At the end of the day most people still have some sense of justice and morality (misguided or not.) In the interview, he could have acknowledged that these values still exist and influence the decisions of individuals and countries, without at all compromising his (many good) points about the politics of the region.

The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?

>> The people of Ukraine have overturned a fraudulent election, overthrown a president who betrayed his commitment to his people, and are now fighting tooth and nail to defend their country. But it's all 'just' power politics?

I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer here (he was wrong on whether Russia would go to war for one thing; for another, he extrapolates way too far in ascribing motives to Putin/Russia that he doesn't have evidence for) and I think states are generally security maximizing and not power maximizing.

But Mearsheimer's book title of "The Tragedy of Great Power politics" is apt. Because the tragedy is that states have different interests than the well being of the people that live in them. I don't think pointing that out is immoral, quite the opposite; hard truths are still truths.

> The people of Ukraine have ... overthrown a president ...

It's more accurate to say that some ukranian people have ousted the president and let US decide whom to put in place

The country was split nearly 50/50 between pro-us and pro-russian. Surely enough the second half was cancelled after the coup (change in language laws for instance).

If this is true, and 50% of the Ukrainian people see this operation as a liberation – why, then, are people fleeing west, not east?

There is a good number of people fleeing east to Russia as well, even as per a report in the BBC yesterday.

Of course russia is the aggressor now, and people are generally fleeing west.

My estimate for maidan times is based on preceding elections where "pro-russian" yanukovich won by a small margin.

It was 50/50 before Russia annexed Crimea and started war in Donbass.

So you think if Canada got friendly with Russia it would be invaded by "the US", meaning that the people of the US would democratically elect a government that would not avert this scenario through diplomatic negotiation and nurturing relations between the countries, not by the considerable pressure of economic sanctions, not even through propaganda and covert CIA ops, but they'd actually march the military in and start shelling major Canadian cities killing civilians? And the people of the US would support that?

That sounds unlikely to me.

This is a bad analogy.

First of all, we have nukes. Why would we care if Russian troops showed up on the border. If they cross that line, their country gets wiped off the map. The same dynamic exists with Ukraine and Russia.

Also, you analogy completely ignores the economic relationships that the West has been trying to build with Russia for the last few decades. Western doctrine has been largely focused on building international trade and economic relationships as a method for maintaining peace. There is a reason we exported a good chunk of our manufacturing after all.

The only way your analogy holds is if Russia and Canada had been spending decades trying to build peaceful economic relationships with the US. And they openly express little interest in invading the US. But then the US starts saber rattling at Canada and claims that they feel their security is threatened. I think most people would agree that the US is behaving belligerently in that scenario and that Canada would be justified in building up defenses.

So if that happened... who would you blame? Russia?

The notion of "blame" isn't really useful when you're leading a country, and want to not get invaded. Moral superiority won't repel attacks of enemy troops.

Then why are we even talking about who Mearsheimer blames?

Because Mearsheimer is trying to throw a wrench in the narrative by blaming the exact people who think they are blameless.

I'd blame Canada for putting the Russian military on American's doorstep.

Who would you blame?

Probably the US and then Canada.

But what if the Russian military didn't even have any significant presence in Canada but the US invaded anyway? Then I'd absolutely blame the US primarily.

I wouldn't blame Russia in that situation.

What if Russia had their bases in most of the South American countries and had been openly discussing having their base in Mexico for 14 years. And then 5 years ago, if all of the Mexican leaders that America was maintaining relationship with were suddenly arrested for "corruption" and then Gabriel Iglesias was elected for the president... and you try to befrend the new leadership, but then they start speaking the Russian talking points.

Who would you blame then?

Who is democratic in this scenario?

Let's say everyone's constitution says they are "democratic", just like they do in the real world.

I'll just note that Canadian-Cuban relations are a thing.

It's different in many degrees. Canada has been warmer and colder to the US at various times but since NAFTA has been very friendly. If a less-US-friendly politics started winning out, Canada could back away from the US orbit in a lot of ways and the US probably would not push for regime change.

A future of a pro-Putin Canada is just absurd in its own right. Why not North Korea or Iran? It only really makes sense to talk about realistic possibilities. However, if they wanted to align closer to European powers, such as UK and France, again, I don't think the US would be invading Ontario.

I think you countered your own counter argument there. Embedded in your argument is this tidbit: "A future where Canada is pro-Russia is unthinkable, not ever going to happen". Canada-US relations may freeze and thaw but even at the deepest freeze, you know Canada is never going break with the US and associate with Russia. What the poster is saying is "IF Canada were to make significant overtures to Russia, US would be apoplectic with rage", which is most definitely correct.

Note: I have no bone in this fight, just trying to clarify what I think is a decent argument.

And I think it requires a realistic view of the world and what is actually possible. There was a time (1812-1815) when Canada and the US were at war. The circumstances of that are no longer relevant. If the US had decided to ally with the Nazis in World War II, what then? Oh, it didn't happen? But what if, huh?

If the US became a worse option for Canada than Russia, none of this discussion would be relevant. For one thing, Putin wouldn't be running Russia. And the US would be a very different place as well. Either that or Canada would have to have been overrun by an incredibly anti-American streak that doesn't really seem natural in the country right now.

The Monroe doctrine is important, but it is currently nothing like what Mearsheimer claims Ukraine owes Russia, which is fealty. I can see many places where the cold-war order has gone away. Perhaps in 1983, someone like Evo Morales would not have been allowed to run Bolivia. Ortega came back to power and was not opposed by a new batch of Contras. Brazil suggested that it was friendly to Putin and was not sanctioned for it. I think the times when Latin America was dominated by a few US multinational corporations backed by the Marines have passed and now the dynamic is much more like the relationships of smaller independent countries around their larger neighbors. When we are describing what relationship Ukraine deserves with Russia in the modern world, it should be much more like the US-Mexico relationship or the US-Canada relationship than the pre-2014 Russia-Ukraine relationship.

Right, but the fact is Canada wouldn't be able to get away with aligning with Russia. That's the central point here, likelihood notwithstanding. I'd point you towards the Monroe Doctrine.

The problem is, what do you do when people really really want to change geopolitical circumstances and jump over to the other alliance? Refuse their company and tell them to GTFO to abusive neighbour they're tired of? And then watch on 24/7 news channel how is it going?

if that neighbor can end life on earth, cockroaches notwithstanding, then yes, please pass the popcorn

Step by step, that neighbour will become your neighbour sooner or later ;)

What a ludicrous claim when there was a Soviet-aligned country 90 miles south of Florida for most of the cold war that the US never invaded.

Does the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by the US not count?

That was an invasion by Cubans that was covertly supported by the US, not a US invasion.

It was only a US invasion in the sense that the US entered World War II in 1939 and in the sense that the US is currently at war with Russia.

An interesting theory, but hardly comparable to what is going on in Ukraine.

Canada is not compatible with Russia, so forming a military alliance is a crazy idea.

Putin is the aggressor who has invaded an European country just because their actions did not suit him.

There are no acceptable excuses for the invasion, it's a very dangerous game he is playing as Russia cannot live with the sanctions in the long run.

At the very best he can hope to get away with an agreement that Ukraine will never join EU or NATO, and will stay neutral forever.

Even then, there is no 100% guarantee that Ukraine will not go back on that deal in the future.

It doesn't matter if it's a crazy idea or not. The US simply would not permit Canada to align with Russia and would use military force to do so, and certainly before Russia had the opportunity to station troops in Canada.

Would the Americans' actions be 'wrong' from Canada's point of view? Of course. Would they be 'right' from America's point of view? Absolutely! That's the point here. Both sides are simultaneously both right and wrong, from each other's perspectives.

Once again, it sucks, but it is how it is.

You seem to forget that the us and canada have similar ethnicity. The only difference is that the pop industry in Canada runs on a piss poor budget.

Perhaps it is, but my use of crazy was to state that a democratic USA would not invade a democratic Canada as you describe.

That only happens in cartoons.