1/25 In a world where Realism has been compromised by the deceitful and treacherous views of scholars like John Mearsheimer, there is an urgent need for more Neo-idealism.
2/25 Realism today has been largely co-opted by figures like Mearsheimer. Although a respected scholar, Mearsheimer has made increasingly questionable statements that contradict his own theory to defend russia. He also aligns more with neorealism than classical realism.
3/25 Neorealism has surpassed classical realism in prominence. It suggests that countries—particularly great powers—operate as black boxes, each seeking to increase their strength relative to others in an anarchic world devoid of a higher authority to resolve conflicts.
4/25 In this context, great powers are the key actors seeking to become the strongest in the system, aiming for regional hegemony without nearby threats. Once achieved, they will do everything possible to prevent the rise of another regional hegemon globally.
5/25 The common arguments used by people like Mearsheimer contain significant logical flaws, not only ideologically but—more importantly—within the very theory these individuals use to support their claims.
6/25 One of Mearsheimer's most astonishing statements is that, according to him, "there is no evidence" that russia has imperial ambitions or desires to conquer Ukrainian territory.
7/25 Claiming that russia has no imperial or expansionist ambitions during the ongoing war is similar to saying that Germany had none in the fall of 1939 or 1940. It is clear that russia aims to keep Ukraine within its 'sphere of influence' and exert control over it.
8/25 Realism does not grant great powers the right to expand their sphere of influence at will. A common misconception is that russia's interests and demands should all be respected, meaning its effective veto over Ukraine's NATO membership should be considered.
9/25 The US and the West as a whole have been, in fact, acting in accordance with this theory in many ways, even if Mearsheimer does not acknowledge it due to being either a useful idiot or a russian asset.
10/25 Claiming the war is the West's "fault" due to NATO expansion ironically contradicts realism. From this perspective, the West is not to blame for following the theory's predictions—strengthening its influence over a minor power while weakening russia.
11/25 From the perspective of great power competition, the US and NATO's decision to strengthen ties with Ukraine and open NATO's doors was entirely logical.
12/25 russia initiated the conflict, not NATO or Ukraine, which were merely seeking security. Mearsheimer's argument is like blaming someone for wanting to set an alarm system to protect their jewelry; while the jewelry may attract burglars, the blame truly lies with the burglar
13/25 russia's perception of NATO as a threat doesn't obligate others to comply with its demands. The true threat for Putin lies in former Warsaw Pact countries thriving economically and securely, which endangers the russian regime, not the russian nation.
14/25 Mearsheimer also wrongly assumes russia would join the US against china, bolstering US power. Conversely, a US withdrawal from Europe would, per the theory, enhance russia's relative power, incentivizing more aggressive actions in Europe.
15/25 The paradox and irony of the narrative lie in the fact that, from a realistic standpoint, the US and the West as a whole are acting as they should by seizing the chance to weaken russia without resorting to military action or deploying American soldiers.
16/25 Mearsheimer fell victim to his theory, twisting it to fit his pro-russian narrative. According to realism, the US and the West are acting as predicted by seeking to weaken russia and curb its rise as a regional power in Europe.
17/25 When evidence is lacking, societal benefits are low, and the outcomes are grave—such as legitimizing a criminal invasion—academics like Mearsheimer should rethink the topics they choose for their global lectures.
18/25 While neorealist figures like Mearsheimer have distorted realism to defend russia's actions, alternative approaches like neo-idealism are gaining prominence. The approach was introduced by @bctallis.
19/25 Neo-Idealism is a fresh approach to (geo)politics that is inspired by the strong reactions to russian aggression from leaders like @Zelenskyy_Uaa, @kajakallas, @MarinSanna, @GLandsbergis, @JanLipavsky, and others.
20/25 Neo-idealism is a morally grounded approach to geopolitical interests that emphasizes the rights of all democratic states, including smaller nations, to self-determination—such as their ability to join integration spheres and reject spheres of influence.
21/25 In contrast to classical realism's focus on power and national interest, neo-idealism argues that moral values and ethical principles should guide international relations, encouraging states to promote global justice and peace alongside their self-interest.
22/25 This approach entails costs, yet neo-idealists are resolute in recognizing the price of freedom and are willing to pay it. Even if liberal values have been imperfectly upheld in their nations, they see these values as worth defending and renewing.
23/25 Neo-idealists recognize that a liberal order cannot survive without the means to defend itself, including military capabilities. However, without a strong moral foundation or the promise of progress, it cannot truly thrive.
24/25 Neo-idealism signals a shift toward an ethically grounded view of international relations, emphasizing cooperation, human rights, and moral considerations to promote a just and peaceful world through state collaboration and international institutions.
1/10 Why does Hungary still maintain an army after surrendering its sovereignty? Orbán's chief aide recently acknowledged that Hungary would not resist a russian invasion.
2/10 If Hungary were in Ukraine's position, it wouldn't have fought against the russians, stated Balazs Orbán, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's chief aide.
3/10 “We probably wouldn't have done what President Zelensky did two and a half years ago, because it's irresponsible,” the political director and coward said.
1/15 France, Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain do not fully grasp the existential danger posed by russia's invasion of Ukraine. Still, Ukraine's future relies on their backing as the US gradually steps back.
2/15 Europe has greatly exceeded the US in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so. While any assistance from the US is certainly welcome, Europe should take on the bulk of the responsibility, as Ukraine is located in Europe and has the capacity to provide substantial aid.
3/15 Regardless of the outcome of the US elections in November, the US will likely reduce its engagement with Ukraine and Europe to some extent, as it is stretched thin in Asia and the Middle East.
1/12 DAJA: Destroy American Jobs Again! Trump's isolationist policies would not only lead to global destabilization and a decline in American power, but they would also negatively impact the US economy by destroying jobs.
2/12 Over the years, Trump has increasingly adopted isolationist views and has surrounded himself with others who share this perspective. However, these isolationist policies are not only diminishing US influence but are also detrimental to the economy.
3/12 Trump has even suggested the possibility of withdrawing from NATO if he is elected president. This would be a catastrophic move for the entire West and a significant advantage for adversaries like russia and china. It would also hurt the US defense industry.
1/9 What would a russian victory in Ukraine mean for the world? It would signify the end of the international order, initiate a new phase of imperialist expansion, and trigger a new nuclear arms race.
2/9 Yuval Noah Harari, the famous author of “Sapiens,” has shared his views in several interviews about russia's war in Ukraine, offering insights that I agree with. The most interesting points concern what a russian victory would mean.
3/9 One of his simple yet effective points is 'If russia wins, no state, and no border would feel secure. And the world would enter a new era of imperialist wars of conquest.'
1/15 Controversial View: The large prisoner swap with russia in August was considerably more beneficial for the West than for russia
2/15 The largest prisoner exchange between russia and the West since the Cold War occurred earlier in August, involving a total of 24 individuals. Eight people were sent to russia in exchange for 16 who were released to the West.
3/15 I recognize that this is a controversial perspective that many in the pro-Ukrainian community may disagree with, and that's perfectly okay. Nonetheless, I believe that the agreement was actually quite favorable for the West.
1/12 Blame America First: Trump has such a strong disdain for the US that he even holds his own country responsible for russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. He consistently sides with the enemy over his own nation
2/12 As noted by @SpaghettiKozak, "Blame America First" seems to be the right slogan for Trump. He consistently criticizes and blames the US, undermines its reputation, and aligns himself with its enemies. He never speaks negatively about Putin or Xi.
3/12 It is noteworthy that a significant majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, are in favor of providing aid to Ukraine. Nevertheless, Trump, who is facing a tight election, opts to take a stance that contradicts the views of these voters. Why is that?