This is just my notes about this "staged theatrical", masked as "just academic debate", that Alexander Stubb did in order, as I see it, to discredit the views and the name of one of the towering academic figures in America, John Mearsheimer. (see the original of Stubb's "sermon", masquerading as "honest academic debate", here: (2) Why Mearsheimer is wrong about Russia and the war in Ukraine. Five arguments from Alexander Stubb. - YouTube)
Below I give some of the points or "psychologemes" that Mr Stub uses in the above video in order to, under the disguise of "honest neutral academic debate", not only to cast a shadow on the honest academic analysis by John Mearsheimer, but on his character - a very typical example, in my view, nowadays where politicians directly attack usual citizens (and John is not a politician and doesn't have any political goals or affiliations) and even go so far as try to attack the most prominent academics and smear them.
1. Stub says that according to Mearsheimer the war was driven by the 'aggressive behavior' of the US - this is simply untrue, if not an outright lie. Mearsheimer didn't operate in the categories of "behaviors", nor did he frame the cause in such categories.
2. Stubb: "As somebody who met Lavrov, Putin.. etc I'd like to take issues with what Mearsheimer claims".. "Today with my academic and political background I will try to give 5 reasons why Mearsheimer is wrong". Such statements have nothing but rhetorical "value".
3. "Russia is imperial because it has always been like that" I doubt that this purely rhetorical passage, because it is not an argument, Mr Stubb would with a straight face use in any academic debate or written work this purely political passage. But even if he did - because we see lots of gaps and lisons nowadays in the academic environment being - too bad and no value to that.
4. Stubb asserts that the theoretical views of Mearsheimer, among other things, boil down to``Russia bona fide defended itself against Ukraine". It's not only a lie, but a ridiculous one, and Mr Stubb is educated well enough to know and understand that (but obviously he may rely on his audience not knowing it). From the standpoint of the foundations of the school of realism, these categories "defense in bona fide" are NON-existent and absolutely meaningless, even less so for the regional powers. Not only didn't Mearsheimer never said any such silly thing, but hardly could have. Nor did Mearsheimer ever claim something that that "Russia defended itself against Ukraine"! (even Moscow didn't make that claim) - it is a pure fruit of Mr Stubb's imagination, or, much worse still, it is a deliberate attempt to misinform the public.
5. Though the explanation of the geopolitical nature of what happened either from Mearsheimer or from realism, doesn't make lots of sense of the "can't or can help itself", Mr Stubb somehow puts that into Mearsheimer's mouth and then makes a claim based on these false premises that Russia ``absolutely CAN help itself and not attack Ukraine" and doesn't provide any evidence in favor of that claim (even though pretty distant from debates with Mearsheimer)
6. For some reasons known better to himself, Mr Stubb asserts that somehow the "rejuvenation of NATO" (which we all know about now POST-FACTUM) based on that "Finland and Sweden" join NATO (which they still haven't) is a "argument" against the explanations and predictions of Mearsheimer, because it means that "Moscow's choice and the premises and motives were not "rational", obviously Mr Stubb either equates the term "rational" with the term "correct" or "fruitful" because he doesn't know the difference between those things - this is hard to believe indeed - or it is because the very motive behind his explanation is not an academic debate but rhetorical political message to the audience, which to me seems much more plausible. This is a textbook example of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.
7. Mr Stubb goes into a whole litany of advice about "who you NEED to read" among some previous leaders of Russia in order "to understand Putin". Though Mr Stubb not only fails but actually doesn't even try to provide any argument whatsoever why "you need to read" all these specific leaders to understand Putin, but he doesn't even bother to shed any light on the question of how and why "understanding Putin" would help understand the geo-political reasons and drivers behind this war. The implicit rhetorical claim of that, for lack of anything else, is that somehow the personal motivations of Putin and his personal views explain the reason behind the war, which in itself requires lots of evidence.
8. Later Mr Stubb makes a self-referential rhetorical, if not outright demagogic, claim - the so called fallacy of argument from anecdote - that he "met personally Putin" and "he knows from his conversations with Putin" that he "hates" the West etc. Not only that, but all this irrelevant rhetorical garbage in the view of Mr Stubb, somehow bears a relation to the causes of war and is real evidence against the views of Mearsheimer.
9. Stubb "Putin rejected the liberal democracy in Chechnya and in Syria.." My foot - liberal democracy in Syria! What a new "well-accepted fact" that needs any rejection! It's really surprising - the mastery with which politicians can deadpan such level of absurdities with a straight face. Let there be no confusion, insofar as such ridiculous rhetoric is concerned Mr Stubb is just a politician masquerading for a better perception of the validity of his narrative as an "academic" (don't get confused, he does have an academic education, it just doesn't have anything to do with the rhetorical fantastical things he presents as "arguments", most likely not believing himself a bit of what he is saying)
10. Mr Stubb regurgitated the same sentiments as many other populist orators, instead of valid and sound arguments, about the "agency of a Ukraine as a sovereign state" and some "transcendental moral argument" according to which countries should or should not do this or that. This is exactly the type of fallacy that Mearsheimer himself mentioned so many times in his lectures as a frequent reaction to his analysis. This "supernatural", for lack of better word, "argument" about the "agency" and some absolute moral obligations - the verb "SHOULD" - has no place in realist rational analysis in geopolitical motives and forces, especially so in geopolitics of great regional and planetary powers within the context of their spheres of influence and existential fears.
In the same breath Mr Stubb preaches what the world "NEEDS to be" (obviously at some abstract time in future, because "needs" already presupposes that it IS NOT now). It is really hard to see how this sentiment and desire has anything whatsoever to do with disproving or correcting the arguments and views of Mearsheimer that are dealing with what IS, not what SHOULD. Not only that, but if anything, recent history 20-21 cent demonstrate overwhelmingly how these views of some "universal absolute rules" are far from reality.
11. "The only thing that Russia understands is power and that is exactly why Ukraine is doing the right thing trying to stave off [militarily] Russia". Another example of an absolutely unsubstantiated thesis. Wherefrom it follows that Ukraine is "doing the right thing trying to stave off Russia militarily" and how it stems from the proposed (but not substantiated) premise that Russia "understands only power" Mr Stubb didn't disclose in his lecture, or rather "sermon".
12. A whole bouquet of totally unsubstantiated claims that "NATO changed its role to crisis management and peacekeeping" is a specially amusing "stream of fantasies" that doesn't find its confirmation neither in any changes in the NATO documents nor in reality of the 21st century, nor in the fact that the debate of "what is NATO and why we need it" was an active debate that never came to any conclusive answer in the 21st century.
Another fantastical statement by Mr Stubb is that "NATO never attacked a different country".. This gives probably more information not about what Mr Stubb really thinks about NATO but what he thinks about his audience.
13. A rare case when Mr Stub really tries to resort to some history and some fact-based evidence, instead of "stream of consciousness" and "flight of fantasy": he specifically refers to Georgian war, that took place several months after the NATO summit in Bucharest, and unexpectedly makes another cyclical argument that somehow this war is evidence to support Putin's (which Mr Stub continues to identify with Russia and its geopolitical decision-making) expansionist policy. Indeed, it wasn't hard for Russia to capture the whole of Georgia and even annex it. As a minimum, it was even easier and cheaper to set a pro-Russian government in Tbilisi, none of which Moscow did and for none of which Moscow has even demonstrated the slightest intentions up to this day since 2008. If anything, the Georgian war and how Russia dealt with Georgia after all the US military bases have left together with any hope to joining NATO, provide evidence in favor of what Mearsheimer was saying, and in favor of what the West excellently have known, namely Russia's attitude towards NATO expansion.
14. "Putin THOUGHT [in 2014] that the reaction of the West would be the same [as in 2008 with Georgia]" One of those many many "Putin thought" that Mr Stub peppers his narrative with but which has not more in common with valid argumentation as the multiple theological claims about what God or devil want or think..
15. All the "argumentation", posed by Mr Stubb, from logical point of view, is nothing more than an exercise in circular argument in an effort to persuade (not prove or logically support) certain set of sentiments and views towards this war projected by Stubb (not necessarily shared by him) - it's not even an attempt to somehow disprove or critically look into the arguments of Mearsheimer.
16. At the end of the debate Mr Stubb goes to do something that is completely unethical from an academic debate perspective and academic ethical standards, namely implicitly smear Mearsheimer for the "false claims". Leaving aside that none of those claims were really disproved or even ADDRESSED through rational valid arguments by Mr Stub, those very claims, as Stub himself in word and in deed recognizes with his "lecture" were open to debate and a matter of debate, and aren't claims of some absolute fact, and even can't be in such a discipline as geo-political analysis and history. Nor were they posed by Mearsheimer as some claims of facts, but as conclusions and propositions that follow from his theory. This is a very good indicator of the true "moral" standards of Mr Stubb when it comes to the academic debate, and it really shows how much sincerity and truth in Stub's introductory statement about his ostensible respect and acceptance of academic freedom..
After these implicit smear and discreditation attempts, Mr Stub proceeds to give whole list of names that "you need to read" to understand why Mearsheimer is wrong - it is not references, it is not quotations, it has nothing to do with a bona-fide attempt to debate and critically review or correct Mearsheimer's theory - no. It is a purely political action aimed at forming the opinion of the audience but veiled under the stated "honest wish" to debate "respected Mearsheimer ''. This is just a BAD ACT, that simple, done in bad faith. Not a very big surprise when it comes from any politician these days.
And last, but not least, as much as I would like to see a face-to-face ACADEMIC debate between John and this Mr Stubb taking place in a good academic institution (for example in the University of Chicago, or University of Helsinki), I really doubt that Mr Stubb would ever express such a desire or agreement to do this debate, seeing as the purpose of his reactions to Mearsheimer have, to all appearances, very little to do with a bona-fide academic debate, and everything to do with preservation of the audience of a certain narrative and a certain set of rationally unverified stereotypes regarding the nature, causes and consequences of this enormously tragic war. It is rather the elimination of debate than the participation in debate that seems to drive such individuals from the political milieu as Mr Stubb (and there are plenty of them. indeed there is hardly anything original or unique in the stream of rhetorical unsubstantiated claims and reactions that I heard from Mr Stubb in this video - this is pretty synthetic set of rhetorical reactions circulating like food in the digestive tract of a cow, with multiple regurgitations and re-chewings).
