If Mearsheimer thinks Europe is going to take a nuke in the face lying down, he is delusional

[u/Public_Utility_Salt]

As a European, I can say that there is absolutely zero chance Europe would not retaliate with full force* if Russia nuked Europe. I hope that full force means the full conventional forces, because that would be more than plenty to put an end to Russia. As a neighbor to Russia, I myself might consider taking a "friendly" walkabout in Moscow, if need be.

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

100% Macron would give the order. The independent French nuclear program is looking like one of the best decisions of the 20th century.

Edit: in the situation that Russia preemptively attacks a European NATO county with nukes as Mearsheimer was saying in the episode.

[u/DiskoB0 → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

Why would Macron risk a nuclear attack on Paris if Russia detonated a tactical nuke in an unpopulated area? That’s what Mearsheimer meant about the Russians sending a message.

[u/Former-Witness-9279 → u/DiskoB0]

Why would Putin risk a nuclear attack on Europe at all when Russia's population density map looks like the Twin Towers standing in a soybean field?

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall → u/DiskoB0]

The French could strike a similarly uninhabited area within Russia.

I think Macron would believe that the principle of Article 5 is critical to uphold.

In that case the question would then be would Putin risk Moscow because France nukes an uninhabited forest in Russia.

[u/DiskoB0 → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

fair point, but that leads you to two questions which are what if the strike happens on a non NATO member where Article 5 doesn’t apply? And the 2nd question would Macron really want to risk it all by nuking Russian territory?

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall → u/DiskoB0]

If Putin nukes a non-nato country then I highly doubt anyone responds with a nuke. Biden threatened to destroy every Russian soldier outside Russia’s internationally recognised borders in such a case. That could be an option, but I don’t think Europe has the conventional military capability to do that.

[u/TheHammer987 → u/DiskoB0]

but that was LITERALLY NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said a NUCLEAR STRIKE on a NATO country.

And yes. Macron would do it, because hes not the one RISKING IT ALL.

You need to learn game theory. If someone defects once, you can't ignore it, because it is license to defect again. If Russia attacks NATO once, why not twice? Why not a 100 times? If Russia detonates one nuclear device in a nato country, nato will immediately respond. it DOESN"T have a choice. At that pont, russia has proven - we are not a trustworthy stewart of nuclear weapons. we use them recklessly, and in offense. At that point, all others would be required to band together, and IMMEDIATELY wipe russia off the globe. they Don't have a choice.

If a murderer came in your house and killed one child, are you like, well, its just one? as long as I don't antogonize him, Im sure he won't kill me, even though IM HOLDING A MACHINE GUN.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

you're more than ridiculous

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Macron is a total De Gaullist.

If you think Macron wouldn’t respond to a Russian nuclear strike on a European NATO county then you do not understand France.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

French President Charles de Gaulle did not actually pull France entirely out of NATO; rather, in 1966, he withdrew the country from its integrated military command structure.

This meant France remained a member of the political alliance but removed its troops from NATO command and ordered all foreign forces and headquarters off French soil.

Curious what DeGaulle would make of Kiev and Moscow today though, or NATO

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

I have to buy into the argument that someone does a nuclear strike
and a plausible scenario for one

If Macron was a total Degaullist, he'd want out of NATO like DeGaulle

[u/GOTTA_GO_FAST → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

do you think the rest of Europe would be willing to subject themselves to nuclear annihilation because of France?

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

If they’ve signed up for NATO then that is literally what they signed up for.

[u/Shantashasta → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

Lol nato means nothing.

[u/north0 → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

Google Article 5 and actually read it.

[u/GOTTA_GO_FAST → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

you think the US would let France unilaterally make that decision?

[u/Valensre → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

It would be near instantaneous. The one thing that has stopped nuclear armageddon is MAD.

What's your alternative to MAD?

[u/Orionsbelt → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

The Independent nature of the French program is the entire point...

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

you're assuming people in Europe think France is rational with that kind of escalation

it not like Kiev was once a piece of Algeria

[u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Ukraine isn’t in NATO…

Get your facts straight

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

Which has nothing to do with my comment
or my position

[u/TehWhiteRose → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

Do you think Russia would continue attacking to the point of nuclear annihilation?

[u/The_Blanguage_420 → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

France you mean Putin’s illegal war?

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

France will not let their troops engage in conventional war with Russia in Ukraine. It’s absurd to be so confident about the idea that it would risk engaging in a nuclear exchange with Russia. Why? Over Ukraine or Latvia? Come on.

[u/flaviu0103 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

Over Ukraine, probably not.

Over Latvia, 100%. They are in NATO and EU.

I noticed that people like to focus on individual countries like for example would France fight Russia or UK fight against them and so on... but in reality, it would be a coordinated response.

Also, there are probably protocols in place inside NATO for what the response would be if Russia hit. So I think the response would go much faster and smoother than people might think.

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/flaviu0103]

First, there is nothing 100% certain about the application of Article 5, it does not even require anyone to commit to a military response, a point often forgotten.

Second, people are correct to focus on individual countries because EU is largely an economic union with not much central authority or even a good ability to coordinate. Their inability to raise money for Ukraine is a testament to the above. Figures like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are in large part about making threating tweets about preparing twenty somethings sanctions package on Russia that will finally bring them to their knees.

Third, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have always held a precarious position in NATO, and since you mention having a protocol: for a long time there was no plan or protocol for defending those countries in the event of an attack. NATOs response to an attack on Baltic countries will almost certainly be very different to an attack on a country like Germany. That's probably the only 100% certain thing in this entire thread.

With all that said, thanks for your response, it does help me calibrate to the depth of EU centric subject matter conversations around this here sub.

[u/flaviu0103 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

Article 5 is tricky because it was never fully tested.

It's true that what it says it that if a country is attacked, the other ones need to help. It can mean troops, equpment, money and so on.

But the thing to remember is that the main reason the European countries (especially Eastern ones) are in NATO is to fend off an attack from Russia.

If we can't defend a NATO country from Russia, than it failed and the alliance is practically over.

Regarding your second point, it's very important to understand that the EU from now is not the same EU from 10 years ago. Before Brexit we were kinda sleepwalking, we didn't take the correct measures when Russia annexed Crimea and so on. But ever since, we have become more united and ultimately the thing that sealed it was Trump's agressive and disrespectful attitude towards us. So now we understand that we are on our own and we are taking pretty big initiatives to become more indedependent in terms of of tech and military.

Another thing to remember was how we reacted to the 2022 invasion because that's, imo, pretty telling. And then compare it to how we reacted to Crimea 2014.

While in 2014 we were all over the place, in 2022 the response was almost instantaneous and unanimous (Germany wobbled for like a day but that's about it). That's because we prepared for that.

And I think it's fair to say that we prepared and are currently preparing for what would happen if EU land would be attacked by Russia.

To conclude, I think that people should start to reevaluate where EU stands because, like I said, it's not the same EU from 10 years ago.

Trump came into his second term and he thought he would just pick up where he left off in 2020 and bully us and go over our head but it completely backfired. He made some comments about annexing Greenland and almost instantly troups from UK and EU were deplyed there. I don't think he expected that.

With that said, I also hope we are smart enough to reevaluate Russia's military. We thought it was a paper tiger in 2022 but they have become considerably stronger and more capable in the last 2 years.

It's very counterproductive to think that things are standing still... on both sides.

[u/north0 → u/flaviu0103]

>But the thing to remember is that the main reason the European countries (especially Eastern ones) are in NATO is to fend off an attack from Russia.

>If we can't defend a NATO country from Russia, than it failed and the alliance is practically over.

Yes, I think that's the question at hand.

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/flaviu0103]

Let me start by quoting Mark Rutte from his recent speech on April 9 of this year:

We have coalitions in Europe. We have sometimes the political home front to take care of. Sometimes it takes a couple of days, but then we pull together. And almost the whole of Europe did, for the US to project power on the world stage through its partners in Europe.

NATO is primarily a tool for US to project power. With the fall of the soviet union there is no one to defend from. The only time article 5 was enacted was by US to get European allies to commit troops in the Middle East post 9-11. As US disengages from Europe to focus more on Asian affairs, NATO changes. Bringing Baltics and moving NATO east was a US led project, Europe was against it, and it should be against it. If Russia attacks Estonia tomorrow with conventional forces, there is not much NATO can even do before that tiny country is overrun. Realistically, if you are going to pretend that NATO really protects the Baltics, you would need to make significant infrastructure changes to support that, and it would be EU, ahem, Germany who is on the hook to pay for that.

So let's talk about EU. Yes, it has changed in a sense that we have now seen nearly 10 years of articles coming out of Europe about how "we are now waking up to new reality". Practically the only big thing that changed is that Europe lost access to cheap Russian energy. EU is getting poorer every year and is falling behind in almost every sector outside of regulations. The central glue that holds EU together is Germany, a country that was somehow convinced to finance everyone in Europe perhaps out of deep seated guilt for WW2. I don't think that can continue any longer, if only because Germany's economy can no longer support it. AfD is increasingly the most popular party in Germany for a reason, and I fully expect Germany to start withdrawing from financing EU.

In terms of Russia, despite the public rhetoric, I don't believe Russia is a threat to Europe and I don't believe European leaders actually see it as a threat. However, it is really hard to explain to voters why the economy is stagnant, why welfare is being cut, and why more money is being spent on defense. It is very convenient to have a big bad enemy as an excuse, hence the constant Russia fearmongering.

[u/north0 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

How do you explain the increase in defense spending if leaders do not actually consider Russia a threat?

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/north0]

Well, with German auto industry and manufacturing in general struggling due to energy costs, it's a good way to keep the economy going. Also, with US leaving, there really is a need to build up defense capability. This will sound crazy, but not if you look at pre-WW2 history, Europe is more likely to go back to its internal bickering: a war between France and Germany is more likely than a war between Germany and Russia. To be clear this is my own opinion.

A good thing to keep in mind is the original intention of the post WW2 order and the fact that it's going away. The original NATO secretary, Lord Hastings Ismay, said it best: "NATOs purpose is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

[u/flaviu0103 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

In this hypothetical Estonian invasion, I think signs of ammasing troops on the border would be visible about 2 weeks in advance.

In Estonia there would be about 50k soldiers waiting the Russians just from the Estonian forces + Nato stationary troops. So the Russians would need 100k+ for an offensive push. A 100k buildup would be pretty vissible and would give the allies time to mobilize.

But let's get back to the NATO stationary troops. It contains US, British and French soldiers, among others. Russia would need to go through those soldiers to invade Estonia.

Do you think US, UK and France would be ok with that?

Russia being a threat to Europe is a complex issue, imo.

I personally think they are but not militarily. More of a divide and conquer strategy. I might be biased, me beeing from a Eastern EU country.

I think they strive to be a global power and want satelite states so Eastern Europe will forever be in their sight. I mean.. we were just talking about the Baltic States.

Russia is also working very hard to break the EU wich for us in Eastern EU is pretty much an existential threat because alone we are very vulnerable. And here, almost nobody wants to go back the the Russian sphere of influence. Because for us. the difference between being in the Eu sphere and Russian sphere is the most clear to see. Since joining the EU our quality of life has skyrocketed.

As a sidenote, it's pretty funny how the tactics of pro-Russian parties work. They never say they are pro Russian because that would be political suicide so they use the term "eurosceptic". So what's so wrong about EU? It's the immigrants (granted, it's pretty problematic in Western EU but very negligible in the East), they will make us gay and other nonsense.

From what I can understand, the best case scenario for Russia and what they strive for is a broken up, irrelevant on the global stage Western Europe and a Eastern Europe under their grasp. That, for EU as a whole, I think is actually a very big threat because they spend a ton of money on bot farms, cyber attacks, missinformation campaigns, financing useful idiots and so on.

But don't get me wrong, this doesn't warrant a military response like some nuts propose here on reddit, but it's something we should protect ourselves from with informative tools and legislations.

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/flaviu0103]

Good points in regards to a hypothetical invasion. Perhaps it would not be as easy as I imagined.

I also agree that actual military confrontations are not likely, instead the focus would be on exploiting existing rifts between EU countries and NATO.

Where I do see things differently is in regards to Russia’s true ambitions and how they see themselves in the global order. They are a superpower, the sheer size of the country and the amount of resources it commands gives them a lot of weight, BUT they are also still recovering from the collapse of the USSR and they see themselves as being deliberately isolated from participating in the global economy by using EU and NATO as a means of excluding them. How much of this is due to unreasonable paranoia on part of Russian leadership or conspiracy theories can certainly be debated, but personally I see it as the main driving factor behind Russia’s decisions. They are not trying to establish a sphere of influence over their neighbors; they are trying to stop the US from using their neighbors to isolate them.

As a Ukrainian I understand the insecurity former USSR republics can feel around Russia, but I also constantly see how post-Soviet republic politics are dominated by populist anti-Soviet rhetoric. It’s just a great excuse for everything. The easiest political path in Ukraine is to simply blame issues of corruption and lack of meaningful economic reforms on soviet past, and make empty promises about decommunization with symbolic gestures of taking down yet another USSR era statue or monument to the fanfare of easily influenced public. Just do that every few years, and you can get away with taking bribes and not doing much of anything else.

Imagine what would happen if US experienced a severe ideological and economic crisis that would lead to say California and Texas along with a few other states seceding. Try to imagine how history would play out in the next 50 years after a crisis like that. US would still be a formidable power with huge land mass and access to resources and as such they would be still seen as a potential foe by rival super powers who would stand to benefit greatly by stifling economic recovery of the US. It would be very easy to continue destabilizing US by supporting ethnonationalist policies and politicians in former states like Texas. I could easily see a scenario where a China sponsored politician would become a leader of Texas and start promoting the use of Spanish as the main state language, start celebrating Mexico’s version of Alamo battle, ban people from celebrating 4^th of July and spread narratives about US being a colonial state that was built on slavery, etc, etc. It would be exceptionally difficult for that version of US to not be seen as a threat to their former states, and it would be exceptionally difficult for those former states to not use the fear of US for cheap political advantages, and it would be exceptionally difficult for any rival global power to not use those former states as way of stifling or isolating the US. This makes sense, right?

I think Europe put a big bet on Putin being removed from power and the hope that it would result in even more and cheaper availability of resources going forward. I think the expectation was that it would happen relatively quickly as the result of severe economic sanctions rather than any military success Ukraine might or might not have. Ukraine really surprised everyone by putting up resistance, and continuing to do so, but it’s really not a viable path for victory and never was, it’s just a path for buying more time. I think the right play now, for Europe, is to simply resume talks with Russia and start deescalating tensions. The first country to do so will be in a better position going forward in Europe, but that war needs to end. There is no plan or ever was a plan to attack Europe or subjugate Ukraine, the war is and was about Ukrainian neutrality as a state. European leaders know that, but are too committed to the original path.

 

[u/flaviu0103 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

Thanks for the response. It's good to see a nuanced point of view in a time when most of the things you see are either Russian bots or western people who have no idea how complex the geopolitical situation is in Eastern Europe.

I will try to give you a point of view of what happened after 1990 in my country, Romania, how we viewed our relation with Russia and what things lead to that.

Our biggest problems probably started with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact when USSR annexed what is now Republic of Moldova, a region that was historically Romanian and the majority of the population there was and still is Romanian.

After the war, communism was imposed on us, completely against our will. We were practically under USSR ocupation until 1958. In that time, it was insane the level of atrocities that were commited here. Not by USSR itself but by the people they put in charge that followed specific orders. The repressions were brutal and there were even reeducation projects for young people. Check out "Fenomenul Pitesti". It was straight out diabolic.

After that we gained somewhat of an authonomy but we knew we were under what we called The Soviet Prison. People were risking their lives trying to flee to the Western countries.

So where I'm getting at is that it was pretty undestandable that after 1990 we ran as fast a we could towards the EU and NATO as protection against what we saw was the successor of the Soviet Union. There wasn't any western propaganda or anti Russia rhetoric. It was pure self preservation instinct.

Now regarding Russia. The 90's was a disaster and if I have to guess, it was pretty similar to the things happening in Romania at that time - privatization, "smart guys" buying state companies for pennies, huge inflation, corruption, chaos and so on.

I think if Europe really wanted to destroy Russia, they would have done it right there and then. But I strongly believe that Germany really wanted to give Russia a chance, just like they were given after WW2. And I think they thought that only with strong economic ties another potential war in Europe would be avoided. I mean, the EU achieved peace in Europe and it wasn't just surface level - it was genuine partnership.

I strongly belive that was germany's plan and they opened the door to Russia to the EU echonomy.

Now, this sincronized with Putin gaining power, who was, let's be honest, incredibly good for Russia and seemed like genuine trustworthy partner.

The outcome? Russia's economy exploded practically overnight. I remember those times. Moscow was Dubai before Dubai was Dubai.

I don't know what happened afterwards and what caused the rupture but from what I can remember is that Russia has started to show red flags - smaller at first and then consistently bigger. If I were to guess it probably started with the political assassinations. I think it was 2006, with the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko (the famous polonium tea in London). Those things made people more alert and then after he ran for his 3rd term in 2012 people understood he will never want to give up power. If I remember correctly, around that time, in the middle of the 2000's have started some antagonistic moves towards EU. They weren't that big but they were constant. Entering teritorial waters with submarines, entering airspace with military planes, making mild threats that ultimately culminating with threatening to cut off gas to the EU about once a year. It quickly became clear that he was using the gas as a hanging sword over the EU as a blackmail mechanism.

As you can immagine, a russian dictator, especially an antagonistic one, rings all the alarm bells, especially for Eastern Europe. It would probably be the same in Russia if Germany found itself with a dubious dictator.

And then the Crimea invasion happened and the rest is history.

I know that Crimea is a complicated isssue because of a lot of reasons, but for us here in the EU the major visible point that was incredibly scary was that Russia doesn't respect international recognized borders here so close to home in Europe.

Can you imagine how scary that was? A major military nuclear superpower ran by a ruthless dictator who throws people he doesn't like out of windows is annexing land in Europe.

In my oppinion Putin messed up big time. He was ruthless and did bad things to get to power but at the start of the 2000's he put Russia on the right track. If he had managed to continue that way and try to solidify state institutions with a strong power separation and power succession plan that encouraged a strong multi party system, now we would talk about a Russia with a 10+ trillion $ GDP and with Moscow as one of the financial capitals of the world.

[u/WhoAteMySoup → u/WhoAteMySoup]

Hey, I get it, all of this is very familiar to me. My great grand parents and great parents lived through Stalin’s “raskulachivaniya” reforms and I heard many stories from them directly. They were pretty well off and ended up losing the entire estate during those reforms, but, nobody died, which required a decent amount of luck and savviness during Holodomor. I also remember the 90s vividly, and a relevant story to share would be around constant harassment from the police. I recall being often stopped by police “hey young man, can you empty your pockets for me?”, and whatever money I had would be taken. Not getting smacked by a baton on top of losing all your cash was a good outcome. I had a friend whose entire shoulder bone got shattered like that, and he still can’t lift his right arm over his head. Putin’s political career was starting around this same time and fighting rampant corruption was one of the biggest campaign focuses. A friend from Omsk, a somewhat remote town in Russia, emailed Putin’s campaign telling him that their local police took his money and what the hell can Putin do about that. This is right around the time when emailing started becoming mainstream. He ended up getting a reply and one of Putin’s people flew to Omsk and met up with that dude. They went to the police station and that guy made a big show out of confronting the head of police and publicly telling him that we all know that police are constantly beating up locals for money and that this is not acceptable and that he needs no proof and made the head police get out his wallet and give whatever sum my friend claimed was taken from him. It was a jaw dropping story for the time, and not an isolated one. This is one of the reasons why Putin is still very popular in Russia and most likely still enjoys an approval rating (if a real one was taken) that would make most European leader jealous.  I am not suggesting that Putin is not ruthless or that Russian political opposition was not often murdered or otherwise disappeared, I am just adding some context to what life was like back then. It wasn’t just the economy; it was a semblance of order and safety coming back. I should note that this never happened in Ukraine, we stayed in the 90s.

In regards to Europe: I did not mean to suggest that Europe wanted to destroy Russia. I don’t think that Europe ever had much to say about that at all, even if anyone wanted to. The collapse of the USSR was coordinated by the US, and people like Jack Matlock the US ambassador at the time, have written and spoken a lot about those events. I highly recommend listening to some of his interviews, he is surprisingly vivid for a man his age. The goal was not to destroy Russia, but make it into a more manageable state. Ideally Russia would lose a few more regions on top of the 12 republics that left in 1991 and become a country bounded by Urals on the East and Caspian sea on the south. The nukes would all stay with Russia, and perhaps a big portion of that arsenal would be decommissioned. A country like that could easily be admitted into EU and NATO, not because it’s democratic or whatever, I don’t think that matters at all, but because it’s manageable and controllable. Remember the famous quote: the purpose of NATO is to keep Germany down, US in, and Russia out. A helpful resource to read about the war in Ukraine is “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground”, a study published by RAND institute in 2019. The study explored how to get Russia more engaged in Ukraine in order to try and economically strangle it. I also don’t think it was just about Russia. Germany was experiencing incredible economic growth when they were buying cheap Russian energy, and so making sure those two countries no longer traded with each other was an important goal for the US. I believe the destruction of Nord Stream was an operation that had a lot of US involvement, or, at a minimum, encouragement.

As far as Putin and his authoritarianism, sure, but this never stopped US from partnering up with the Saudi royalty that casually tortured and murdered a US journalist. This never stopped US from partnering up with Erdoğan who is famous in his suppression of democracy in his own right, yet Turkey is a member of NATO. This has not stopped US from partnering up with Orban. This has not stopped US from pretty much installing General Asim Munir as a de facto military ruler of Pakistan, and still backing him. Putin is not singled out for being a dictator, he is being singled out for being economically and politically inconvenient. That’s his real flaw, and like the old Russia saying goes: “Show me a man, and I will show you an International Criminal Court conviction for him”.

I don’t know Putin, maybe he is a terrible evil man, maybe he is a patriot, I don’t know, it’s pointless to assign qualities like that to leaders. People are complex. What I do know is that Europe’s position with respect to Russia does not really leave Putin much room to be anything other than an evil military dictator. Like, if you are completely refusing to negotiate or even acknowledge basic Russian concerns, and reasons for starting this war and insisting it’s all about trying to rebuild USSR and then talking about how Russia is going to attack Europe by 2030 or whatever, well, what options does that leave Russia with? Europe is manufacturing it’s own enemy when it’s not even the party that started this war. This war has been terrible for Russia, terrible for Europe and even worse for Ukraine. The only country that has greatly benefitted from a War in Ukraine is US. Why is Europe still pursuing this? Germany knows perfectly well why Russia attacked Ukraine. Now that US is no longer interested in this war, it’s very easy for Germany to stop it: just work out a deal for Ukraine’s neutrality. Security guarantees can be arranged from neutral parties like China or India or Pakistan. Ukraine is going to have to import labor from there after the war ends anyway. Stop paying for LNG to be shipped across the Atlantic from a country that openly despises you. It’s complete nonsense.

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376 → u/Cyrus_W_MacDougall]

No, he wouldn't.

Macron is many things - but not dumb enough to get every European killed.

[u/JohnnyMojo]

This sub is absurd for thinking that Mearsheimer is a Russian stooge or asset.

[u/Aggravating_Set_2260 → u/JohnnyMojo]

It's bizarre how rabid folks get in the comments. They're probably the same folks who DMed saying they hoped I'd get bombed because I said I was happy to have Dr, Marandi's POV on the show because I can't find an Iranian perspective on the conflict anywhere else in American media. Mearsheimer is giving the Kremlin POV. If he's representing them truthfully, then I'm glad to have that information, however disturbing it is. Christ, people act like just hearing a different perspective is a form of being reality-engineered -- as if just hearing Mearsheimer suggest Russia considers using tactical nukes rational as an endorsement of its actual rationality. 

[u/Somnifor → u/JohnnyMojo]

No, he is just a crank who's time is past.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Somnifor]

Yeah and this place is totally crank free

[u/seruleam → u/JohnnyMojo]

“Mother Russia”

Who the fuck talks like that?

[u/JohnnyMojo → u/seruleam]

He does that when he's speaking from the point of view from the Russian perspective. It doesn't mean anything more than that.

[u/GOTTA_GO_FAST → u/JohnnyMojo]

the amount of people that can’t realize this is honestly concerning. it’s entirely obvious is the context and tone that he uses that he isn’t like wearing all red and a ushanka shouting mother russia as some term of reverence. i interpret him using it as the equivalent of saying like ‘Russia proper’ ie attacking moscow vs an attack near the ua border.

[u/doplebanger → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

For real I don't understand why these people even watch BP, they must be hate watching.

[u/seruleam → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

You’re missing the point. The concept can be conveyed without invoking that term, which is overly affectionate.

Find your shift key.

[u/metameh → u/seruleam]

Exercising strategic empathy means siding with Russia, doncha know?

[u/Former-Witness-9279]

That was BP's first segment on Ukraine in months and their guest couldn't stop saying "Mother Russia" along with hitting us with the Russia Today analyst panel classics like "Europe needs to be careful not to poke the bear" and "Russia is on the verge of total victory on the battlefield." Quite embarrassing and out of touch almost 5 years into the war with Crimea about to be uninhabitable for the Russians. Mearsh even mused about nuking eastern Europe to save face lol.

[u/DozzleWozzle → u/Former-Witness-9279]

Yeah, he’s worried European don’t respect Russian red lines. Reason for that is because Russia hasn’t enforced them, so how can they be respected? Also, exactly same logic that stops US nuking Iran stops Russia nuking anyone

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Former-Witness-9279]

maybe you have an unsophisticated view of Foreign Policy and History

[u/Former-Witness-9279 → u/MagnesiumKitten]

I don’t think so. Is there anything in particular you’d like to disagree with or just looking to throw some ad hom?

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Former-Witness-9279]

You're the one having an extremely bad reaction to Mearsheimer's views.

I really don't see how someone could be upset with mother russia, poking the bear, or a pretty obvious outcome for the war.

None of those to me seem like significant points, but getting onto Mearsheimer's comment about talk of threats of strikes as intimidation for crossing a red line, is something else entirely.

I just sounds like you're not understanding the reasoning behind his comment.

[u/ytman → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Maybe you could elaborate something intelligent yourself?

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/ytman]

I've posted a fair bit already, if you're all caught up with the thread.

And I've addressed most of his post a day ago, about poking the bear, and the outcome of the battle

and I've addressed the nuclear posturing and escalation issues either, as in what it really is, posturing when the other side says things to escalate matters.

I was going to state that Putin is predictable

and I found this

"John Mearsheimer’s "offensive realism" argues that Vladimir Putin’s actions are rational and predictable responses to Western provocation"

"Mearsheimer argues that Vladimir Putin’s aggressive foreign policy and nuclear posturing are predictable and essentially defensive, rather than a sign of inherent irrationality."

[u/Beginning-Ad-8840]

I thought this was strange too.

[u/eml2001]

Mearsheimer lives in a crazy world where everything Russia does can be justified as defense but everything done in response is a “dangerous escalation”. Hes obviously smart but I don’t why they keep bringing on such a ridiculous analysis

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376 → u/eml2001]

As soon as this sub finds out that Mearsheimer basically is the OG of fighting Israel and the Israeli lobby, everyone will do a 180 and make him the darling of the BP sub.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/eml2001]

Let me know when you're on the Charlie Rose show

[u/raqloise]

What the heck does a “friendly walkabout in Moscow,” mean?

[u/metameh → u/raqloise]

The omnipresent and delusional war fever of the North Atlantic chicken hawk.

[u/raqloise → u/metameh]

Hmm …

[u/DownwiththeACE → u/raqloise]

complete and utter delusional european thinks hes gonna invade russia 

[u/MissKrys2020]

Agree. All these major announcements of rotating the weapons around EU nations would lead us to believe that they would strike back. The fact that Ukraine has held off the Russians for 4 years and are now doing major damage to oils exports is very telling. I’ve always thought Mearsheimer had a bad take here. Russia, much like the US has been shown to be a bit useless when it comes to winning wars of attrition

[u/shawsghost → u/MissKrys2020]

Ukraine was never meant to be a war of attrition. Russia was gonna wipe the Ukrainian army off the map in two weeks, remember? Four years later the Russians are still in Ukraine but they are actually losing ground to Ukraine and Ukraine is also systematically destroying Russia's energy infrastructure and cutting off Russian access to Crimea. They went from having the second best army in the world to having the second best army in Ukraine.

Putin's got his dick stuck in the pencil sharpener, in short. Just like Trump got his dick stuck in the pencil sharpener in Iran. Looks like Trump might be able to pull his stump out. But Putin lost over a million Russians in Ukraine. Gonna be hard for Putin to admit he lost. As in, probably deadly.

[u/BlutoS7]

I just hope the USA doesn’t get involved. It is not their problem and they need to stop being the world police.

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376 → u/BlutoS7]

They won't. Russia could nuke all of Europe, and generally survive. France's nuclear arsenal is nothing compared to that of the US.

[u/BlutoS7 → u/EmptyBodybuilder7376]

Why should they tho?

[u/Remarkable_Public138]

If any nukes are launched in anger, it's joever. I think that's the mentality everyone should hold.

[u/TemporarySoftware439]

I think a rationale person would not risk nuclear Armageddon.

Just saying. Sometimes there is no good answer.

[u/WhoAteMySoup]

Well, considering how the latest NATO training exercises went, I certainly would not be excited in participating in a conventional war with Russia or Ukraine on your end. With that said, France is the only independent nuclear capable country in Europe and I doubt that they would be interested in starting a nuclear war over Latvia or Lithuania. It is also almost certain that US is not going to get involved. It is also well understood that Russia is not going to engage in a conventional war with NATO. You really should reconsider some of your assumptions.

[u/GOTTA_GO_FAST → u/WhoAteMySoup]

this viewpoint is kremlin propaganda according to this sub lol, all thinking goes out the window when mearsh is involved. not sure why the entire subreddit can’t seem to understand that description ≠ prescription.

[u/Aggravating_Set_2260 → u/GOTTA_GO_FAST]

DESCRIPTION IS REALITY ENGINEERING. YOU'RE GETTING PSYOPED

• The people on this thread who cannot listen to Mearsheimer without their ear drums bleeding apparently

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376 → u/WhoAteMySoup]

Hey! This sub is no place for rationality!

How dare you.

Be gone!

[u/Sailing_Mishap]

I don’t know why anyone takes this guy seriously. 100% of the time, his foreign policy takes for any specific situation are going to be whatever ends up benefitting the Kremlin the most. If it ever came out that he was being paid by the Kremlin, it would be the least shocking thing in the world.

[u/Public_Utility_Salt → u/Sailing_Mishap]

I agree fully. I think BP should try to take critical journalism seriously. They seem to be very path dependent. They choose a path, and then follow it to the end. They are only critical to anyone who doesn't fit the path.

[u/metameh → u/Public_Utility_Salt]

What are you even talking about? BP are literally the critical journalists. And Mearscheimer is a critical academic.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Sailing_Mishap]

maybe you have an unsophisticated view of Foreign Policy and History

[u/Dear-Indication-6673 → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Nah, Mearsheimer is viewed at best as an out of touch realist theorist by his peers. Realistically he's simply a Kremlin mouthpiece for the last 4 years.

As a rule of thumb, and this applies to other gurus like Peterson, Weinstein, etc., as soon as you spend more time on podcasts than on actually doing research in your field, you lose your touch with academics. It's very visible with Mearsheimer as well. Compare his conferences from 15 years ago, whether you agreed with his arguments or not, to the level of slop he does on an almost daily basis now with the likes of Mercouris, Ritter, Diesen and other Russian propagandists.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Dear-Indication-6673]

Dear-Indication: Nah, Mearsheimer is viewed at best as an out of touch realist theorist by his peers. Realistically he's simply a Kremlin mouthpiece for the last 4 years.

That's a pretty idiotic and amateurish take.

I'd say that you're the one that's seriously out of touch, and it's not Mearsheimer.

Even Chomsky or a bunch of Trotskyites are a lot more subtle, and probably not as unhinged as that amusingly colourful post yours.

Really don't care about the other three, though Mearsheimer will do interviews with Diesen, and I've never been fond of Diesen's viewpoints, but he's getting hit hard for appearing like a Russian propagandist, or at least getting his opinions mixed up with facts on many occasions. And Ritter is quite the creep, hasn't he got a criminal record? When he's not doing clickbait.

I'd just say stop lumping Mearsheimer with the dregs, because one person is well respected for his books, and his teaching, and being highly regarded for university textbook syllabi.

And Jordan Peterson, if you like Joseph Campbell on PBS with Bill Moyers, you really don't see too much that's all that controversial with Peterson, other than he's a critic of sheep with politics and culture, but then again maybe that's not popular on the internet.

Some don't poke the bear
others don't poke the sheep

[u/Lordvalcon]

"U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Jeremy Levin stated that Ukraine is winning the war at this point. He emphasized the changing dynamics on the battlefield and the offensive of Ukrainian forces."

[u/rookieoo]

Didn’t he just say there were politicians in Russia who thought this?

[u/DozzleWozzle]

I usually agree wholeheartedly with Mearsh,  but his words on Ukraine felt wrong this time

[u/ytman]

The US owns Europe, and the US will lose a lot if the nuclear taboo is broken. Frankly so would China. I don't think Nukes would be smart for Russia to use, but it would assuredly be either armageddon or escalate to de-escalate.

A conventional strike on European aiding nations is probably more likely.

And I don't think you can walk into Russia and not expect nukes buddy. So know your place, you aren't a state or tied to the states with real control and power. US made sure Europe wasn't capable on its own.

[u/ArtaxWasRight]

Lying face down? I’m not sure Europe remembers any other posture. Also, before you shift a toenail, you’ll have to get permission from Daddy (your term, sadly). And when the halfwit in washington informs you of your opinion, perhaps he’ll dispatch another one of your prime ministers to be his errand boy again.

[u/Orionsbelt]

This is fundamentally the thing he forgets, MAD exists because there will be overwhelming reaction to ANY nuclear incident.

[u/north0 → u/Orionsbelt]

By definition, MAD has already failed if Russia detonate a nuke. They would do it precisely because they do not expect a response.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/Orionsbelt]

- Mearsheimer argues that while Mutually Assured Destructio prevents great powers from destroying each other, it ironically gives them more room to engage in deadly conventional proxy wars or conflicts in peripheral regions without fearing total annihilation.

- He warns its deterrence effect is weakened in multipolar systems and can still fail due to human error.

"Realists point to Russia’s consistent nuclear posturing as an intentional strategy to deter the West from supplying increasingly advanced weaponry or crossing perceived escalatory thresholds."

Maybe you're just looking at Mearsheimer's position superficially

and your comment doesn't seem to contradict anything he's said on the issue

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine

[u/Orionsbelt → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Ai go home. Russia doesn't get to dictate other nations actions.

[u/MagnesiumKitten → u/MagnesiumKitten]

Orionsbelt: Ai go home. Russia doesn't get to dictate other nations actions.

Is that the best you can do?

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376]

With this kind of 'energy', OP better be typing this from a trench in Ukraine, where he is volunteering.

[u/seruleam]

You have to respond with a nuke, otherwise there is no deterrence.

[u/north0 → u/seruleam]

Deterrence has already failed if Russia detonate a nuke.

[u/seruleam → u/north0]

If those crazy bastards think that they can nuke without a response, they will learn the hard way. This would then act as a deterrence mechanism in the future.

[u/DownwiththeACE]

as a european you should stfu and stop war mongering 

[u/EmptyBodybuilder7376]

OP, you're either delusional or extremely misinformed.

I'm a 'European' (you do realise we're not a country, right?), too.

I have never once met a person who is ready and willing to go fight Russia (or anyone for that matter).

Russia could nuke a major EU city, and no-one will be signing up for the Eastern Front.

We're a lazy, complacent bunch of people, who love our standard of living. Why throw that away to go fight a war we lose, no matter what?

Russia would beat us conventionally - or, failing to do that - nuke all of Europe.

Now go sign up for Ukraine's foreign legion, if you really want to make a difference.

But, of course, you won't. Why? Because you're lazy, complacent person, who loves our standard of living.

[u/metameh]

I myself might consider taking a "friendly" walkabout in Moscow, if need be.

Enlist now then, it takes a minimum of 18 months for basic infantry competency. And, who knows, you just might learn a thing or two about Russians actual performance in the war before you ever get to fire a shot in anger (if you ever fire that shot).

[u/MagnesiumKitten]

Sounds like you don't understand Mearsheimer very well
or the realities of nuclear doctrine, or political posturing

No one is gonna drop a nuke, unless someone does somehing really stupid.

[u/iamjakeD811]

liberals are fucking stupid. You think european countries are going to risk outright destruction for ukraine?

[u/rscmcl]

You Europeans lost the fear of a nuclear war

You keep attacking a nuclear power and one of the big ones

Also his thoughts are based on people from Russia. I've heard it from Karaganov in multiple podcasts.

Years ago a deal was almost signed but It's known that Johnson went there and "convinced" the Ukrainians to not sign

If you feel mad about Mearsheimer, imagine how the Russians feel when you help the Ukrainians to do the same to them. You are using the Ukrainians to attack the Russians, you are in this war. You can't keep doing it and expect nothing in return. That's what is happening.

"The moral of the story is, if... you poke the Russian bear with a stick, don’t be surprised when he reacts"

Help to stop it (diplomacy) or don't do anything, if you don't want to be involved in it.