During a panel discussion in June of 2014 – four months after the toppling of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine – Professor John Mearsheimer was asked whether Ukrainians have a right to choose to join the West. His emphatic answer, which provoked laughter from his fellow panellists, was: “No, they don’t.”
This gets to the very heart of the current crisis. Those who deny the West bears any responsibility insist that we must uphold the principle that every state is sovereign and can enter whichever alliances it chooses. Now, this sounds very appealing. But there’s one major problem with it.
The problem is that the US – by far the most important Western country – has blatantly and repeatedly violated this principle over the last five decades. Hence if the West wants to make any kind of normative argument against Russia’s aggression, it has to explain why it doesn’t hold itself to the same standards.
This point was made eloquently by Robert Wright in a recent essay titled ‘In Defense of Whataboutism’. As he notes:
Exercises in whataboutism force people to mount what Singer calls “a disinterested defense of one’s conduct.” They have to articulate a general rule—or a general exception to a general rule—that applies to everyone in comparable circumstances.
Since there’s no “general rule” under which America’s foreign policy would be justified but Russia’s foreign policy would not be, the West cannot mount a “disinterested defence” of its conduct. (I suppose certain countries like Iceland might be able to, but the US – the only one that really matters – certainly can’t.)
So the West doesn’t actually uphold the principle that every state is sovereign and can enter whichever alliances it chooses. Once this is established, the question arises, ‘Is Ukraine one of those states that can’t enter whichever alliances it chooses?’
The Russians believe it is, and have made clear that Ukraine joining the West is an absolute red line for them. How should the West have dealt with this ultimatum?
Well, the policy it did adopt was to ignore Russia’s ultimatum, and actively support the movement that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian government in 2014. This instantly led to Putin annexing Crimea, and the outbreak of the war in Donbass. Is there anything it could have done instead?
Yes, it could have adopted the policy John Mearsheimer put forward, which is based on accepting that Ukraine is one of those states that can’t enter whichever alliances it chooses.
His proposal comprised three main elements: ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine; funding an economic rescue plan, together with Russia and the IMF; and insisting that Ukraine respect minority rights, especially minority language rights. (Note: these were abolished by the country’s Constitutional Court in 2018.)
Now, it’s possible that Mearsheimer’s policy would simply not have worked – that even if it had been followed, we’d still be where we are today. However, the policy seems far more sensible, and far more likely to work, than the one Western leaders decided to pursue instead.
As he noted prohphetically in 2015, “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Don’t even give it credence by publishing such utter nonsense Daily Sceptic …come on editor sort it out
Nothing to discuss here, IPSO whatever the Feck it is, has just rendered itself irrelevant, ridiculous and not fit for purpose – get rid!
It’s an important issue. If you want to remain ignorant about it, then don’t read it, and allow the rest of us the choice of whether to remain ignorant about it or not.
“important”….go on…
What’s “important”is that we are being lead in to WW3 intentionally…
What’s also “important” is the relentless assault on free speech.
There’s no life rule saying one can only find one thing at a time important.
This article is more about “gender identity” than free speech
If it wasn’t for “a man who claims to be a woman”.. This article wouldn’t even exist…
No one was saying there was…………
Ignorant about “gender identity” are you having a laugh..
It’s been rammed down our throats on a daily basis for the past 25 years…. Not sure about you, but I’m done with the bs… You keep giving it attention if you want, but that won’t achieve anything at all….
“ignorant”…..blimey..
Not ignorant about “gender identity”, ignorant about the IPSO ruling. Nobody is forcing you to know anything about IPSO if you don’t want to know.
If the Spectator prints the ruling on its website stating that indeed Mr Dawson is a woman, will it be guilty of misinformation? After all, as Michael Grove says: “Dawson may have a gender recognition certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson’s Y chromosome.”
It does get very confusing.
I agree. It’s DS clickbait. The press doesn’t matter anymore. We get balance from within the Network Society
the Phrase “A Man Who Claims to Be a Woman” is Discriminatory
It’s an interesting idea that speaking or writing a phrase that corresponds to reality constitutes “discrimination”. But what do the Clown-Wolders really mean by “discrimination” in a case like this? What they mean is that some people still insist on noticing reality, and that that must not be allowed. Thus we’ve reached the stage where speaking the truth is heresy.
Indeed…..right think, is the only think.
Nothing new. Once upon a time you could have lost your life for stating that you don’t see any evidence of the existence of a God.
We just haven’t evolved as much as we think we have.
If journalists are not allowed to say that Juno Dawson is “a man who claims to be a woman”, then they should say that Juno Dawson is “a man who claims to be a trans woman”, which cannot be proved to be inaccurate, as it is literally impossible to distinguish a trans woman from a man pretending to be a trans woman.
How about they just ignore it …
Not everyone has your “Close your eyes and it might go away” attitude.
“Trans woman” is gibberish.
What would a trans goldfish or trans tulip be?
Nevertheless it’s a reality that some men claim to be trans women.
War Is Peace.
Freedom Is Slavery.
Ignorance Is Strength.
Truth is Thoughtcrime.
What will such types do, when it becomes completely obvious, that all those self same types lied about the Covid Vaccinations.
If saying “a man who claims to be a woman” is discriminatory, what should one say to describe a man who claims to be a woman?
Exceĺlent question but easily answered: it’s “a man-without-a-certificate-from-the-state that claims he’s a woman.”
Telling the Truth Now a Crime
Both parents onboard with ‘transing’ their 18 month old son who now thinks he’s a girl called ‘Violet’. WTAF?
Child abuse takes many forms and this is just one. Take that child off these terrible parents!
https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1866104931867877385
I wonder how many Britons are suddenly realising they live in a totalitarian state in which something called a “Press Watchdog” has the power and authority to dictate what can and cannot be said.
So…. If I put on black makeup and claim to be black, would a journalist be found guilty of discrimination if they described me as a “white person who claims to be black”?
Ali G…
It doesnt matter how rarified and abstracted a culture becomes. In the end the body is still the final arbiter. You will learn that in the horror to come. Imposture won’t help pretence won’t help. You will either have the spunk or you won’t. Keep your nutsack full as a bulwark against the coming attack. No cheeky little wanks. If you feel the strain is too much then grip the base of your penis and give two squeezes. After a few weeks the desire will disappear completely.
Has anyone read any of Juno Dawson’s works? Would the phrase “a man who claims to be an author” be ok?
It isn’t rocket science. Why do you think that all the nasty major corporations of this world are pushing this agenda? Do you think it is because they care about minority groups? And so why are they actually pushing it. It is just to make you feel itchy and irked in certain places whilst they carry your possessions off. Either you tune into the real game or you don’t. We live in merciless times you can’t afford to be all over the place and stupid.
It is very easy to become a fuckwit, especially in our time. How about the spirit that rebals against becoming a fuckwit. I mean a genuine impulse to avoid that fate.
Membership of IPSO is not compulsory. Spectator should leave and like Guardian, Evening Standard, Financial Times be free of it.
The phrase ‘ you are factually correct but not politically correct’ originally came from Stalin’s Russia
Shame Gove didn’t push to get the “gender” lies and nonsense scrapped when he was in a position to do it.