[throwawaymedia]

You are exhausted, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why is J. Mearsheimer's reasoning incorrect, but yours is correct? He is a political scientist with decades of experience.

Here is one more from CATO Institute : https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-uk...

So, you are telling me all these people are "fucking dumb" (using your terminology) and all of that is Russian propaganda?

[piva00]

Why is only Mearsheimer's reasoning correct and the one you subscribe to? You are ignoring a plethora of other political scientists, because you've subscribed to his ideas. That's why you are fucking stupid.

Mearsheimer has as his political philosophy his own offensive realism theory, where great powers only act only on their desires to become hegemonies, that's why I believe he is not entirely correct (not fucking stupid as you) on his take on Russia, there's more at play than just this real politik of offensive realism.

I don't think that great powers will only act to achieve hegemony (as does a number of other political scientists that aren't Mearsheimer). And if those powers do, we carrying the values of human dignity and rights believe that nations shouldn't annex other nations in the 21st century and so it doesn't matter that by offensive realism he states that Russia is correct, morally Russia is wrong and we judge the actions of nations by this morality.

He has developed this theory and so has to be the main supporter of it, and the real believer in it. It doesn't make it true because he has decades of political science studies. People like Herman Lundborg studied medicine and developed a theory where he stated some people of a specific skin colour were genetically better than another set of people of a different skin colour, he studied it for decades, doesn't make him right.

You didn't answer: where does your morality take you? You are not answering any of my prompts and focusing on one aspect to try to focus my attention into it, stop this bullshit and answer: what are your morals? Do you align yourself with Putin's morals? Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century? Do you believe it's right for the government of a country to call for the annihilation of a different nation?

CATO Institute is something that I would not touch with a 10m pole, you are agreeing with the think tank backed by Charles Koch, I hope I don't have to expand much on that after naming him. Yes, CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)

So yes, I'm exhausted, you are a coward hiding behind a throwaway and throwing dumb shit around, that's life I guess.

And again, stop running away from my morality questions, fucking coward.

[throwawaymedia]

I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it. There are no scientists that would provide an opposite reasoning as logical as the Mearsheimer's one.

> CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?

I do not support wars. But you can't ask a question like that. It doesn't make sense.

War is a mechanism for dispute resolution. Yes, we, people, don't like such mechanisms. But such is the life. These mechanisms are used by the US all the time. The US shows the world that this mechanism can be used. So, the US can, but Russia can't? It doesn't even matter whether it's Russia or any other country.

In the case of Russian-Ukrainian war, the dispute that the war is trying to resolve comes from the expansion of NATO and military bases next to the Russian borders. No expansion -> no war.

> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?

It doesn't matter which century we are in. The society hasn't reached a state in which a fairly complex dispute can be resolved without a war. Right now there is no state in which war is an impossible option. To make it more clear, for example, we are in a state in which the humanity cannot travel with the speed of light. We are simply not there yet. When it comes to wars, we are in state in which a war is a possibility.

When Putin asked the US (early 2000s) why NATO is expanding, they just mumbled some bullshit in response. How can military bases across the world create peace? You can't create peace by throwing weapon around the world. There will always be someone who won't like it.

The US should've take Putin more seriously in the first place, but they kept belittling his requests to stop the expansion for 15+ years.