My counter-argument to “Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault?” from Professor John Mearsheimer – (2)

See here for the video lesson by Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago which talked about the Russia-Ukraine matter in 2015. This article is Part 2 of my counter-argument to his view.

36:00
“When you incorporate Ukraine into NATO, you are giving them Article 5 gurantee. You only give Article 5 gurantee to a country which is a vital strategic interest, like Germany during a cold war. What were we doing? …..It just shows how discombobulated American foreign policy is.” 

Ans: 

No. First, NATO is always open to any country in Europe which has the intention to join NATO; that’s NATO’s principle.NATO’s Article 5 guarantee gives to every NATO member, so whoever joins NATO, it should have an Article 5 guarantee. Whether or not a country can join NATO should be and is currently dependent on NATO’s openness principle; that’s irrelevant to America’s foreign policy, and therefore America’s interests shouldn’t be taken into consideration. For Professor Mearsheimer who is intelligent and knowledgeable, he must know that NATO’s establishment was initiated by the U.S, and the U.S has responsibility in Article 5, too. That’s why he connects NATO’s Article 5 with the U.S’s foreign policy in addition to the reason that Ukraine is not geographically close to the U.S like Cuba is (Strategic interest). However, I want to point out that the reason that the U.S initiated NATO is that the U.S wanted to prevent communism’s expansion in Europe. Judge based on this reason, isn’t Ukraine a strategic interest to NATO, since Ukraine is a next-door neighbor to Russia? Though it’s not a neighbor to the U.S, it is to Europe, and to prevent Russia’s expansion, Ukraine may be important to NATO in terms of geographic location. I am not a military expert, maybe Ukraine isn’t that important to NATO. Still, remember, NATO is open to any country in Europe which wants to join NATO regardless of strategic interest factors nowadays. In addition to this, Professor Mearsheimer may also use the fact that the cold war era is gone, and Russia is no longer a communist country as a reason to validate his argument that Russia and Ukraine are not that important; China is. My opinion is that no matter how much severity of the threat Russia poses to the U.S nowadays, we can’t ignore the fact that Russia was threatening Ukraine (in 2015), and on a moral base, this has to be stopped. So if making Ukraine join NATO (in 2015) can stop Russia’s threatening behaviors, let Ukraine join (Notice Professor Mearsheimer’s argument was made in 2015, not now. We can’t use the current 2022 war as a reason, that will be like hindsight.). 

Second, I mentioned the same thing in my article regarding the Iraq war, local people are suffering. It will be unsympathetic and have no sense of justice if we only care about our interests and don’t care about other people’s death and pain. (And Professor Mearsheimer even doesn’t want economic sanction and approval of Ukraine’s NATO membership, while I suggest we use force to help Ukraine though there will be nuclear war risk.) Let me reaffirm what I said earlier, on a moral base, this has to be stopped. I also hope whoever reads this article can spend time reading my article about the Iraq war and consider my suggestion in that article.  

37:29 
Professor Mearsheimer quote New York Times to cite Obama’s policy. Professor Mearsheimer further talked about his own suggestions regarding what should be done. 

1. New York Times: “In effect, Obama is retrofitting for a new age the approach to Moscow that was first set out by the diplomat George F. Kennan in 1947 and that dominated American strategy through the fall of the Soviet Union. ” ^[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/world/europe/in-cold-war-echo-obama-strategy-writes-off-putin.html  

2. Professor Mearsheimer’s opinions on what should be done:
(1) Neutral Ukraine
(2) Buffer state between Nato and Russia: “Netual Ukraine will be both Russian and Ukraine’s interest (Ukraine’s interest: End the crisis)” 

Ans: 

My opinion is that Professor Mearsheimer’s suggestion was good in 2015. If I were him or anyone who listened to his speech in 2015, I would also think this suggestion is good and has the potential to achieve peace. On the other hand, Obama’s policy is to limit Russia’s expansionists ambitions by economic sanctions ^[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/world/europe/in-cold-war-echo-obama-strategy-writes-off-putin.html . This way may help Russia not dare to invade another country (Again, Obama’s policy was made in the past, not after the 2022 war). However, despite the fact that economic sanctions and the neutral Ukraine compromise that Ukraine already make don’t end the current 2022 war, I do need to point out one thing: Either Obama’s policy or Professor Mearsheimer’s suggestion is based on accepting the fact that Putin is the dictator of Russia. Stopping the previous conflict (before the 2022 war) or the 2022 war by punishing economically or compromising with Russia only solves part of the problem. Economic sanctions and compromise don’t bring peace and freedom to innocent Russians. Putin is still the dictator of Russia. In my article regarding the Iraq war, I also mentioned Obama’s policy regarding Cuba. The policy toward Cuba and the policy toward Russia and China are actually similar and all based on the same central philosophy: The Monroe doctrine is over. Just as I said in the Iraq war article, “Obama simply tried to recognize trades and interactions between two countries while leaving Cuba people deal with their dictatorship themselves”. In Russia’s case, though Obama’s policy of economic sanctions toward Russia is unlike the encouragement of trade with Cuba, Obama’s policy still left Russians suffering under Putin’s dictatorship. Moreover, before the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Obama’s policy of “Reset” which attempted to improve relations between the U.S and Russia ^[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset , in my opinion, was as similar to the policy toward Cuba – tried to recognize interactions between two countries while leaving people deal with their dictatorship themselves.    

39:14
Professor Mearsheimer’s proposal
1. Abandon NATO’s expansion into Ukraine
2. Economic Rescue Plan: What Putin wants to do in 2013 but the EU said No.
3. Minority Rights: Give people in Eastern Ukraine autonomy rights 

Ans:

1. Abandon NATO’s expansion into Ukraine
It’s a good option like neutrality in Ukraine (in 2015). My reason is as same as my comments about neutral Ukraine I stated in the earlier paragraph. 

2. Economic Rescue plan from Putin to Ukraine to relieve Ukraine’s debt to Russia:
I actually don’t know the reason that Europe said no to the economic rescue plan since I couldn’t find any past article regarding the EU’s comment on the economic rescue plan from Putin. However, one thing that needs to remark is that the reason that the economic rescue plan from Putin was stopped was not the EU’s objections; it’s because the former Pro-Russia President of Ukraine fleed away from Ukraine after the ouster by waves of pro-European protests in 2014 ^[4]https://english.alarabiya.net/business/economy/2015/10/11/Ukraine-confident-Russia-can-t-hold-IMF-aid-hostage-  ^[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_December_2013_Russian–Ukrainian_action_plan . Thus, we should not blame the EU because of the cease of Putin’s plan; we and Putin should blame Putin himself. Many arguments from Professor Mearsheimer are excellent and deep, and I have enjoyed debating with him by writing this article so far. But this argument is very subjective and did not disclose the other’s side’s argument. For this specific argument, it seems to be more like propaganda news rather than unbiased news, not to mention how objective an academic argument made in a college lesson should be. 

3. Minority right: Give people in Eastern Ukraine autonomy rights. First of all, though Professor Mearsheimer is a professor from a highly-acclaimed university, I assume he knows the details of what I am going to say. But many people don’t, they just keep saying Russia’s propaganda: Ukraine broke the Minsk agreement. So I will explain from the basic level, though it’s you should google or watch Youtube about the Minsk agreement, then you will probably find the answer(the basic level explanation) to break this propaganda (though it’s propaganda that is hard to break for normal people unlike other Russia’s propaganda, I must say). It shouldn’t be me to explain the thing many media and Youtubers already explained. 

Basic level
I agree Ukraine can give minority rights to minorities (except for autonomy); Ukraine has agreed on that, too (Ukraine even agrees on giving autonomy rights). But the fact is that the problem was still not fucking solved after the Minsk agreement which gives autonomy rights in 2014 ^[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements  (Remember Professor Mearsheimer’s argument was made in 2015. You can’t use the current 2022 war as a reason, that will be like hindsight. So I specifically use the Minsk agreement between Russia and Ukraine which was made in 2014.). In terms of the Minsk agreement, Russian officials may say the reason that the Minsk agreement failed is that Ukraine didn’t abide by the agreement, but that’s a one-sided story. The fact is that Russia never intends to fully implement the Minsk agreement. For more details, see the Q6, Q18, and Q21 of the article from Euromaidan Press. I recommend everyone read this article if you want to understand more about the Minsk agreement and the conflict before the 2022 war. This is a good article that explains many details regarding the Minsk agreement.  

Advanced level
Specifically, with respect to giving autonomy rights which Professor Mearsheimer did mention since he is a professor, he probably did some research on the Minsk agreement, I think Professor Mearsheimer may state that the autonomy rights weren’t fully given in 2015 after the Minsk agreement signed in 2014. Notice that at the time Professor Mearsheimer held this lesson in Sep 2015 (Maybe a few months earlier since the upload time isn’t always equal to the time the lesson took place. Let’s assume June 2015 the lesson took place), the Minsk II agreement already signed on February 12, 2015, which further details the time that the future local elections will be held. Further, the parliament of Ukraine indeed fulfilled this commitment: Ukraine approved a law on “special status” for Donbas on 17 March, as specified by Minsk II ^[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements . So this autonomy right that Professor Mearsheimer suggested in 2015 is already fulfilled. 

Let me assume some of the pro-Russians are smart, though the likelihood is low since many don’t but simply are brainwashed. Forget about it, let me assume the smart professor does read my article, and he will probably notice I answer in the timeframe that Professor Mearsheimer made this argument (in 2015), so he will say, “What about after 2015? Ukraine has denied many autonomy rights after then.” 

Well, first for normal people, don’t forget one fact: Russia-controlled regions did a local election themselves despite Ukraine’s objection. According to Wikipedia,additional elections took place simultaneously in Donetsk and Luhansk republics on 11 November 2018. The official position of the U.S. and European Union is that this vote is illegitimate because it was not controlled by the Ukrainian government and that it was contrary to the 2015 Minsk agreement. Leonid Pasechnik, the head of the Luhansk People’s Republic, disagreed and said that the vote was in accordance with the Minsk Agreement ^[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_People%27s_Republic . You may say, “Don’t believe the West. See, the head of LPR (a Russia-controlled region) said it’s legitimate.” Well, this part I will leave to legal experts to explain which party is right. I am sure they will have a good explanation, just I can’t find any for now. By the way, still, the U.S and E.U’s stand was definitely based on legal experts’ evaluation. 

Second, (this answer is more in-depth for Professor Mearsheimer since I assume he as a professor must do some research as I did, and know some details.) As to my answer for Professor Mearsheimer, yes, it’s true that Ukraine has denied some autonomy rights that separatists (Russia-controlled regions) sought. But that’s because some of the rights will have big potential to make Ukraine be influenced by Russia with every national decision, including whether to join NATO or not. Thus this will make Ukraine no longer a fully independent country ^[9]https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-kuleba-donbas-special-status/31683203.html  ^[10]https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/04/07/putins-federalization-card-in-ukraine-a33715 . For details, you may read the source I link in above, and you may also read No.2 of my article of my counter-argument to Russia’s deputy foreign minister, this part also talked about the same issue and I provided an explanation.   

40:00
New cold war: No. Europe does not matter, what matter is China. Russia will be allay.

– “That’s a stupid policy……We need Russian on Iran but we drive Russian close to Iran so they sold Iran missiles.”

– “If the U.S really pivots to Asia, Asia countries (for example: Japan) will doubt that can they trust the U.S as a security umbrella? (since the U.S has been picking up a fight with Russia over Ukraine.)” Professor further said, “So I think it’s not good for our relations with Asia allies.”

– The west is encouraging Ukrainians to play tough with Russian. They will ultimately become part of the West. We will ultimately defeat Putin.
Result: Ukraine is unwillingly compromised with Putin. Ukraine pursues a hardline policy instead. The outcome is Ukraine will be wrecked; what we are doing is encouraging that outcome. 

Ans: 

The timeframe doesn’t matter with this New Cold War argument, so I will go straight. Judge based on the current atmosphere, the U.S also pays huge attention to China, too. The China-Taiwan conflict has been brought up many times when the news reported on the Russia-Ukraine war. For the Russia-Ukraine war, China seems not in full agreement with Russia, so some experts also think that Russia and China will not be in the same line on every matter in the future. Is experts’ opinion enough to validate the professor’s point regarding Russia will be an allay? No. I do think the experts’ points may be true, but I disagree with the professor’s view on Europe doesn’t matter and that Russia will be an allay for China’s issue.  

1. Does Europe not matter?
No. Every part of the world is important. The argument that deciding which part of the world does not matter is playing a political chess game while ignoring the basic rights that every human on the earth deserves to have: Freedom and democracy. It’s lucky that the U.S hasn’t done that. In my article on the Iraq war, I discussed a bit the China-U.S relationship and the Taiwan issue. Many Taiwanese believes that Taiwan is being used as a pawn by China and the U.S, but my opinion is different. I think the situation in 1978 the early era when the U.S decide to break the relationship with Taiwan and establish a relationship with China, will be more appropriate to define Taiwan as “a pawn” of the U.S. Why? Because the U.S’s initial reason to establish the relationship with China is that the U.S wants China to be an allay with the U.S to oppose Russia^[11]https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world-46719017 . That’s pretty similar to Professor Mearsheimer’s proposal of making Russia an allay to oppose China, isn’t it? In my view, if the U.S decided to discard Europe and only deal with the China matter, the U.S will repeat the old mistake that the U.S itself hasn’t realized: Discarding a pawn. In this case, Europe becomes the pawn (Though it’s unlikely to happen. There is a NATO treaty in which the U.S is part of the force. I am simply explaining the situation when the U.S decide to discard Europe as Professor Mearsheimer suggested and not abide by the NATO treaty. To put it more preciously, Ukraine becomes the pawn, since Ukraine isn’t a NATO member). At the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, an expert in Taiwan warned that the Taiwan government needs to prevent the same thought of “Collaborate with China to oppose Russia(聯中制俄)” arise in the White House again ^[12]https://new7.storm.mg/article/4213048 . His fear is reasonable given that there had been a time that the U.S want China to join the opposing party against Russia and the history of the U.S-China relationship. Yet, similarly, if we follow Professor Mearsheimer’s proposal, Taiwan will indeed 100% be a pawn again, since the choices are simply between Ukraine and Taiwan, and Taiwan happens to be the winner because of the U.S’s decision that the China issue is the winner over the Russia issue. (In fact, Taiwan hasn’t been a pawn in the current conflict between the U.S and China for a while in recent time. The U.S and the world is growing more conscious of the humanitarian issue in Xingjiang and Hong Kong, and they are also paying attention to Taiwan after the Hong Kong issue because the West supports democracy. Therefore, although there is a high possibility that the U.S may not use its force to help Taiwan if China initiates a war against Taiwan, the reason is not that Taiwan is a disposable pawn; it’s simply because the U.S like any country in the world, is afraid of wars. That’s a normal thought.) Hence, does Europe not matter anymore? No. Again, every part of the world is important, and we shouldn’t choose one over the other as if we are playing a chess game. 

On the other hand, the argument that the west was encouraging Ukraine to play tough with Putin while the outcome is Ukraine will be eventually wrecked is not quite correct, either. Ukraine itself wanted a security guarantee. Although there were indeed voices in NATO that held NATO should avoid antagonizing Russia by rejecting Ukraine’s application^[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War , I still support NATO’s principle that NATO is always open to any country in Europe which has the intention to join NATO.  It’s Russia which shouldn’t interfere with other countries’ diplomatic affairs opposed the application and instead invaded Ukraine. Ukraine has the full right to make its own decisions. If Ukraine has any thought of thinking that the U.S may help, Ukraine should hold the responsibility by itself, given that Ukraine itself clearly knew that Ukraine hasn’t joined NATO successfully, so Ukraine won’t have a security guarantee as NATO member does. Ukraine should also make an analysis about that whether the U.S will help Ukraine or not in full aspect, and why should the U.S help Ukraine with force when Ukraine isn’t a NATO member if Ukraine indeed believes the U.S will help. It’s Ukraine’s responsibility.(By the way, I also mentioned a similar topic about Taiwan’s case in another article of Proposals to Ukraine. I said Taiwan shouldn’t just believe the U.S will help Taiwan with force, but it’s not because the U.S is exploiting Taiwan as a pawn. The reason is simple. Why should the U.S use its force to help Taiwan while the U.S has its own domestic affairs? So again, it’s each country’s own responsibility.)

In addition, did Ukraine make a wrong decision by not playing soft with Russia, even if Ukraine possibly did not do an analysis on whether the U.S would help Ukraine? I don’t think so. Let me give you an example if a thief enters your house, will you not call the police but hand over your money instead? Normal people would know surrender doesn’t quite right. Why should you give your money to someone else? Should call the police. It’s true that maybe the thief has a gun and you can’t do anything but give him your money, but still, that’s your choice based on the circumstance. Back to Ukraine’s case, why should Ukraine surrender right immediately at the beginning to a robber right who robbed away Ukraine’s territories? This example should solve a misconception that it’s Ukraine president Zelensky’s fault because he didn’t negotiate. No. Why should Ukraine surrender to a robber? If there are any wrong ideas about the U.S will help Ukraine by force involve in making this decision, that’s Ukraine’s responsibility. But if it’s me, I personally wouldn’t agree with the surrender at the beginning even if I know the U.S won’t help.  

2. Will Russia be an allay with the U.S for China issue? 
This is a hot topic in the news media recently. Experts have been talking about that it seems that there are some disagreements between Russia and China. China seems not always agree with Russia as China did in the past. It’s true that Russia may not support China in everything in the future, but I think Russia will not support the U.S instead, either.
China has appealed for peace talks but has not done economic sanctions. So why should Russia support the U.S with economic sanctions toward China on China matter?
Remember what I said about Cuba and Taiwan’s cases in another article, every country has focused on its own national interests instead of local people’s rights. Certainly supporting the U.S on humanity issues in other countries won’t have any national interest for Russia. So why should Russia help? The world has to have some good incentives, maybe it’s lifting economic sanctions on Russia. But again, as I said in Cuba’s case since the dictator Putin is still there, why should we give money to the dictator government? Russia operates a capitalist system as China does, so if we lift the economic sanctions toward Russia and Russia really does well after the lifting action, won’t we help Putin’s power grow instead and people continue being brainwashed while growing more loyalty to Putin because of the growth of their fortune, which is similar to China’s current situation? In addition, as I said earlier, even if Russia agrees to be an allay with the U.S on the China issue, I don’t support such “playing a chess game by discarding a pawn” tactic. In my perspective, when Professor Mearsheimer said to make Russia an alley to oppose China, he might simply cite the old tactic of “Collaborate with China to oppose Russia” and think it’s a good tactic to use again. However, utilizing this old tactic again is wrong because we should take Taiwan’s situation when the U.S decided to abandon Taiwan into consideration. In 1978, Taiwan’s government had done bad and given very little freedom to the Taiwanese for a long time, so the Taiwan government was unpopular in the U.S. The U.S had wanted to establish a relationship with China for pursuing China’s geopolitical advantage to oppose Russia. Since the Taiwan government is bad, while another one(China) may have some interest in the U.S, then of course just pick the one with interest. Taiwan government was bad to Taiwanese, why still support this government while if you choose another government, there will be an interest for the U.S? ^[14]https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/3503883  Playing this tactic was actually disgusting if Taiwan government had not been that bad. It’s simply because playing such disgusting tactics has been misunderstood as “smart and thoughtful” instead of “selfish” for a long time without understanding the Taiwan government’s coercion played a role in it (Selfish: because it ignores the right of freedom of the disposed party, Taiwan) just as Professor Mearsheimer thought, and the affected party is Taiwanese, not Americans, so this matter hasn’t grown much attention in the world. I must mention that I don’t know if Taiwan’s government had not been coercive, whether or not former U.S presidents Nixon and Carter would still come up with this tactic. Maybe Nixon and Carter’s initial thought was just “oppose Russia”, and Taiwan wasn’t taken into any consideration. Taiwan’s government’s coercion only played a role in the voting of the U.S congress, not in Nixon and Carter’s brains. I can’t find any article to understand what’s the U.S’s initial thought about this tactic. Nevertheless, if this assumption had been true, Nixon and Carter’s tactic would be despicable. We should condemn such a tactic instead of praising it. Back to our current choice: Europe versus China, did Europe governments do anything wrong to European? No. Then why do you want to abandon one and leave people suffering from invaders? Don’t play such a despicable tactic. No one did anything wrong. Both are important. 

3. Professor Mearsheimer thinks it’s not good for the U.S’s relations with Asia allies if the U.S really pivots to Asia. Asia countries (e.x: Japan) will doubt if they can trust the U.S as a security umbrella since the U.S has been picking up a fight with Russia over Ukraine. 
Yes, I agree that maybe Japan will doubt that. My opinion is, of course, Japan should doubt that, but that doubt from Japan doesn’t mean the U.S shouldn’t help Ukraine. Based on basic common sense, it isn’t conflict when you help two people instead of one person. Maybe what Japan doubt is if the U.S has the time and resource to help Japan on the China issue while the U.S is having a war with Russia? Yes. That’s a reasonable concern. But again, as I said earlier, it’s Ukraine’s responsibility to make an analysis and make full preparation and its decisions; it’s Japan’s and every country’s responsibility to make an analysis and make full preparation on its own.   

50:40
“The majority of Ukrainians want to maintain the integrity in Ukraine. They don’t want to split in half. I think we should maintain that attitude.”
–  In 43:33 “Is Crimea lost to Russia for good? Yes, it’s gone.” 

Ans:

I agree with this argument. As I earlier said, if a robber comes to your house, are you going to surrender in the first place or call the police? Most normal people will choose the latter one, so I agree. Though one of my proposals in March is to give up Russia-controlled regions, my proposal was to negotiate with Russia and let them agree to allow local people in those regions to move out to Ukraine’s other regions, while leaving pro-Russians to stay there and maybe become part of Russia, not a state of Ukraine like a federation country. In this way, Russia-controlled regions can not use votes to influence Ukraine’s future affairs, given that they are not parts of Ukraine, but part of Russia. After two months passed, I firmly believe that this proposal of mine is not viable anymore, since Russia has attacked Ukraine repeatedly after peace talks. I stand for my second and third proposals, if you are interested, you may take a look at them.

I do not agree Crimea lost to Russia for good. If Professor Mearsheimer thinks that Ukraine should make peace with Russia by giving up Crimea, why did Professor also support maintaining the attitude of not splitting in half because that’s majority of Ukrainians’ thought? Crimea is also in the consideration of the majority of Ukrainians’ thoughts, too. So I am doubtful about this argument. 

51:30
Student: “Has NATO lost its moral imperative for its reason to being?”Professor: ” What we tried to do with NATO and EU expansion and democracy promotion was to turn all of Europe into one giant security community in which all of member states were liberal democracies that were hooked on capitalism….then we will all live happily after….I am not sure after 20 years what will look like. (Talk about though he doesn’t know there will be anissue other than NATO)” 

Ans:

While Professor didn’t have an answer to this question, I do have one. NATO will function the way it does. In my article on the Iraq war, I talk about my suggestion to the U.N and how regional institutions can play a role under my suggestion. NATO is exactly a regional institution. If you are interested, you may read it.  

1:00:00
“U.S Invervene events all over the world, and that leads to unending trouble when you don’t have a magic formula for winning the wars that you get into…..The US foreign policy leads us to lose all the time.”

Ans:

If Professor Mearsheimer thought the U.S foreign policy leads to unending trouble as there is no magic formula for winning the wars, why does Professor Mearsheimer still suggest “Collobrate with Russia to oppose China”? This is also a war, and there is no magic formula for winning a war. I would suggest that Professor Mearsheimer and any person who has the same thought as he does, use this thought to oppose all the wars initiated by the U.S instead of utilizing this thought to be the basis to playing “a chess game”(as I described earlier).
Yet, wars don’t disappear if the U.S doesn’t initiate a war. Russia invading Ukraine is one good example. You think the U.S is the reason that Russia invaded Ukraine? I don’t think so. If the reason is that simple, Russia would stop the current 2022 war after peace talks were made. In 2015 when Professor Mearsheimer made his argument, it’s true that the circumstance wasn’t as severe as the circumstance in the current time is. But as I said earlier, I suggest one thing we should learn from the past: We should learn to be aware of Russia’s evil intention if we see such terrible actions again in the future; we should treat Putin as an unreasonable man based on these actions. So back to the topic, wars won’t disappear automatically. My view of the U.S’s interventions and what the world should do for future wars is different from Professor Mearsheimer’s. I described my view in the article regarding the Iraq war. Read here. 

1:09:30
– Student: “People asked German: Why are you doing? You Germans encourage Ukraine because we Germans encourage Ukraine “Go head. We are going to protect you” ” (The student was probably talking about the act of joining NATO seems to like encourage Ukraine against Russia and has an implication of Germany or NATO is going to protect Ukraine)

– Professor:
1. “We shouldn’t be hardly surprised (about Russia will start the crisis). Go back to China-Japen example” 
2. “In the context of this, the thing we do is double down (do economic sanction), and we do not pay much attention to history because it was not a history that concerned us in any meaningful way, because it’s in Europe, and the potential trouble here is be very great.(The trouble: Nuclear threat from Russia)”

Ans: 

To the student and many persons who are reading this article or watched the Youtube lesson and think this question is a good question: Yes, it’s a good question. But Professor Mearsheimer talked about this topic at 40:00 already. Just because “the U.S/the West” encourages Ukraine becomes “Germans” encourages Ukraine, doesn’t mean it isn’t the same thing. Professor Mearsheimer explained this question in detail further and talked about the nuclear threat from Russia, my answer is as same as 40:00 and 32:20 sections.

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