A little more than three years ago, when Russia launched its full invasion of Ukraine, John Mayshimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, explained, and perhaps the most prominent “realistic” foreign researcher in his generation, he believed that the blame for Russia’s attack is in the United States. This was not exactly a surprise. Since 2014, when Russia included the Crimea and supported a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Mearsheimer has argued that the United States and many Europe are the main cause of the Russian aggression in the region, due to a large extent. NATO Continue expanding east across the continent. (Since the end of the Cold War, sixteen countries have joined the alliance.) Twice In 2022 after the invasion of Russia; either way , He distributed Western policy and defended Vladimir Putin on imperialism and lying about the goals of his war. (That year, visited Mearsheimer Victor UrbanThe authoritarian Hungarian leader who was sympathetic to Putin’s accounts about the war.)
When Joe Biden was president, Ukraine’s support was very strong in the United States, Mearsheimer looked like a strange man. Now Donald Trump has returned to power, has overcame Russia, and stopped arming Ukraine, and Volodimir Zelinski publicly drewThe President of Ukraine, during a meeting at the Oval Office. Trump’s admiration for Putin seems to barely suit any Grand Geostrategic theory; However, Trump was talking about the struggle in the language that reflects the game Mearsheimer, a strong critic of liberalism, a person who believes it is natural for regional domination of domination in their areas of influence.
Me and Mearsheimer recently spoke again on the phone. During our conversation, which was liberated for length and clarity, we discussed the reason for his belief that Ukraine should not get any security guarantees as part of a peace agreement, whether it was wrong in Russia’s intentions before 2022, and why he still believes that Putin is misunderstood.
To what extent do you think Trump is dealing with the issue of Russia and Ukraine?
I mainly agree with what it is doing. I think it is a good strategic logical to close the war immediately. I also think it’s morally correct thing to do. Although Trump did not do so in the most possible way, I think he is on the right path and we hope he will succeed.
What is the right track?
He must cut a deal with the Russians, and this means accepting the main terms that the Russians put on the table. One of them is that Ukraine should be a really neutral country. It cannot be in NATO You cannot have Western security guarantees. Second, he will have to abandon a large segment of land in eastern Ukraine. Three, he will have to remove the bird to the point that it is not an offensive military threat to Russia. Trump must accept these conditions and succeed in an agreement with the Russians. But then comes the difficult part, which gets Europeans, especially the Ukrainians, to agree.
How will this Ukraine look the smell?
All this depends on the amount of lands that Ukraine loses from now and when the agreement is determined. The Russians have strategic incentives to take more lands. So I think it is necessary, from the Ukrainian point of view, to settle this quickly, before the Russians pick up more lands and it is impossible to remove them from that region.
Let’s assume that there is a peace agreement and that Ukraine will have to waive lands. What guarantees do you think can or should be presented to the Ukrainians who were attacked by Russia in a decade form?
They cannot have a security guarantee and they simply accept this fact.
Why?
Security guarantee is mainly an effective membership in NATOThe Russians will not accept that. Is this a tragic situation for Ukraine? The answer is yes. But what is the alternative?
If the Europeans, or even the Americans under a different administration, think that in their own interest to give Ukraine a security guarantee, then why not do that?
They can provide it, but the Russians will reject it. I think this war was everything NATO expansion. Effectively giving Ukraine security guarantee NATO membership.
Let’s say that the peace agreement has been conducted and there is no security guarantee, then Putin attacks Ukraine again. Then what?
I think it will be a tragedy. The question is the best way to avoid this. But will Putin attack Ukraine in the future? I can’t believe it will. I think the last thing Putin wants once this war is settled is another war.
In 2014, I said that Putin would not pursue the rest of Ukraine. Do you think you may reduce it again?
no. In 2014, I said he would not be chasing the rest of Ukraine. But the situation changed after 2014, and in particular, it changed after Joe Biden moved to the White House. Biden was Superhawk on Ukraine. Ukraine began armed with a rate greater than his predecessor. The end result is not surprising, that after thirteen months of moving to the White House, he got a war.
So Putin imposed a kind of invasion?
Yes, this is my point of view. Putin forced us to launch a preventive war to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO.
If Ukraine is a member of NATOIt will not necessarily be a threat to Russia. I mean, perhaps in Putin’s mind it will be.
But this is all that matters. I don’t think it does not matter. The Russians clarified unambiguously from 2008 forward. And remember, 2008 is when NATO It announced that Ukraine would become a member of the coalition. Putin and his an unambiguous manner explained that this was an existential threat and would not allow this to happen. Putin said he would destroy Ukraine. This is in 2008.
Is there a difference between saying that Putin is looking at something in a certain way, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that Putin has been forced to invade another country?
Well, it is believed that Ukraine is in NATO It is an existential threat, and the reward for declaring war on Russia.
Ukraine was not a member of NATO. It was not certain that Ukraine would be a member ever NATOEven during the Biden administration. Let’s be clear in that.
No, this is not true at all. In fact, if you look at what happened after Biden became president, he made it clear that he is committed to bringing Ukraine to NATO. There was a strategic planning document.
I realize that, but there were talks about Ukraine and NATO For decades. There was no evidence that it would actually happen. Diplomatic talk does not always mean anything.
I can’t believe it.
It took a long time. I just said this was brought up in 2008.
Yes, in 2008, they said they would bring Ukraine to NATO.
These are my points. Fourteen years later, Ukraine was attacked. It was still not present NATO. In any case, last year, you books“There is no evidence simply by February 24, 2022 that Putin wanted to invade Ukraine and integrate it in Russia. Supporters of traditional wisdom cannot refer to anything written by Putin or said that he indicates that he is determined to conquer Ukraine.”
I said that at the time and believe that now.
Once again in 2014, you can contempt for those who have argued that Putin “will eventually go after the rest of Ukraine.” Did these people not turn right? Why not give them credit? This is what I am confused.
There is no doubt that they are proven correct. However, as I mentioned to you before, there was no evidence that it would invade Ukraine in 2014. The situation changes. After 2014, the US arm and European allies and Ukrainian training. Ukraine is a more enormous combat power by 2021 than in 2014. It is more threatening for Russia.
In many of your writings and interviews, emphasize The article written by Putin On July 12, 2021, he writes, to the Ukrainians, “You want to create your own case: Welcome!” Why focus on this article and this line?
