 years ago. Glenn Greenwald is another one. The decline in respect for Rudy Giuliani from the 90s to now is fairly insane. Mearsheimer has been promoting fairly anti-West and weird takes on things like Ukraine for years now, and he has been previously pilloried for it on this very forum. His reputation is not nearly what it was.

Mearsheimer is also just a "catastrophist" at heart, I assume because it generates attention. He is always bleak about everything touching the West, the West's leaders are always wrong headed etc etc.

[viper37]

John Mearsheimer is not a respected voice in international politics.

He is indeed a tankie crank.

He is neither of those things.

He is a realist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

About the Ukraine-Russia war, you can see a counter point here:
Faulty powers

One can not always be right.  But he was right on China though.  The US and China are heading toward a confrontation.  We're at the economical stage of the confrontation now.  We'll see how it's heating up.

[viper37]

If it's the same guy I remember him being very obnoxious and clearly implying Russia is within its natural right to do this.

That's not what he said, from everything I'm reading.

He said it was to be expected:

1) Ukraine had lost its nuclear weapons (he advocated against)
2) NATO and EU were expanding (he advocated against)
3) Russia considered western expansion a mortal danger

I disagree that Russia invaded Ukraine because of #2.  They would have invaded anyway, they invaded their other neighbours and set up sham governments in other places to make sure they remained allied.

But, it's clear that it was used as a pretext and not having #1 did not help.

[Razgovory]

Sorry Josq, 1hour 35 minutes is a long video.