My counter-argument to “Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault?” from Professor John Mearsheimer – (1)

There is a video lesson by Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago which talked about the Russia-Ukraine matter in 2015. His view is widely accepted by many people, especially for pro-Russians, as reasonable thoughts about why Russia wants to attack Ukraine. Some of the arguments I agree with; some of the arguments I don’t. I want to offer my counter-argument to his view.  

13:42 “Because our basic strategy is to topple regimes all over the world, not simply because we like democracy, but because we believe that whoever gets elected will be pro-western.So we are killing two birds with one stone, we are promoting democracy and getting leaders who are pro-American.”

Ans:

*Note: What Professor Mearsheimer meant was that we promote democracy and make Russia feel threatened.I do agree with your point. Yet, I don’t think there is anything wrong to do with promoting democracy. If Russia feels threatened, it should give up the dictatorship model, rather than us acting like submissive servants who have to be scared of making Russia feel threatened.

It’s always wrong with a dictatorship mechanism. Most of the time, as you can see from history, people were forced to give up the basic rights they are supposed to have, for example, the right to free speech – this was forbidden in both U.S and China many years ago. 

In China’s case, the time when people’s right to free speech was restricted most heavily was the Qing dynasty. People – no matter whether they were Qing dynasty officials or normal civilians – as long as they wrote something which may seem to criticize the Qing dynasty or its emperors (most of the time the meaning weren’t even criticisms; the meanings were distorted by Qing dynasty officials and the emperor), the person who wrote the article and the person’s relatives would be killed. ^[1] https://min.news/en/history/e2df1f38a8919b59fd1044e3315a9a0c.html  The same thing still happens in China at the current time, same as in Russia, but the extents of both China and Russia in the current time aren’t as severe as in old-time China.

Therefore, are we wrong at making Russia feel its dictatorship is being threatened? I don’t think so. The dictatorship in Russia is supposed to be threatened; it is supposed to be demolished. In Putin’s eyes, Russians in Ukraine are suffering from Nazis, so he has to “liberate” them; in my eyes, Russians in Russia are the ones who are suffering, they have to be liberated.  

25:10 Professor Mearsheimer talked about U.S’s Monroe doctrine and the Cuban missile crisis.

1. Monroe doctrine: “The western hemisphere is our backyard. Nobody put military forces in the western hemisphere ” 

2. Cuba crisis: “You remember how we are stark raving crazy at the idea of the Soviets putting military forces in Cuba. This is unacceptable………President Obama and western countries were very surprised (at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine). I guessed this is because they’re 21st century right, and they think the balance of power politics doesn’t matter anymore.” 

Note: Professor Mearsheimer was saying that the intention of Russia to invade Ukraine is as same as the intention of the U.S to invade Cuba in 1962. It’s about national security (afraid of Russia would invade the U.S from Cuba versus being afraid of the U.S and NATO would invade Russia from Ukraine).  

Ans: 

When we talk about the Monroe doctrine and the Cuba crisis, we have to understand the intention behind the two matters.

The initial intention of the Monroe doctrine was to stop Europe colonialism in the Western hemisphere, particularly in America, for instance, Latin America. More precisely, the U.S thought Europe colonialism would endanger U.S’s independence. As times went by, the Monroe doctrine was applied in counter-communism, because communism is not in accordance with the U.S’s ideology of capitalism. ^[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine  I have to say this application is correct, since the U.S values freedom, and freedom is the core value of the U.S and many modern countries. Communism forces civilians to deliver the fortune they earn to the government, while capitalism allows civilians to keep the fortune they have and spend their fortune on anything they want. Viewing from this perspective, capitalism encapsulates freedom, freedom of exercising the right of individual property, while communism does not.  

Since Monroe’s doctrine is about the U.S’s independence and national security, the doctrine itself is never suitable and ideal for achieving world peace. It’s always about the U.S itself. The only thing we can say is that because the value of the U.S is closer to the moral value most the modern countries agree on, which represents justice and freedom; therefore, the many invasions from the U.S are more morally justified. This makes a difference between the U.S invasion of Cuba and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (I won’t explain why justice and freedom are the right values here, if there is any doubt regarding whether to value justice and freedom is right (since people who are pro-Russia and pro-China may have doubts about that), you may google or read some books to explore answers. For many of you, just know justice and freedom are good without knowing why is enough because they are truly good.)  

Therefore, although Professor Mearsheimer didn’t say anything wrong, and he provided a very convincing example – the Cuba crisis, there are still distinctions between the behavior of the U.S and that of Russia. First, there is a difference in the ideology between the U.S and Russia, and the effect on civilians of each country based on respective ideologies is opposite – one is good while the other one is bad. Second, from my point of view, the Monroe doctrine itself in essence is never a suitable doctrine for world peace, it’s solely for the stability of the U.S independence and the U.S national security. 

So responding to Professor Mearsheimer’s argument, did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is indeed as same as the U.S’s invasion of Cuba? Yes. However, there is a difference. The difference (that comes with the fight) is its respective ideology, one is capitalism and democracy, and the other one is a dictatorship. While Russia is no longer a communist country, we can just simplify the fight into democracy versus dictatorship. As most of us agree democracy is good, dictatorship is bad (even if you don’t know why. Just knowing democracy is good is enough for you). This difference makes Russia’s invasion bad, and U.S’s invasion good, and we simply can’t say since the intentions are the same, Russia can become right on the invasion of Ukraine. Russia is never right about the invasion of a sovereign country that values freedom, democracy, and humanitarianism. 

This topic will also come up with a few relevant questions which are not related to Professor Mearsheimer’s arguments. I will explain them all at once to clear your doubts.  

1. You said U.S’s invasion is good, it supports freedom and democracy, but many U.S invasions had killed many civilians, including the Cuba invasion, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war…etc. 

There is a detailed answer in my article on the Iraq War. However, I will briefly explain my answer here.
In short, I agree that U.S invasions had killed many civilians. However, they are individual behaviors and don’t represent the whole U.S army. In fact, many war crimes that come from Western countries in these wars have been submitted to the international court and the soldiers who committed war crimes have been held accountable for their behaviors in recent wars^[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Afghanistan . In the contrast, in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the massive deaths of civilians and women who got raped; the war crimes should not be treated as individual behaviors given the massive amounts of crimes. The leadership of the Russian army allows these atrocities. Some of you may have some further questions. As I said, this is a brief explanation. You may read my detailed answer in the article about the Iraq War.

2. Are the Afghanistan war and Iraq war legal? 

(1) See my article here regarding the detail of the Iraq war.
(2) There are many people who have been complaining that the U.S has killed so many innocent civilians in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/……. Though the majority of people support the West, every time I see someone comment “the U.S also killed many people in (somewhere)” in Russia-Ukraine war news, no one has reason to retort it; people just went silent.  Nevertheless, for such a comment, I have an opinion: Even if the U.S’s wars are not justified, it doesn’t mean other countries including Russia have the right to start a war and kill people. There is a basic moral principle that everyone has ignored in this matter: Just because you saw someone kill a person, doesn’t mean you can also kill a person, whether that killer you saw goes into jail or not.
By the way, there are many wars initiated by the U.S, not only the Afghanistan war and Iraq war. Maybe there are indeed some wars that are the fault of the U.S. Nevertheless, for every war, you may encounter and say, “The U.S also killed many people”, whether or not it’s true, just remember the principle I wrote above: Just because you saw someone kill a person, doesn’t mean you can also kill a person, whether that killer you saw goes into jail or not.  

29:48
1. The West – US is a benign hegemony:
“China, Iran, Russia just don’t see it that way. So when you takes measures, the other side won’t see as good, will see as threatening against them.”

2. The West – Putin’s behaviors prove that it was wise to expand NATO:
“There was no evidence proves that Putin was aggressive before the crisis. There was no evidence before the crisis proves that we are talking about expanding NATO because we had to contain Russians.”  “We didn’t think Russia was aggressive. What happened is that after the crisis happend in Feb 22, we THEN DECIDED that Russia was aggressive”

Ans:

1. China, Ira, and Russia don’t see the US as a benign hegemony:
Many people will doubt this benign hegemony thought nowadays since there are a lot of negative news and opinions after wars initiated by the U.S. However, I personally agree with this view. One thing you should know is that the Monroe doctrine is about counter-colonialism and counter-communism, so in many ways, this benign hegemony view is correct. However, one thing I want you to learn is that things don’t always work out with this benign hegemony view. For more details, see my article about the Iraq war. I also cite the benign hegemony thinking there to talk about my perspective. With respect to the point that Professor Mearsheimer talked about China, Iran, and Russia don’t see it that way and see it as threatening to them, yes, this is a battle between democracy and dictatorship, so this is the reason that these countries don’t see democracy is good. Many people have the good quality of respecting other people’s voices and that is good(though there are also many people who don’t have this good quality). However, I want to teach you a principle: Sometimes other voices may be wrong, and we can’t respect those voices by letting them offend us or their people every time. It may be a way to stay out of the way of these dictatorship governments, but it’s never the best way, I discussed in detail regarding this topic, you may refer to my article about the Iraq war for understanding the details. Plus, the thought of power holders is not the thought of the majority of local civilians. Even if the thought of the majority of local civilians has the same thought as their power holder, that’s because they are brainwashed by government propaganda.

2. The West didn’t think Russia was aggressive before the crisis to retort to the argument that Putin’s behavior proves it was wise to expand NATO:
What Professor Mearsheimer meant is that we didn’t foresee Russia’s aggressive action before Ukraine’s application to NATO and this wisdom of joining NATO’s argument is hindsight. Yes, I do agree with this point.  It’s certainly that maybe the West didn’t think Russia was that aggressive, and yes, the reason for NATO’s expansion hasn’t been because the West wanted to contain Russian; the reason for NATO’s expansion was simply because there’s a new country want to join to protect itself (Ukraine’s application). While some people may say Ukraine wanted to join NATO because Ukraine wanted to prevent Russia’s invasion and this thought is correct, either Ukraine or NATO never wants to contain Russia, both of them simply want to protect themselves. However, just to prevent some people’s confusion, first, the act of making this decision after the Kharkiv bombing on Feb 22, 2015, isn’t necessarily wrong, since we can’t label certain people as a “bad guy” before he really commits crimes. Second, in hindsight, Putin’s behaviors still prove it’s right to join NATA, and that’s why Finland and Sweden are trying to join NATO now.   

32:20
1. Get tougher toward Russia: Professor Mearsheimer mocks about we blame them and incapable of blaming ourselves, and mock about US is treating Russia like in 1930s. 

2. The west is playing a losing hand: “U.S treated the crisis like Munich in 1938. You can’t do that so what you do is you get tougher. My argument is that you are playing a losing hand”

“Western mindset is you can punish Russia economically then they will throw thier hands up. My argument is when security is at stake, when a core strategic interest at stake……………, countries will suffer enormously before they throw their hands up”

“Ukraine is matter to Russia, but Ukraine doesn’t matter to U.S”. Quoting John Mccian, Professor Mearsheimer said, “Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest to U.S”

“Let’s assume I am wrong. We are capable of backing Putin into a corner and clif. Is this good? (Talk about they have natural resources which is important to the world and hold nuclear weapon)….(Economic sanction) is you are putting yourself into a possible nuclear war over Ukraine that is not a vital strategic interest to U.S.” 

Ans: 

1. We blame them and are incapable of blaming ourselves: No. As I said earlier to Professor Mearsheimer’s first argument, “there is nothing wrong to do with promoting democracy. If Russia feels threatened, it should give up the dictatorship model, rather than us acting like submissive servants who have to be scared of making Russia feel threatened”. So follow this thought, why should we blame ourselves when a matter is indeed other people’s fault? 

2.  This argument of Professor Mearsheimer is pretty precise. So far, the west hasn’t succeeded in making Russia give up Russia-Ukraine war by economic sanctions, and Russia indeed has suffered enormously (nevertheless hasn’t given up). Nevertheless, just as Professor Mearsheimer himself quoted from Hohn Mccian, “Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest to the U.S”, the reason that the U.S only has enforced economic sanctions instead of providing force and heavy weapons is exactly that Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest to the U.S (and certainly that the U.S is afraid of Russia’s nuclear weapons, too.) while Ukraine has been suffering from Russia’s armed conflicts (since 2014) and the U.S wants to help Ukraine. So to prevent the U.S itself from involving in the Ukraine matter too deeply, the U.S enforced economic sanctions. It’s true that the west has been playing a losing hand by enforcing economic sanctions on Russia because Putin doesn’t care at all. However, there are two things I want to emphasize.

One, enforcing economic sanctions is still the first thing we have to do before pursuing a solution by force during that time (When Russia hadn’t started the 2022 invasion) (Nevertheless, for the current 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, though Professor Mearsheimer won’t agree on using force in this war, I personally suggest using force to help Ukraine in this war). Thus, we can’t say since the West is playing a losing hand then we just do not do economic sanctions. Professor Mearsheimer is a smart person so he may say we should do something else, but he didn’t suggest anything else other than economic sanctions (And his stand is closer to the Russian side so I don’t think he supports using force against Russia, either). 

Two, though I agree that economic sanction is useless: I think if Putin cares about economic impacts, he wouldn’t invade Ukraine in the first place, since enforcing economic sanctions toward an aggressive country is not a first-time and brand new method before the Russia-Ukraine conflict which started in 2014, and the provision of that when you do something bad, you will face economic sanctions is clearly written in the international law, the most significant reason that enforcing economic sanctions is useless is that Putin is an irrational person (because he doesn’t care about economic sanctions), and that he only cares about himself; the reason of strategic interest reason is only a partial piece of the full picture (Plus, I suggest one thing we should learn from the actions from Russia such as faking stories about how evil Ukrainians are: We should learn to be aware of Russia’s evil intention if we see such actions again in the future; we should treat Putin as an unreasonable men based on these actions). My perspective is that you can’t reason with an unreasonable human, and that’s why no matter how hard you try, the Russia-Ukraine conflict seems to have only escalated instead of being de-escalated from 2014 to 2015 (and still has been escalating until now). Thus, what you should blame is that there is an unreasonable man in the world, not that we are using a useless method such as economic sanction (because it’s supposed to be useful when it’s used on a reasonable person). 

Therefore, although I do agree with Professor Mearsheimer’s point regarding enforcing economic sanctions is useless toward Putin, the above two points have to be understood – Economic sanction is still the first way we should do it. Regarding Professor Mearsheimer’s perspective that when we do economic sanctions, we are putting ourselves into a possible nuclear war over Ukraine that is not a vital strategic interest to the U.S, I would want to reaffirm my perspective: You can’t reason with an unreasonable man; no matter how hard you try, it’s not going to work (^^). Instead of blaming us for escalating the circumstance into a possible nuclear war, you should blame Putin want to use nuclear weapons when we only use economic sanctions but never use force and leave Ukraine alone in this fight because we think it’s Ukraine’s fight of freedom, not ours. Though it’s indeed Ukraine’s fight for freedom, I personally do think we should help Ukraine with force methods. The reason is detailed in my article on the Iraq war. One thing I would like to emphasize here is that if we don’t use force, the war from Russia still comes to us, then what is the point of us being polite in not using force? Again, you can’t reason with an unreasonable human. With this hypothesis of Professor Mearsheimer, I may as well say that it may be the case that the harder we try to respect Putin while he is disrespectful to Ukraine and the west, the harder impact we may face in the future. (By the way, it’s indeed the case now. The west only provided weapons, but Putin is threatening the west.) 

Click here to see Part 2

If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people. 
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.

Chrissy Slora

The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin