> So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own?
Before the war, US media agreed Ukraine was one of if not the most corrupt country in Europe. I mean, just look at what both Trump and the Bidens got away with.
There is also an enormous propaganda apparatus operating on Ukrainian minds. Look how Zelensky got essentially elected by a fictional TV show produced by a notorious oligarch.
So yes, it is correct to question how much genuine "Ukrainian" political will exists in relation to the whims of powerful oligarchs and foreign powers (US, Russia, EU).
You really want me to believe that it is the Ukrainian national will to be slaughtered to prevent the corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Kiev being replaced by a corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Moscow? And that it is purely a coincidence that faraway Washington+London are extremely enthusiastic about this outcome?
> In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
He explicitly invited the audience to provide this "evidence". I invite you to do the same.
And then there is the actual annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts in 2022. If annexation was not his goal, why did he, why these specific ones that create a land bridge for Crimea, and why was the Russian constitution updated to include these territories?
I will not deny any allegations of Ukrainian corruption, that is an issue they will have to work through. Even the United States is not innocent when it comes to political graft. But one is a country that is defending itself from an invading force and the other side is invading. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry here.
Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. That Ukraine doesn’t have any actual agency. I’m claiming Russia is invading because Ukraine wants to exercise their own sovereignty and you are agreeing with Russia that Ukraine does not and is just a puppet. Realists need to explain why Ukraine, and only Ukraine, in this situation is unable to have agency yet London, Washington, and Moscow are the only ones capable of having agency.
I encourage you to actually engage with the material you are wielding as "evidence" and the material you are responding to.
From the conclusion of Putin's speech:
> Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us. We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous. I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.
This is supposed to be evidence that Putin's goal was to conquer all of Ukraine? I will charitably assume you already know what "partnership" means in IR jargon.
Where is your evidence?
Regarding your other questions, Mearsheimer addresses them in his talk, which you apparently haven't listened to. There is a lot of historical context you aren't aware of.
> Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith.
This is your own problem. If Putin says the sky is blue, is the sky therefore not blue? This is anti-intellectualism par excellence.
I am not saying these things because Putin may agree with them, but because they are based in evidence and common sense. Know the difference!
I think one of your major mistakes is taking Russias and Putins word at face value and not accounting for the fact that they rarely keep any promises / agreements they have if it doesn’t serve them.
Just see the Budapest memorandum as a great example, the Budapest memorandum was a victory for the world and it requires Russia to do was to not invade Ukraine
But they couldn’t stick to it.
Another good example is the likely deal between Yevgeny Prigozhin and Putin after the failed coup attempt, he then a handful of months later dies in a plane crash.
> The Budapest Memorandum was annulled when one of its signatories blatantly violated its first clause in early 2014 (if not earlier).
> ...and Russia annexed Crimea in response.
Ah yes it's not because Russia invaded and annexed Crimea at gun point that was the violation of the Budapest Memorandum im sure it's something else that you'll come up with that makes it 'annulled'. Something that makes it someone else's fault and not the person holding the guns to peoples heads.
I presume you think that Ukraine deserves its nuclear weapons and long range bombers back from Russia, considering the agreement was 'annulled'?.
I do not think we are going to reach a consensus on what reality is if you can read through that paper Putin published and not see it as calling to subjugate Ukraine, among other issues with its “facts”.
Before the war, US media agreed Ukraine was one of if not the most corrupt country in Europe. I mean, just look at what both Trump and the Bidens got away with.
There is also an enormous propaganda apparatus operating on Ukrainian minds. Look how Zelensky got essentially elected by a fictional TV show produced by a notorious oligarch.
So yes, it is correct to question how much genuine "Ukrainian" political will exists in relation to the whims of powerful oligarchs and foreign powers (US, Russia, EU).
You really want me to believe that it is the Ukrainian national will to be slaughtered to prevent the corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Kiev being replaced by a corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Moscow? And that it is purely a coincidence that faraway Washington+London are extremely enthusiastic about this outcome?
> In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
He explicitly invited the audience to provide this "evidence". I invite you to do the same.