Yes, the idea that "all (geo)politics is local" explains the Ukraine war far more accurately than Mearsheimer’s notion of states as unitary actors. Internal Kremlin dynamics played a much bigger role in the decision to go to war than anything the West did—just as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith’s models would suggest.
Yes, the idea that "all (geo)politics is local" explains the Ukraine war far more accurately than Mearsheimer’s notion of states as unitary actors. Internal Kremlin dynamics played a much bigger role in the decision to go to war than anything the West did—just as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith’s models would suggest.
That said, I believe there’s an even more important dimension. Samuel Huntington’s framework of competing civilizations offers a deeper understanding of the conflict’s roots. Ukraine is a textbook example of a fault line country—where Western and Orthodox civilizations collide. Huntington actually predicted a war like this in The Clash of Civilizations back in 2000, citing Ukraine on page 39 as a likely flashpoint for future conflicts.
(For context: I have firsthand experience with the cultural divides in this region.)
Yes, the idea that "all (geo)politics is local" explains the Ukraine war far more accurately than Mearsheimer’s notion of states as unitary actors. Internal Kremlin dynamics played a much bigger role in the decision to go to war than anything the West did—just as Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith’s models would suggest.
That said, I believe there’s an even more important dimension. Samuel Huntington’s framework of competing civilizations offers a deeper understanding of the conflict’s roots. Ukraine is a textbook example of a fault line country—where Western and Orthodox civilizations collide. Huntington actually predicted a war like this in The Clash of Civilizations back in 2000, citing Ukraine on page 39 as a likely flashpoint for future conflicts.
(For context: I have firsthand experience with the cultural divides in this region.)