Who wants to see a face to face debate between John and Alexander? 🙋🏻‍♂️

I must admit that you are an interesting speaker. Excuse me Sir, but I have to ask you something here. Your statement at 12:37 quote "NATO has never attacked another country" !!! If I remember correctly, NATO under the patronage of the USA bombed Serbia WITHOUT a UN decision or resolution. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you and best regards.

I like the example that Mearsheimer gives about CUBA. " Cuba was a country that decided to go its own way and aligned with the Soviet Union but the USA did not allow that" They strangled the country and even invaded it, Why? because that's what Powers do, Powers are ruthless.

Stubb: "NATO enlargement took place because the countries that had been soviet satellites during the cold war wanted to get extra protection - and for fully understandable reasons - but that expansion was not aggressive: NATO has never attacked another country. Its mere existence has been a guarantee for peace. Now, Putin has used NATO expansion as an excuse." (this video 12:23) Mearsheimer: "There are a good number of people in the West who say that it is not an existential threat, that NATO's presence in Ukraine does not threaten Russias survival. My response to them is: I don't care what they think, the only thing that matters is what Wladimir Putin thinks, and if Putin and his lieutenants think that it is an existential threat, then we should be very careful in dealing with him, because he has 10.000 of nuclear weapons." (at 2:14 in video "John Mearsheimer responds to criticism of his Ukraine theory")

Can Cuba choose whom they want to be friends with without sanctions

That means if Cuba independently wishes to be with Russia, then US would not have any problems! What a great theory

Obrigado. Esse foi importante para esclarecer. Você poderiam fazer em forma de entrevista com duração de 60 minutos.

If, in Stubb' arguments, you fill up the word America in place of the word Russia, you get an exact description of American geopolitics.

Then it's OK for China and Russia to open their military base in Cuba, right ?

How do you feel about the US invasion of Iraq, et. al

My God. Are you for real! Open your eyes

Arguments start @ 3:40

Why, exactly, don't the 60 years long and counting US sanctions on Cuba fall into the category of being in breach of the UN Charter and Helsinki Accords?

I take your points but Marshheimer wasn't assigning blame or wrongdoing to anyone. Mersheimer's point was, if you do this that will happen. Countries will always act in their own National interest regardless of what others think.

I’m surprised Stubbs didn’t mention this, written by Mearsheimer long before there was any NATO “expansion” for him to blame. He sure seemed to consider Russia an expansionist & revanchist threat back when such thought challenged the dominant policy. Excerpt: “Most western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea. President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake. A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons” - John J. Mearsheimer, Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 50-66

I don’t think this poor man has heard of Victoria Numan .( Nuddleman) or Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea , Libya, Syria 22:00 , Iraq, Rwanda etc.

Would you please define the Monroe doctrine of the USA and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Why Russia isn't allowed to apply its own version of monroe doctrine to its borders? Mr Mearsheimer is right in his analysis of the Ukrainian war.

And what is it about US aggression around the world since the Second World War?

You can look up the Bucharest Declaration and see that signatories agreed to language that "Welcomed Georgia's and Ukraine's Nato aspirations"

He said it and it happened. So he is right all long

Unbelievable how one well educated and experienced person may be so disengaged from reality.

10 minutes in and I'm still waiting for compelling insights, just platitudes

I don't think former PM A. Stubb gets enough credit as a deadpan comedian! 😆

9:00 but from what I understand, the clubs are not required to accept the new members-application. They may have the right to choose to be with Nato. But that means making an application which can be rejected.

American actions in Syria had nothing to do with liberal democracy and everything to do with stopping arms flows to the Palestinians that were being done by Syria. We use democracy as a convenient label but when it's inconvenient like in Egypt we are more than happy to get rid of it.

But you did not mention Cuba, Libya and when you mentioned Syria it was not for the sake of its sovereignty. But you used it to blame Putin and not US. Very balanced and very academic.

I am grateful that you have the experience and presenting a contrasting view. Please invite John Mearsheimer to join you.

He said " I would like to take issue with Mearsheimer". That says it all. Funny guy. Even a baby can understand what's going on and Mearsheimer 100% correct.

Except that Mearshimer predicted this 5 years ago. What did you predict?

12:40 fake. Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libia 2011. All it happens after cold war were ended. And it happens because USSR disappear.

Thank you. A superb presentation. For me it is not possible to ignore the impact of Russia potentially being hemmed in by both NATO and the EU. The first brings with it the loss of face and the second, the potential loss of economic markets and even security.

Sticking to the rules ,as long as it are our Western rules...

He says in this video “This is not a world where the big can rule over the small.” Does that apply to every Nation everywhere?

Is it up to Cuba to be sanctioned by USA since 1960?

"NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO." -- NATO's Final Declaration, Bucharest Summit, April 3rd 2008

3:42. "American imperialism refers to the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of the United States. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened". American Imperialism - wiki.

When intelligent learned people make claims that are clearly untrue, I sniff a strong smell of money. Can't help it!

"... NATO has never attacked foreign countries" It is a very bold statement that reduces the value of this analysis almost to nill.

*Kiitos. Hyvä esitys! John K. Lindgren. Born in Suomi-Finland. Resident in THAILAND*

Listen to this guy west my 30 minutes

this is about the third leg of the Monroe doctrine as its applied to the russian state REMEMBER the US threatened hostilities when this happened in Cuba

Stubb is a rather dishonest academic here. (Min 3:20). The first argument he wants to refute, allegedly put forward by Mearsheimer (M), was never put forward by M verbatim in the lecture at Florence one month before. Stubb said, that M had argued : Putin had no choice but to attack. Mearheimer never said it that way.

Well, I watched "The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war. A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer". By the way it is also interesting to learn that Florence, in my country, is the place of "The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies". I promise I'll watch this video on the five arguments "Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine" again, in order to single out some points for discussion in a future editing of this comment of mine. However just to give you my first impression, the thesis of John Mearsheimer seems to be more logically convincing, than the five points explained in this video. P.S.and disclaimer: I like Alexander Stubb's crystal clarity of the language and his logical flow of thoughts and the way he presents his lecture, even more than John Mearsheimer's. So when I say that John Mearsheimer's thesis appears to me as more convincing, it is not a question of emotional liking of the person, or of the presentation, but just the evaluation of the sheer concepts.

What Mearsheimer misses is human agency. The Baltics, Poland, Finland and the Czech Republic are good examples of keeping the pressure up to support Ukraine

I think it would be very helpful to all of us if you and professor Measheimer have a face to face debate.

We need a whole new set of leaders.

This man invests extreme energy to make us forget what was really happening. The whole post is based on prejudices and opinions. John Mearsheimer pinpoints the key events that gave rise to new events, the relationship between action and reaction. This man does the opposite. The mention of Peter the Great and Stalin throws dust in the eyes and underestimates anyone who followed the events

A very valuable perspective and thank you for the clip. I do feel that you are defending your nation, as you should, and its position. There are many other countries that never had your fotunate outcome of keeping its sovereignty and citizens intact. But I do appreciate the perspectives you have added to my novice understanding of the situation in Ukraine. I will go listen to the references you have provided. Thank you.

Now apply the same line of thinking on Iraqi invasion and tell me to what conclusions you came.

1st argument: "I believe that Russia is an imperialist, revisionist, aggressive state". Its hard to argue with such a based "argumentation". I would even go so far to say impossible. As impossible, as tolerating competency level of modern decision makers in USA and, especially, EU. I'm genuinely sad for the amount of troubles regular people are and wll be forced to deal with because of it. The best proof of someone's competence is the predictive ability of his or her statements and views. Prof. Measheimer was exceptionally close, and much closer than anyone else in 2014, to complete and detailed prediction of the situation we can all witness now. Comparing arguments like those of the narrator, to prof. Measheimer's lectures is the one of the best ways to illustrate the process of degradation of the institutes of power and state funded media in Global West. Honestly, if there would be a single "independant" TV channel, Mearsheimer would have to be their most requested guest for politics related themes since February 24th.

Prof. Mearsheimer was right in almost every point. He didn't mention that time half a dozen other reasons why Russia shouldn't allow Ukraine to join NATO.

Why did Finland send troops to Afghanistan and also to Iraq?

When listening to his point number 1 I thought he was describing the USA or France

I think the quote there, 'Nato has never attacked another country' is tenuous at best and might be open to debate.

12:34 Wait, brother, hold on there... Not that everything is based on falsehoods and fabrication, but this.. this one wins . Total win

Wonderful stuff (anglkiwi)

I appreciate your view on the Russian/Ukraine conflict which on its own is understandable. I will however like to her your view on how America treats the rest of the world as subservient vassals even though countries are thousands of miles from it's borders. The issue I have is hypocrisy of those who criticize Russia while supporting American. That position is indefensible.

As Finns say " he is a wannabe American " and they dropped him.

This is a well constructed argument. It is unfortunate that at best it is based upon false assumptions and prejudices. It is a description of a world that doesn't exist. I'd be interested to hear what you believe now, thirteen months after you posted this argument. How do you feel about the stability of the NATO alliance, the EU solidarity, the stability of European governments, the motivation of the US, the position of the world outside the West on this war and Russia's prospects?

How would you argue against someone who believes that the European Union is an imperial project, the same way that the Soviet Union is? Both of them seems to be an Universal Empire.

What would happen if russia puts bases and missiles in cuba? The exact same thing russia is doing now….

15 mins into the vid. All points made are easily rebutted. I was expecting more from this speaker. He nicely sums up the basic points of MSM.

Thank you, President Stubb

Mannerheim called, he wants his glasses back, and the narrative too.

Germany's energy dependence is due to the fact that it closed down its nuclear power stations.

Considering Mearshiemer spoke on this subject years ago and the pieces of the puzzle he gave are playing out exactly how he said it would, says a lot about his insights. Hes been spot on.

Thank you for presenting your own view. There is no need to rectify Mearsheimer's, as just like you, he is entitled to present his own view. When I put the two of you side by side, he is more logical and convincing.

Thanks so much for this!

So first 2 minutes he already spent one of themsaying "my opinion is good because of my experience and the fact that I met Putin in person"...

Since when has NATO become a Club?

Thank You.

Alexander Stubb talked a lot about his values, and what Russia should or shouldn't do. Unfortunately, Russia does not act following Stubb's values or Ukraine's rights. I feel Mearsheimer's views make much more sense to me.

Was it not Biden who cut off the diplomacy for avoiding the war? Your take on sovereignty re Iraq, Libya, and Syria? How do you understand Biden's comments "Killer", "Thug". The aggressive expressions of contesting China? The armed actions at the Maidan that led to regime change? Would like to hear Stubb's theory as to why Russia went into Syria

Half truth is equally or more dangerous as the outlie lies

What about the attack on Libya?

The INdefensible US/Neocon/NATO stance boils down to: *Monroe Doctrine for me, but not for thee!* ... see Cuban Missile Crisis, Haiti, Puerto Rico, etc...

I thank Professor Stubb for his presentation re: his view of the causes of the Ukraine war and his opposition to Professor Mearsheimer's perspective. With such a major threatening event to the world, open discussion is essential for survival of both humanity and democracy. I am no public intellectual and in the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a private one either. I am an ordinary citizen with intense interest in Peace. . Also in the spirit of full disclosure I support the position of Professor Mearsheimer. But please read on. It is essential that we all start addressing one another and move beyond our own "bubbles" of thinking. Thus my interest in professor Stubb's critique and in turn my critique of his presentation. I will attempt brevity, to encourage maximum readership. Professor Stubb's 5 basic points: Point 1: Russia: Russia is an imperialist/revisionist/expansionist and aggressive actor and "has always been like that". He sites Georgia which has a much more complex history as well as Syria where Putin has no territorial ambition, just support of an alley of Russia. It is the US through proxy forces that have territorial control of Syria's oil region. He further states: a. that Russia's beleives that it is under external threat. What might lead them to that conclusion? Perhaps, in the last century from 1917. to 1943 approx. 25-30 million Russians died at the hands of western invasions. ( Expeditionary force of 150,000 troops from western powers attempting to thwart the Russian Revolution, WW I and WW II) b. That Russia is trying to defend itself against Ukraine. This is inaccurate as Russia has been clear that it is defending itself against NATO and western expansion to its borders. They have coexisted with Ukraine peacefully since the split up of the Soviet Union in 1991 up to the coup of February 2014 resulting in civil war in the Donbas. c. 'Russia does not like democratic neighbors. What is the evidence of this? d. Russia thinks in terms of spheres of influence and power. Don't all superpower empires do this? What is the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine? Point 2: Putin. To understand Putin, he suggests reading about Peter the Great, Katherine the Great and Stalin, using some vague sense of psychology to state this is what motivates Putin. That is akin to saying read George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR to understand the mental workings of Joe Biden. This is a spurious point. Point 3" Ukraine. While supporting the notion of individual state sovereignty and agency in international retionships, he states, " The Ukraine should not be Findlandized, unless of course, it means NATO membership and EU membership...". This is a Finnish intellectual determining what course of action Ukraine should take in its own behalf. . So much for Ukrainian sovereignty and agency. Point 4: NATO Expansion. The professor unequivocally denies the Measrsheimer understanding that the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit opened the door for Ukrainian and Georgian entrance into NATO. However, going to: www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm completely refutes his point. Article 23 of NATO 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration states: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia." Point 5: US. Professor Stubb essentially denies US aggressiveness towards Russia. However,he fails to mention the hostility expressed and sanctions taken against companies participating in the construction of Nordstream II. In the spirit of liberal democracy and market based economies Eurpopeans' choice of energy suppliers would be perfectly normal. Europe has the demand, and Russia has the supply. Determination of US to thwart this project does not represent "national sovereignty and agency". Additionally, any honest assessment of the campaign rhetoric of 2016 shows increasing hostility towards Russia by the US political establishment. Final point. Professor Stubb's concludes his presentation by decrying the eschewing of document interpretations to ones ideological advantage and the need to consider "facts on the ground". My response is clearly stated in Point 4: NATO Expansion. As to facts on the ground, the professor makes zero mention of the February Coup in Ukraine which led to the civil war in Donbas, a very significant "fact on the ground". It is my conclusion that Professor Stubb is not presenting a factual accounting of the Ukrainian crisis but rather in essence a political ideological one that is inconsistent with a honest desire for peace.

The reason Putin has respected Finland's boarders is very simple: Finland has learned very well from Stalin's invasion to never to trust Russia and as a result armed themselves to the teeth.

Might be a petty point of contention, but when he talks about Putin's ambitions and ideological aims he says to 'read Stalin'. Pretty emotive point, but arguably meaningless. If his point is that Putin wants to continue the ML tradition of Soviet leaders like Stalin then he would recommend reading Lenin, in that Stalin was hardly a scholar and like Mao considered himself a student of Lenin. More generally, the point that Putin is a continuation of Soviet policies under Stalin is demonstrably false in every possible measure.

Finally, this guy is from another planet. 😊

Stubb: "NATO has never attacked another country". Any Serbians watching this?

I am all for academic freedom but this was not a academic argument... rather an emotional one...it lacks logic and it dismisses facts

Very credible unbiased humble man in red shirt.

Miersheisser's view can be totally described as being totally based on the Henry Kissinger's school of international relatiinship. Kissinger is also a war criminal. So excuse me if i hold the opinions of the Mersheisser's quisling guy in total contempt.

Salaam, Sir,this "rules based order that you mentioned,could you please provide evidence of this "list of rules" you mentioned.The UN charter and international law you mentioned,are the sanctions Finland instituted against Russia in compliance with the charter and international law?

Saakashvili launched the attack on August 8, 2008 on South Ossetia he triggered that war Putin did not attack Georgia. Georgia attacked the breakaway state, that is fact don't push leftist political allies but then again this guy is from Finland so what can I say.

The arguments in the "imaginarium". No one has talked about Finland and Poland! The assumption tha the othe did not read about Peter the Great or Stalin is absolutely aout of touch.

It' s a mad,mad,mad world

I am actually disappointed because I think most of the arguments points are weakly presented. The argument points are too simplistic, sometimes false and they don’t take into consideration geopolitical issues. There are always two sides of the story, the truth in between and unfortunately it’s usually silent.

A lot of the info in this video are just this man’s own beliefs and opinions. He has a very liberal mindset and ideology who thinks he knows what is right and wrong. But dont forget that your opinion of right and wrong might be different from someone else’s.

How I agree with every word you say. Jane Soole (again but Feb 8, 2024).

This is a lot of personal attacks on Putin and not a lot of historical perspective

When someone's argument begins with a misunderstanding of what they are rebutting - that's not a good start.

12:36 Well , this is a lie. Believe me, I was there.

I don't agree with Mearsheimer either, but if you are going to critique him, you have to engage with his theory of offensive realism. Which can't be reduced to "Russia had no choice" and "power politics". Some explanation on how and why great powers are presumed to seek (regional) hegemony was in order. The benefit of this is to recognise there are (at least) two sides at play, rather than just "imperialist Russia".

This guy is trying to say that Russia is wrong to think that Nato is anti Russian and that Russia's reason for invading Ukraine is wrong. Russia lost 28 million people in the war they have every right to by wary. What would America think if Russia put missiles in Cuba? Last time they did that America threatened nuclear war

Seems your discarding all references to The Cuban Crises

The rules you spoke about around 10:00 of international relations don’t exist. And they would exist, its not just Russia neglecting those though. I don’t trust anyone who speaks just for one side. Both sides are wrong!

I have no knowledge on the matter and appreciate hearing different point of views, but I'm unsatisfied with some points he makes: 1) European idealism as the driver to search for energy dependency towards Russia? I don't think it makes logical sense. I think Russia supplying Europe with very cheap gas and allowing Europe to pay with their own currency, that I heard it allowed a loophole in Gov't finance as energy imports weren't counted as imports (or something similar, I don't remember) looks like a much more credible reason. 2) I am very surprised that historians cannot agree on what was told or not during a public meeting or conference. How can there be disagreement on something so trivial to verify, do I really have to go and check every single source at its origin? 3) Mearsheimer also said that the US was at least supporting, or helping, the orange revolution and the choice for democracy in Ukraine. Besides this doesn't necessarily look unethical, it is still an intrusion of some ways of a foreign country. I'm not saying I would oppose it, I would probably have approved it, but I think this aligns better with Dr Mearsheimer's points (if true). 4) To his NATO point, it looks fair to think that a general threat of democracy was the real driver for Putin. Again, I have no deep knowledge whatsoever, but I would love to see these points discussed.

He's an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to pick up the bill! Btw, he's the kind who always plays from both sides of the fence!