Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

[Res Ipsa]

Will has more faith than all of them. He's dropped DCP as his idol, and now worships a fellow American Russophile called "Big Serge". But BS himself is having trouble finding the angle here. I sense a new narrative is in the works where Putin was forced into this situation by the allies in order to destroy Russia. The next phase of propaganda may be Putin, the tragic victim. No sign of Will going there, oh no, Putin is laying a trap, and so far he's fought with both hands behind his back and has barely used his available troops and arms. And he's shooting HIMARS rockets out of the sky with the most advanced air defense system ever designed. And Putin is baiting America to engage and break itself apart over the immovable rock that is Russia. America wouldn't stand a chance in a ground war with Russia. Nobody has more faith in Putin than he does, literally nobody on the planet.

It sounds like there’s no more descent left to be descended.

[Gadianton]

Yes it's funny because the video you linked is dead on for the Russophiles except Will. lol.

[Gadianton]

It sounds like there’s no more descent left to be descended.

The sickest part is that he outright denies every and all accusations of atrocity; mass graves, torture, rape, he denies all of it categorically.

[Dr Exiled]

Will has more faith than all of them. He's dropped DCP as his idol, and now worships a fellow American Russophile called "Big Serge". But BS himself is having trouble finding the angle here. I sense a new narrative is in the works where Putin was forced into this situation by the allies in order to destroy Russia. The next phase of propaganda may be Putin, the tragic victim. No sign of Will going there, oh no, Putin is laying a trap, and so far he's fought with both hands behind his back and has barely used his available troops and arms. And he's shooting HIMARS rockets out of the sky with the most advanced air defense system ever designed. And Putin is baiting America to engage and break itself apart over the immovable rock that is Russia. America wouldn't stand a chance in a ground war with Russia. Nobody has more faith in Putin than he does, literally nobody on the planet.

I read his blog post and wonder how he can be so sure. It could very well be that the Russians retreated knowing that NATO and the USA were about to step up the fight and wanted to get to more easily defended territory and dig in and perhaps set a trap. Who knows? Everything is possible in Mormonism. However, it could be that Russia isn't the powerful army they were built up to be and without nuclear weapons, they would be easily overrun by NATO. I personally don't think we should have been pushing NATO up to the Russian border or should have been meddling in Ukrainian elections. Our elites are too much about the dollar and have a history of exploitation through war and so I don't trust their motives. However, Putin is like any mob boss that will murder the opposition and we cannot lose sight of that. I think Schryver has lost his perspective due to his wanting Biden and his neocon compatriots to suffer a defeat.

[Gadianton]

I personally don't think we should have been pushing NATO up to the Russian border or should have been meddling in Ukrainian elections.

I think the baseline state of the world is John Mearsheimer's Why Ukraine is the West's Fault. And from there, the argument is what is John right and wrong about.

But as you point out, none of this has anything to do with Will's contrarianism, which is best represented by his failed career as a Mormon apologist.

[honorentheos]

I personally don't think we should have been pushing NATO up to the Russian border or should have been meddling in Ukrainian elections.

I think the baseline state of the world is John Mearsheimer's Why Ukraine is the West's Fault. And from there, the argument is what is John right and wrong about.

But as you point out, none of this has anything to do with Will's contrarianism, which is best represented by his failed career as a Mormon apologist.

A more recent lecture from after the war started in February can be watched here: https://youtu.be/qciVozNtCDM

The first link from six years ago suggests he has some things in common with William. He imagined Putin to be too smart to invade Ukraine then, and now Putin is justified in doing so.

There is more that could be discussed. But I think one thing he got right in his older lecture was enticing Putin to invade Ukraine would likely be more destructive for Russia than had they remained focused on destabilizing efforts. Of course, Putin being too smart for that...

ETA: His views seem largely reliant on the failure of the West to tract along lines he predicted after the fall of the Soviet Union where he viewed the likely outcome as reverting to something more pre-WWII. Nations acting according to bounded nationalist interests, effectively, including arguing the Ukraine should retain nuclear weapons for those reasons in the mid-90s. And he was quite critical of the US "unipolar" liberal international order, or what occured instead, which he asserts will unavoidably fail due to inevitable foreign and domestic confrontations with nationalism so we'd do well to just get on that train. You'd probably find this valuable for contextualizing his views:

https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... onal-order

PDF is downloadable.

[Morley]

I think the baseline state of the world is John Mearsheimer's Why Ukraine is the West's Fault.

A more recent lecture from after the war started in February can be watched here: https://youtu.be/qciVozNtCDM

You'd probably find this valuable for contextualizing his views:

https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... onal-order

PDF is downloadable.

Thank you both.

[Dr Exiled]

Thanks for providing the links to Prof. John Mearsheimer.

Here is an article by him, I just read, along the same lines as the YouTube videos: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation ... ian-crisis

From the article:

There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.

But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

[honorentheos]

Thanks for providing the links to Prof. John Mearsheimer.

Here is an article by him, I just read, along the same lines as the YouTube videos: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation ... ian-crisis

From the article:

There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.

But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

Mearsheimer's neorealist views have critical flaws going to their foundational beliefs inherent in realism. Realism as presented is essentially manifest ultraconservatism through the belief that great power dynamics must inevitably dictate the course of history. In the case of the Ukraine, it manifests as the idea Ukraine is a lesser power, and their pragmatic interest should be to bow to the interests of the great power whose influence is most proximate. In other words, 19th century world ordering. You'll notice that the premise of The Economist article is the dynamics are largely between Russia and NATO, with NATO being a proxy for the US. It largely ignores the Ukraine as having any other role to play than that of pawn. Critically, that makes one of Putin's own claims about there being no real difference between Ukraine and Russia a concession in favor of Putin central to his argument. JJM's position regarding how to counterbalance this view of the Ukraine, going back to the Orange Revolution and subsequent Russian reactions, has been the Ukraine ought to declare itself a neutral country with no alignment in favor of Moscow nor NATO. Making it a demilitarized zone if you will though he does not use the term to my knowledge. His position denies Ukraine their national sovereignty and right to align with whom they please. They are to know their place.

So to the argument that NATO is to blame for the war: Keep in mind that "The West" had since 2014 been openly engaging with Putin's claims of national security interest. This had included reluctance on the part of the US to send weapons and combat-equipment to the region following the Russian takeover of Crimea and support of the civil wars -likely direct involvement they denied - in eastern Ukraine. Our weapons being used in war to this day come with the explicit condition they not be used to attack targets in Russia, even military targets. Russia's security claims as a sovereign nation are foremost in our own calculations.

Is JJM correct to believe the US ultimately sees a weakened Putin a positive and would support achieving it within bounds? I think few would argue otherwise. But the idea the encouragement of Ukrainian engagement with Europe economically and ideologically justifies Russia invading out of national security concerns is ludicrous. The war is being fought by Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil.

JJM does not believe Putin was wrong and believed the Ukraine would capitulate quickly when he invaded. JJM does not ascribe to Putin the same ideological aims he ascribes derisively towards the West. Examples being JJM does not believe Putin calculated the invasion was going to further weaken the US influence and NATO unity, though it is clear Putin DID calculate the Ukraine rolling over would have this effect.

JJM believes Putin and Xi are rationalists aligned with his own neorealist views while the West is grasping about trying to hold onto a unipolar liberal international economic order. And that, friend, is ideology.

[honorentheos]

A quick note: It helps to check on JJM's writings from 1983 regarding the ability to effect a Blitzkrieg as a necessary condition for successful aggression informs too much of his beliefs about Putin. He seems to believe because Putin is smart, he would have known to invade Ukraine would require better planning, greater forces, and more clear objectives than we saw in the February invasion. So, because Putin is too smart, we have to assume he did not intend to take Ukraine. Nor, because Putin is smart, would Putin have been foolish enough to believe the Ukraine would capitulate without their being a Blitzkrieg, so he obviously didn't have that belief. If you buy that argument, well...