I've asked you many times whether you agreed with his position that Ukraine should have retained its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from exactly the kind of aggressive behavior we are seeing now. You have never once deigned to respond.
You have not asked me once. You merely dug out his very old opinions which you think prove that he can be spectacularly wrong. In doing so you effectively admitted he is right now, otherwise you would have addressed his lecture.
The quote above is from post #502. Here is an excerpt
from post #262, which may have been the first time I asked you (see the red boldface text below):
I have actually done what you asked--i.e. watched the video. All you've said about it is that the video endorses ("everything"???) you've said. I don't think so, and it would be interesting to hear what you might have disagreed with. Professor Mearsheimer does endorse some of your claims and conclusions, so it is worth discussing, even though you have said almost nothing about its content. FTR, I really would like to know your opinions about some of the other things he said about Russia and Ukraine. For example, do you agree with him that Ukraine should never have handed its nuclear weapons over to Russia? Do you agree with his stance that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine? I would also be interested in your opinion of the opening remarks in the second video--about the conflict between liberalism and nationalism--but that would take us beyond the thread topic. Mearsheimer was talking primarily to a Romanian and East European audience, but many of the points he was making clearly resonated with some of his colleagues on the panel.
Now answer the question, because you have still avoided answering it. And, if you have evidence that he ever retracted that position, please cite that evidence. As I have said before, Mearsheimer's conclusions overlap with some of your positions, but he arrives at them for entirely different reasons that you seem not to have picked up on.
Yes, he was spectacularly wrong 30 years ago. And he knows it, he had 30 years to think about it.
You thinks so? Cite some evidence to suggest that he now believes Ukraine should have destroyed or transferred its nuclear arsenal to Russia. That is exactly what the Budapest Memo was for--a guarantee by Russia that it would give up any claim to Ukraine's territory in exchange for Ukraine denuclearizing. Mearsheimer believed back then that Ukraine never should have done that, and his prediction that Russia would subsequently get into conflict with Ukraine (despite its formal guarantee that it would not) would be the result of Ukraine no longer having a nuclear deterrent. AFAICT, he still thinks he was right, but I'm happy to consider any evidence you have to the contrary.
Some of Mearsheimer's critics have pointed out that Russia has historically asserted its power successfully by military aggression against neighboring powers. That is how the Russian Empire grew, and that is how the Soviet Union grew and expanded its influence. Their position is that this historical trend is what is really behind Russia's current expansionist policies in the region, and it is the principal reason that so many of its neighboring states have sought alliances with the West--as an insurance policy against Russia's tendency to invade its neighbors and assert its power.
Mearsheimer seems to feel that this kind of behavior is justified for a major regional power, even though he sees Russia as weaker now and fading as a regional power. It is still the largest power in its neighborhood, and Mearsheimer sees Ukraine as essentially a buffer state between the Western Alliance and Russia. However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine. And Russia really isn't the weak, fading power that Mearsheimer seems to think it is. So throwing Ukraine under the bus is not going to solve anything for the US or the Western Alliance. It isn't going to invite Ukraine into NATO, but it also isn't going to send the message that Ukraine might as well let itself be absorbed into the new version of the Russian empire. Georgia and the Baltic republics would likely then be the next territories to be grabbed back into the empire.
