In his talk about why the Ukraine crisis was the West’s fault, Mearsheimer scoffed at the idea that Putin would ever invade the rest of Ukraine after annexing Crimea. He’s been trying to backpedal that ever since Feb 24 2022, adding exceptions or caveats.
catc
I appreciate you letting us know this man is clearly cherry picking his info, and the way you RESPECTFULLY issue your rebuttals is great. I believe your humble approach is your key to success here in your channel. I’m so glad you’ve moved on to doing more long version videos and keeping the comedy at times on shorts. I don’t know if this is a full time job for you yet, but I sure do hope you get some sponsorship for your long version videos! If people like artur rehi (amateur and very biased) can get as big as he has gotten, I’m sure with your consistency and charismatic personality you’ll get even further. Shit man, our nation needs good men and women like you in politics 😃😂 Preston 2040? 👀😂
Jack_Redview
I believe Putin expected Ukraine to capitulate with minimal fighting. When that was no longer feasible, he went for control of the Black Sea ports.
In addition to control of the Black Sea ports, I think that Putin also wanted control of the petroleum pipeline and the petroleum reserves in Ukraine.
bradmaas
Marshmallow seems to forget every word Putin has said about Ukraine since 2001, when he says there's no indication Putin had imperial ambitions on Ukraine.
bandenere
I found John Mearsheimer’s original lecture insightful back in 2015. But I think the problem he has is the same as many analysts. They pick a narrative and they stick to it without considering nuances as the situation develops over time. Yes, NATO expansion certainly played a role. But that doesn’t mean Russia didn’t have ulterior motives, such as the land bridge to a deep sea port, and it certainly doesn’t make Putin an honest person.
IronbornBTW
I'm particularly confused as to why a NATO bulwark hard against Russia's border is purportedly "unacceptable", but a Russian bulwark hard against NATO's border(s) IS acceptable. The idea that NATO might commence offensive military action against Russia doesn't even pass the giggle test, but the idea that Russia is capable of mounting an offensive war against one of its peaceful neighbors is demonstrable. When Russia's opinion that is is acceptable to threaten and bully their neighbors is extinguished, the justification for NATO's existence is also extinguished.
phillipdavidhaskett
Hey Preston! Long time no talk. I was actually suggested one of your videos the other day and subbed. Had no idea you played the youtube game. Been enjoying your take on global geopolitics. Is this a full time thing for you now or just a passion project? Either way keep it up! Hope everyone is happy and healthy.
dunteman_racing
Thanks for the great video, and for providing a link to Kamil Galeev's rebuttal of Mearsheimer's views. Galeev does a terrific job of picking apart Mearsheimer's statements, one by one.
Apollonos
Interestingly, Mearshiemer was the very 1st voice I heard on why Russia invaded Ukraine.
I was sold at 1st …. Till I further learned about Ukrainian history as well as Russia and the rest of Europes involvement over 2500 years . Then there is the views and stories of Soviet Union/Russian Federation from all ex soviet countries that understand all too well the Bear that neighbours their territories. To them, NATO is an insurance policy that saves them from ever being part of the Russian Regime again.
If it was a desirable regime to be a part of, NATO wouldn’t have expanded like it has today .
Stephen Kotkin is a historian voice that I can not fault on this subject. Highly recommended folk’s listen to him. 😎
Aussie-Mocha
The question that always gets missed: What would Russia have done if there was no NATO? Putin does want to rebuild Russia and has glorified the USSR, he has said as much, specifically that the fall of the USSR was the greatest tragedy to mankind (paraphrasing). He longs for the power that USSR was able to wield on the world stage. Free and democratic countries, particularly post-Soviet states adopting western ideals, is a direct threat to that, if for no other reason than it incites opposition within Russia. So what would Russia have done if there was no NATO? The exact same thing he has done, stomping out rebellion in Chechnya, threatening Georgia, probing up dictators like Assad, and invading countries looking to push back on Russia like Ukraine. NATO is an obstacle to his plans and a convenient enemy to rally the Russian population around. NATO is not the cause of this war, just a scapegoat for political misinformation and a problem for Putin's goal of rebuilding the USSR and regaining a seat as a world power.
stephenchurchill
No mention here of other statements by Putin, namely the collapse of the Soviet Union "was a tragedy", his admiration for tsars of the past, his statements about confronting the USA and for Russia to become a great superpower again, along with China to bring the USA down. These I think are strong undercurrents in the Russian psyche.
Some years ago, 4 or 5, Russian school children and cadets were singing a song: "We'll Alaska back home", which must have had the approval of the Kremlin and its content was the children saying they will give their lives to Putin to restore the former empire, from Kuril Islands to the Baltic, even take back Alaska. This song can be found with English translation, on Youtube, or internet search.
I think Alexander Stubb, of Finland produced a much more thorough analysis of the Ukraine war than Mearsheimer. He has a Youtube Channel with many videos on the subject.
At the beginning of the war, Zelensky said that Ukraine would be prepared to give up its ambitions to join NATO. Putin could have said "That is all I want, agreed, and we will return the Donbas to you so you have your territorial integrity back ". Instead there was all the rhetoric of Ukraine "not existing as a country", that it was rightly a part of Russia.
I think Alecksandr Dugin's book "Foundations of Geopolitics", 1997, long before NATO became an issue, which stated that Ukraine, Finland also and other lands, had no right to exist, Russia should retake its former empire position and be a world dominant power. I believe this argument was an influential component of Russian thinking, and at the present the ultra-right with Dugin as one of the protagonists are appearing to win the direction this war is taking, with the destruction of Ukrainian infra-structure.
What does the mass abductions of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children, and other citizens, have to do with confronting NATO? Primarily it was an imperialist war, seeking to undo the loss of the Soviet Empire. Yes, 190, 000 troops were not sufficient to conquer a resistant Ukraine, but at the time they thought Ukraine would just crumble and Zelensky was just a comedian who could not provide national leadership.
IMO.
davidhowse
happy we got guys like you around preston
brodydaube
I like this channel the balance and no bias
kenlv
Leaders not lying to other leaders seems like a statistic, and something that applies poorly to any individual leader. IIRC, some things early on in the war suggest that Putin expected more popular support for Russia in Ukraine than he got.
barryon
"Did NATO start the Ukraine war?"
Not unless Russia joined in the last 8 years.
kyosokutai
One thing that most analysts seem to completely miss or gloss over is that Russia (and Putin) seem to have firmly believed that not only would they not face much resistance militarily when invading Ukraine, but that the people would actually welcome them as liberators.
That's why they attacked with such a comparatively small force.
Because they didn't think they'd have to have a large military presence there to hold the country after they "liberated" it from "nazis" and other "oppressors".
But since all of that was pretty much an illusion built up by self-perpetuating propaganda and intel officers padding their own budget (oh yes, sir, we have multiple resistance cells in the country that all need large funding! *pockets cash*) it just kind of blew up in their face when they did finally invade.
Oddball_E
Theres a vast number of reasons why ukraine is valuable to both sides. For russia its resources, people, and most importantly strategic value(ukraine pushes the boarder to the Kremlin further away). For nato its the same and maybe a buffer zone(like a dmz for both nato and the commies)
starcross-wolf
Russia wanting to expand, and fear of nato are not mutually exclusive.
Spiralz
Russia has NO jurisdiction over Ukraine whatsoever, so how about we cut the crap and just say that Ukraine is simply defending itself from an invader.
fedorbutochnikow
Alexander Stubbs rebuttal of merschimers position is worth a listen.
