renowned international relations scholar John Mearsheimer, whose analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict in 2015 turned out to be very prescient, gave his view on the current war on March 2nd. He argued that the West is only going to make the situation worse. THREAD WITH CLIPS
Mearsheimer goes on to note that bc Ukraine is perceived to be an existential concern by Russia but not the US, and how Great Powers behave when they perceive an existential threat as the US has done throughout its history, what the West is doing only leads to greater devastation
Mearsheimer predicts that the Russians will end up prevailing bc they do perceive it to be an existential threat whereas the US and the West don't really care. The real losers in the war are the Ukrainian people, who, Mearsheimer says, were led down the primrose path by the US
earlier in the talk Mearsheimer says that he does not believe Russia will take-over the entire country and occupy it and any such suggestion is absurd. Rather, the question is how much of the Eastern part they'll try to take. Watch the full video here:
see this thread for clips of his 2015 analysis, which as I mentioned turned out to be quite prescient, particularly this last part where he said the course that was being followed was going to end up in Ukraine being wrecked
two more clips where Mearsheimer talks about why he believes the sanctions will not work in toppling Putin and putting an end to the war, but in fact nationalism will cause most Russians to rally around him (confirmed by the post this is a response to)
wrote a piece on the use of "agency" in justifying imperialism. it's a form of cheap moralism hiding behind a thin veil of profundity and clarity, and leads to absurd claims as it prevents any kind of serious and systemic analysis of power and its effects
ten people of about equal ability are able to do more than one person. even more so for a hundred. so they have more "agency". add factors to it like wealth, and the discrepancy in "agency", in power, becomes even more obvious. yet it is exactly this basic truism that's denied
instead you're supposed to adopt this comically absurd view that institutions with vast wealth and resources, advanced military technology, access to and control of mass media and propaganda tools, are all just totally irrelevant in the face of some ambiguous notion of "agency"
strange how the likes of elon musk, michael bloomberg, jack dorsey, bill gates and jeff bezos are never called oligarchs, but are instead idolized in the mainstream press as self-made geniuses and noble philanthropists
just gonna leave this here
great study on how "oligarch" is just a propaganda term
have sanctions ever actually worked in alleviating a conflict situation? the answer is no, and in fact makes things worse, and yet the entire western media and political class supports it and wants more and more of it. incidentally, "sanctions" is a euphemism for economic terror
the way "sanctions" are treated in the west is morally depraved. it's like a fucking plaything, "we're going to sanction you, and you, and you, and you as well!" millions of people's lives are destroyed by these terror campaigns, but the US is never on the other side of it
renowned economist jeffrey sachs did a study in 2019 on the effects of "sanctions" on venezuela, showing it had killed at least 40.000 people (see independent.co.uk/news/world/ame…). here he talks about how the US waged this economic terror campaign on venezuela:
Chomsky is asked about the Russia-Ukraine crisis and points out the obvious which is entirely absent in Western media: "The question we ought to be asking ourselves is why did NATO even exist after 1990? If NATO was to stop Communism, why is it now expanding to Russia?"
Chomsky also points out that while Russian interference is in violation of international law, "it doesn't compare with what the US does with British support", then discusses just one of many cases, the take-over and continued occupation of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba
in the first clip Chomsky refers to John Mearsheimer's work, which he completely agrees with. You can see his detailed analysis of the background to the current Russia-Ukraine crisis in this thread:
if the US believes a full-scale invasion of ukraine is imminent why is it not revoking the offer to join NATO which russia claims is the primary reason for the conflict? if it's revoked and works to put an end to the conflict, that's a win. if it doesn't they can just re-offer it
that would be another major win for the US, as it proves beyond any doubt russia was lying about NATO integration being the source of the conflict. the only logical answer is that the US is just full of shit and doesn't care if ukraine gets wrecked, as mearsheimer said years ago:
don't get your information from deranged breadtubers who repeat whatever the state department says. prospective NATO membership and the US' refusal to withdraw it from ukraine is in fact the key point of contention between the two sides (theguardian.com/world/2022/jan…)
biden led the effort in congress to start the iraq war, which led to the killing of at least a million, including the total decimation of fallujah w/ uranium shells and white phosphorus, one of the worst war crimes of the 21st century. yet many voted for him as the "lesser evil"
this is but one of the many mass murdering policies biden has supported throughout his career, which has led to the killings of millions. yet for some strange reason he is not hitler, but putin, who has much less blood on his hands, is. isn't it funny how propaganda works?
it really is quite astonishing that the same people, including many so-called "leftists", who spent 2020 making based biden memes even though he has without doubt killed many more than putin could ever hope to, are now calling putin the worst monster in history