Cal88 said:
What is your opinion on Mearsheimer's main take, of NATO expansion into Ukraine being a Russian hard red line, which is essentially the same as that of the diplomat community over the last couple of decades, including people like George Kennan.
I am very much of two minds on this.
1) I think he is right about that the eastward expansion of NATO and article 5 protections are a problem for Russia. I tend to believe that Russian foreign policy has always been driven by historical and deep seeded paranoia about Western intentions. That actually is pretty consistent with Kennan's FA piece that helped lay the intellectual ground work for containment.
2) But "offensive realism" (see his 2001 Book) really waves a magic wand to explain the
transition period between when a state gains nuclear capability to when it has a second strike capability.
In my mind from a US perspective that is, by far, the most dangerous period because there are strong incentives (if one agreed to his realist perspective) to preemptively strike. In turn, countries have every reason to operate on a hair trigger if they lack a second strike capability. Such a world is, for US interests, by far the most dangerous and worrisome.
3) And then these neo-realists tend to wave their magic wand in another way - they refuse to acknowledge that smaller/medium sized states have options.
4) Because I believe that small and medium states have agency (and because it really scares me to think of a world with numerous states having nukes but not second strike capability) I think avoiding that world should be a primary interest in US foreign policy. To me that means I really don't CARE about the origins of the war as much as I care about what US disengagement means. And I am actually a lot less concerned about Ukraine than Poland, Germany and Turkey because I believe in a world where US commitments to Europe and lessened all three of those states will decide to they need their own independent nuclear capabilities.
Ultimately that is my main problem with the offensive realist school - not that they are wrong (I think they are actually very right about the anarchy international affairs and the importance of the security dilemma) but that they assume that regional hegemons in the current world order are paramount. Nukes are relatively cheap and obtainable as Pakistan, India and North Korea of all states have shown. A world in which regional hegemons actually act like regional hegemons is one that will spur on proliferation and that keeps me up at night.
PS. In case you wanted very much a direct answer - I think he is right that Russia acted against Ukraine because of worries it was going to join NATO. Predictable response to the security dilemma. But I am not sure I care about the historic who was wrong when. Foreign policy isn't about history - it is about going forward and thinking about what world is the safest for US interests.
Take care of your Chicken
