Comments by "Daniel B West" (@danielbwest) on "Джон Миршаймер: Израиль-Палестина, Россия-Украина, Китай, НАТО и война | Лекс Фридман Подкаст #401" video.

 @RaNc0R UT very interesting that the west needs to consider Russian interests when they show very little if any regard for our own
8
 @vulgarisopinio except not only was the fence not moving towards Russia, there were very few hyenas behind it
8
 @flynnoflenniken7402 the same goes for Russia. They can view NATO however they want, but there has to be some merit to it if they want to make that case to the international community
8
@memeticist you're again not making sense. Why make territorial demands if Russias main problem was Ukraine supposedly not implementing Minsk? What would that achieve? Please explain further And you and other Russian apologists have fallen into the trap of buying into Putins rhetoric. If Putin himself was serious about Minsk and was this benevolent leader acting in good faith, then why continue to arm the separatists on the donbas? This Minsk agreement talking point is so old it's stale af 🙄
8
 @markarmage3776 the US declared an area its safe zone? When?
6
@torpedospurs so then why are the statements made by some in favor of NATO membership for these two countries taken into consideration whilst ignoring statements made not in favor of such a move? You don't see the contradiction here? And if there was disagreement in the alliance in this issue, why would that necessitate an invasion to stop it? Mearshimer doesn't make sense. His logic is flawed even within the realm of realism because of his obvious bias
5
@SilentTraveller21 are you really trying to say Russia cant/ hasn't backed political opponents in another country for its own national interests? Also note, the US used THE THREAT of military force along with a blockade which proved enough. Not an invasion. Again, this has been used as a diplomatic measure to get what they want. So why can't Russia do the same in either case? Why resort to a heavy investment in a war you dont know you'll win? The geopolitical calculation even in the realm of realism doesnt make sense Unless you define "security" as more direct control over other states in your sphere of influence. You can't do the same as the US if your aspirations go beyond the security excuse mearshimer is using
3
@memeticist except mearshimer himself doesn't apply the same standard to Russia that he uses to debunk the "Putin wants to conquer Ukraine" narrative. The NATO argument is a lazy analysis that lacks alot of nuance and important historical context. There's alot he's missing here just for the purpose of sticking to this same narrative he has without providing something of merit as evidence to support it. He should do better if this is what he really believes History doesn't lie. You can't use the excuse of NATO intervations in Serbia to discount NATO as a defensive alliance. Many of its members are allies out side of NATO. They alone don't represent it, so your narrative is dead in the water And its's not about Putin. It's about the Russian elite AROUND Putin who are bitter about the fall of the Soviet union and Russian influence in Eastern Europe. There's strong evidence for this. So while putin if functionally irrelevant to how Russian elites perceive ls their security, a liberal democracy in Ukraine is not irrelevant to a security threat not to Russia itself, but to Russia's elites themselves who have had waves of pro democracy protests in the past. Russia doesn't need invest in an invasion to secure its security. It does if it doesn't want a pro western Ukraine
1
 @bandolin1216 he does make some valid points where you can find evidence for. But he lacks the evidence to make the case that NATO is the main issue and thus the west is at fault
1
@vulgarisopinio what exactly you referring to?
1
@SilentTraveller21 gain a foothold by what means? Cus if it's military alliance, the US would not resort to an invasion to stop it
1
@torpedospurs you didn't answer any of my questions...
1
@RaNc0R the US doesn't only define its security interests buy virtue of if they can control said country directly or indirectly. Russia does. That's the crux of the main issue regarding Russia. No, the US does not opreate like Russia in real power politics. And maybe thats because theUS has more options. But that still doesn't explain the unwillingness of Russia to use its options it does have without resorting to force. It is the reason why the west has a problem with the means Russia will go to enforcing its so called security interests when there are other options. War is ALWAYS a last resort. Even in realism. A state will go to any lengths to more power, but the road to power using war is incredibly risky and thus will still always be the last resort. The cost of failure will always factor into a cost benifit analysis of whether its worth waging war for more power and/or security intrests That's unless you have other objectives, which realism can't explain. It's the reason realism isn't sufficient, because when you peal back the layers of mearshimer's reasoning, there are massive holes in his logic, even in realism
1
@torpedospurs because the US owns NATO right? No wonder ppl like you love the brain dead analysis of mearshimer...
1
@pozhiloy_bivis write in English
1
@pozhiloy_bivis don't have that option on YouTube for me
1
@pozhiloy_bivis OK. So first, which NATO bases are you referring to? And which nationalist groups do they train? Second, your second comment is completely false. There has been strong intelligence of Russian Armed forces firing on Ukrainian forces from their side of the border during operations to defeat the separatists in 2014. So the involvement of the Armed Forces directly refutes your claim. Also, it's not as innocent as you're trying to pretend it to be as Russian citizens buying their own weapons and ammunition. The majority of those in the donbass do not have dual citizenship. You're confusing Russian speakers with Russian citizens of which only 35% make-up ethnic Russians so you are assertion is completely false. There is also strong evidence of not only small arms but large amounts of anti tank and RPG weapons flowing into the donbas you. Can explain how ordinary citizens are able to buy anti-tank heavier anti-tank and anti personal equipment? Yet their manufacturing numbers clearly show that they come from Russian stocks? how do you explain that?
1
@pozhiloy_bivis well it's kinda hard not to be willing to train those groups considering Russia's aggression no?
1