Keith Gessen

As someone who wrote an article literally titled "Why Mearsheimer is wrong on China" (arnaudbertrand.substack.com/…), it's clear I'm no diehard fanboy of the guy. However, on Ukraine, honesty requires recognizing that he was more right than most, starting with predicting the war in the first place. At the beginning of the war I wrote a long thread listing all the strategic thinkers who predicted it (teapaw.org/RnaudBertrand/status/1…), and Mearsheimer's prediction really stands out as the most complete, almost like a script of what followed. It is true, though, that since the war started, he's sounded a bit like a broken record in announcing Ukraine's imminent collapse, which hasn't exactly materialized. He has this bad habit of running everything through the iron laws (according to him) of great-power competition, the very same framework that leads him astray on China. A framework that, as per his own admission, doesn't leave any room for the individual characteristics of a state: as he himself puts it in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics “The theory pays little attention to individuals or domestic political considerations such as ideology. It tends to treat states like black boxes or billiard balls”. Which is very unnuanced: it’s painfully obvious to any student of history that there is more to geopolitics than raw power, and that a nation’s history, culture, sense of itself, contemporary zeitgeist and ideology are absolutely critical in shaping its behavior. In many ways, Mearsheimer's "offensive realism" is the lazy man's approach to geopolitics: it spares you the trouble of reading a country’s history or understanding how its people see the world. Mearsheimer actually tacitly recognizes this. If you listen to him on his own country, the US, what he is ironically very good at predicting is how they WON'T follow his theory: in the same breath, he’ll tell you the US should stop wasting resources in Europe and the Middle East to focus on China, and that it won’t, because of the Israel lobby, a crusading liberal ideology and the groupthink of the "blob". In other words, because of domestic politics, ideology and individuals: precisely what his theory tells you ought to be ignored. Which shows that when it’s a country he actually knows from the inside, he has no trouble seeing that the black box/billiard ball is in fact a living, breathing nation in all its complexity and nuance. All that being said, what is his main point on Ukraine? Famously, and bluntly, that “the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” With about a fifth of its territory under Russian control, about half a million Ukrainian casualties (russiamatters.org/news/russi…), a population that has shrunk from almost 42 million before the war to around 29 million in government-controlled areas (globaloffice.org.ua/en/nasel…), 14% of its housing stock damaged or destroyed (thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc…), an economy a fifth smaller than before the war in real terms (gmk.center/en/infographic/uk…), and a state whose entire civilian budget is financed by foreign aid (ces.org.ua/en/tracker-econom…), it’s hard to think of a more fitting word. Ukraine is, factually, wrecked. Still fighting, with a courage and resilience no black-box theory could have predicted, but wrecked. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. The most direct responsibility lies with Russia, which made the choice to invade. But nobody - on either side - can be happy with that outcome, or deny that more could have been done to avoid it. Which is, when you strip it down to its essence, the gist of what Mearsheimer is saying. It's not that sophisticated but it's also common sense, and probably the most humanistic position one could have held: for all his talk of black boxes, he turned out to be the one most concerned with the people inside them. So, no, long story short: Mearsheimer hasn’t “discredited himself over Ukraine”. The ones who should worry about their credibility are those who led Ukraine down the very primrose path he warned about, and still haven’t had the decency to admit where it took the country.

Bro, they wrote it down. nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/1… The question is what "jurisdiction" meant and whether Baker's statement constituted a promise or just thinking-out-loud. The actual treaty is the 2+4 treaty, plus addendum, which also happens to be ambiguous.

Today is the 20th anniversary of Dennis Green’s famous post-game rant.

just another pedoruzzia kremlin sorosite cotton head whining

@BrunoTertrais : sadly, this is not the only myth that refuses to die. I am confronted on a daily basis with the myth that the West solemnly promised to the Soviet Union, in the spring of 1990, never to enlarge NATO. Even though Gorbachov himself rejected this, the myth lives.

I first heard of a Russian exiled journalist Leonid Ragozin because of the controversy in Latvia over the decision to declare him persona non grata. I read his own column in The American Conservative. As an expert on disinformation and propaganda, my assessment is clear: Ragozin spreads pro-Kremlin disinformation to Western audiences. Whether intentionally or not, his work serves the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. That does not mean there is evidence that he is acting on the Kremlin’s orders. With Russia waging war against Ukraine and posing a military threat to Latvia itself, I believe Latvia has every right to expel a propagandist. I have no objection to its decision. I say this as someone who has helped more than 1,000 Russian activists and journalists with evacuation, entry bans, visas, and humanitarian residence permits. If someone asked me to help Ragozin, I would refuse — unless it was a matter of preventing his deportation to imprisonment in Russia. In my view, Latvia’s decision is justified and overdue.

You said I was encouraging Europe to repress speech, a claim you cannot make based on the reporting so far because the reason for the PNG has not been disclosed by the Latvian government. You are guessing that’s the reason, which is your right, but I am not willing to speculate because what if it’s something else — wouldn’t I look silly? If you objected to my characterization of Ragozin, you’d have written a different comment. As to that characterization and the matter of “neutral” language, he has claimed recently that Russia doesn’t target civilians. It does and has for years. See this week’s butcher’s bill, or see Borodyanka in 2022, where I stood in front of an apartment block demolished by jet-launched missiles and apartments still standing unfit for entry because Russians had mined them on their way out. He also wrote the following. Hard to see those who are not apologists claim in late 2024 that Russia “will also press ahead with denazification”. Note the absence of inverted commas around “denazification.” intellinews.com/ragozin-what…

Where did I “encourage Europe to crack down on speech”? I linked to a news item about a decision already taken, but that doesn’t explain the full reasoning as to why it was taken. Is Latvia PNGing R for his commentary or are there perhaps other reasons we don’t yet know? Gessen apparently teaches journalism. If he’d like to show his students a good example of how not to get ahead of a story, he need only screen shot his own tweet below. FWIW.

Ņemot vērā apstākli, ka Krievijas pilsonis L.Ragozins ilgstošā laika periodā ir publiski paudis viedokli, kas ir klajā pretrunā Latvijas valsts interesēm, tāpēc aicinu ārlietu ministri iekļaut minēto personu Latvijas Republikai nevēlamo personu (persona non grata) sarakstā. Savās publiskajās aktivitātes L.Ragozins: vainojis Rietumus par Krievijas agresīvo rīcību; runājis par sankciju neefektivitāti, tās dēvējot par tādām, kas provocē Krieviju; centies attaisnot Krievijas agresīvo ārpolitiku, apšaubot, ka Krievijai varētu būt imperiālistiskas intereses iegūt ietekmi Ukrainā un citviet; diskreditējis Ukrainu, tās politisko vadību un bruņotos spēkus. Viņa paustie viedokļi bieži pārklājušies ar vēstījumiem, kuru mērķis ir mazināt Rietumu atbalstu Ukrainai; publiskajās aktivitātes kritizējis Rietumus un Ukrainu. Līdz ar to viņa darbības var tikt vērtētas kā tādas, kas ir vērstas uz to, lai Rietumu sabiedrisko domu virzītu Krievijai izdevīgā gultnē. Šādu aktivitāšu dēļ pamatota būtu L.Ragozina politiskā nevēlamība Eiropā (persona non grata), taču šīs aktivitātes nav uzskatāmas par tādām, kas ļautu fiksēt Imigrācijas likumā minētos apstākļus, kas dod pilnvaras iekšlietu ministram iekļaut personu ārzemnieku saraksts, kuriem ieceļošana Latvijas Republikā ir aizliegta, tāpēc aicinu ārlietu ministri pieņemt lēmumu par minētās personas iekļaušanu persona non grata sarakstā.

Latvian media reporting that Leonid Ragozin, a Russian apologist of Moscow's war against Ukraine, is about to be PNGed from Latvia: tvnet.lv/8559615/ragozinu-va…

Trump loves Communists! When he meets Putin or Xi, he rolls out the red carpet. European leaders and Zelensky are treated with contempt. Why?