X Close

John Mearsheimer: We’re playing Russian roulette The West is screwed, says the realist foreign policy scholar

Escalation is inevitable in Ukraine. Credit: Anatolii Stepanov/AFP/Getty

Escalation is inevitable in Ukraine. Credit: Anatolii Stepanov/AFP/Getty


November 30, 2022   9 mins

Until the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Professor John Mearsheimer was mainly known in academic circles as a leading scholar in the “realist” school of foreign policy. That is to say, he takes an unsentimental view of world affairs as being a muscular competition between great powers for regional hegemony.

But with the Ukrainian “Maidan revolution” in 2014 and then the Russian invasion this February, he became a figurehead for the millions of people worldwide who have misgivings about the wisdom of Western actions in Ukraine. A single lecture delivered in 2015 entitled “Why is Ukraine the West’s fault” has been viewed a staggering 28 million times on YouTube.

His central argument, that by expanding Nato eastwards and inviting Ukraine to join the bloc, the West (and in particular the United States) created an intolerable situation for Vladimir Putin which would inevitably result in Russia taking action to “wreck” Ukraine, is politically unsayable today. His critics denounce him as a Putin apologist; his supporters, however, believe the invasion was proof that he was right all along.

 

When I meet Mearsheimer, I am keen to focus on what we have learned since the February invasion began. I want to know how can he still maintain that there is “no evidence” that Russia had ambitions to conquer Ukraine? How else are we to interpret that shocking moment when it became clear that the Russians were launching a full-scale invasion — from the North, the South and the East of the country?

“The Russians invaded Ukraine with 190,000 troops at the very most,” he replies. “They made no effort to conquer all of Ukraine. They didn’t even come close. There is no way they could have conquered Ukraine with 190,000 troops. And they didn’t have the troops in reserve to do that. When the Germans invaded Poland, in 1939, they invaded with 1.5 million troops. That’s the size army you need to conquer a country like Ukraine, occupy it and then incorporate it into a greater Russia. You need a massive army. This was a limited aim strategy.”

In which case, what was that limited aim?

“What the Russians have said they have wanted from the beginning is a neutral Ukraine. And if they can’t get a neutral Ukraine, what they’re going to do is create a dysfunctional rump state… They’ve taken a huge swath of territory in the East, they’ve annexed those oblasts that are now part of Russia. And at the same time, they’re destroying Ukrainian infrastructure. They’re wrecking the Ukrainian economy. It’s sickening to see what’s happening to Ukraine.”

This assessment of the situation on the ground is very different from the reports we hear every day of Ukrainian successes and Russian retreats. The underdog nation, by most accounts, is performing astonishingly well against the aggressor.

Mearsheimer concedes that he was surprised by how poorly the Russians have performed, but that doesn’t seem to have affected his assessment of the realpolitik. I put it to him that the progress of the Ukraine war thus far can be seen as a repudiation of his “realist” theory of international affairs. The smaller power is outperforming the greater, in part through the sheer moral conviction of its people defending their homeland — evidence, surely, of the intangible moral element that is missing from his coldly “realist” world view?

“The key word here is nationalism,” he responds. “There’s no doubt that when the Russians invaded Ukraine, nationalism came racing to the fore, and that Ukrainian nationalism is a force multiplier. There’s also no doubt that nationalism is not part of the realist theory of international politics that I have, but nationalism is consistent with realism. Nationalism and Realism fit together rather neatly. But the point you want to remember is that Nationalism is also at play on the Russian side. And the more time goes by, and the more the Russians feel that the West has its gun sights on Russia, and is trying to not only defeat Russia, but knock Russia out of the ranks of the great powers, the more Russian nationalism will kick in. You want to be very careful not to judge the outcome of this war at this particular juncture. This war has got a long time to go and it’s going to play itself out in ways that are hard to predict. But I think there is a good chance that in the end, the Russians will prevail.”

Bleakly, Mearsheimer now believes that the opportunity for peace has been lost, and that there is no realistic deal that could be reached in Ukraine. Russia will not surrender the gains made in Eastern Ukraine, while the West cannot tolerate their continued occupation; meanwhile, a neutral Ukraine is also impossible, as the only power capable of guaranteeing that neutrality is the US, which would of course be intolerable to Russia. As he puts it, succinctly: “There are no realistic options. We’re screwed.”

He believes that escalation is likely, and the chance of a nuclear event is “non-trivial”. He lays out his rationale for why the Russians might well go there, step by step:

“If the Russians were to use nuclear weapons, the most likely scenario is that they would use them in Ukraine. And Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons of its own. So the Ukrainians would not be able to retaliate against the Russians with their own nuclear weapons. So that weakens deterrence. Furthermore, if the Russians use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the West, and here we’re talking mainly about the United States, is not going to retaliate with nuclear weapons against Russia, because that would lead to a general thermonuclear war.”

Western restraint cannot be relied upon in this scenario, he concedes, and the chances of catastrophic escalation remain strong, which is why he considers the current rhetoric among Western leaders about defeating Russia “foolish”.

The British are “major cheerleaders” for the policy, by his assessment, pushing the United States into stronger action. “I think the British are being remarkably foolish, just like I think, the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Americans.”

Sweden and Finland meanwhile, with their Nato membership bids, are only making the situation more dangerous. The idea that Russia is poised to invade either Finland or Sweden is a “figment of the West’s imagination” and their membership of the security pact will only heighten Russia’s sense that it is being deliberately encircled. He believes their applications should be rejected, and that nobody should have the “right” to join a security pact like Nato.

Mearsheimer’s logic all points in the same direction: if there is no peace deal now possible in Ukraine, the only logical outcome is ongoing fighting; ongoing fighting will logically lead to escalation, particularly if Russia appears to be losing; and escalation may very well eventually take a nuclear form, at which point a great power nuclear conflict becomes a real possibility.

A more positive eventual outcome than this, of course, will falsify his theory and prove him wrong. I ask him, if the Ukraine conflict ends less badly — perhaps with Russia withdrawing or accepting a fudge, Ukraine strengthened and no nuclear event — will he admit he was wrong?

“Of course,” he says. “International Politics operates in a world of what I would call radical uncertainty, it’s very hard to figure out what the future looks like, it’s very hard to make predictions… Is there a possibility that the Russians will cave at some point? I think there’s a small possibility. I also think there’s a non-trivial chance that this will lead to nuclear war. And when you marry the consequences of nuclear war with the possibility, in my mind, that means you should be remarkably cautious. Let me illustrate this by this analogy. If I have a gun, and the barrel has 100 chambers, and I put five bullets in that barrel. And I say to you, Freddie, I’m gonna pull the trigger and put the gun up to your head. But don’t worry, there’s only a 5% chance that I will kill you… The question you have to ask yourself is, are you going to be nervous? Are you going to be scared stiff? …The consequences here involve nuclear war. So there only has to be a small probability that John is right.”

The common critique of this line of argument is that it becomes hard to see how the behaviour of a nuclear power could ever be curtailed. The bully could always wield the threat of nuclear disaster to get away with a new atrocity. And that logic also leads to disaster. So where would Mearsheimer draw the line? His answers are unambiguous.

First, he believes without hesitation that the existing Nato countries must be defended, notwithstanding the risks. “The Baltic states are in Nato. Poland and Romania are in Nato. They have an article 5 guarantee. If the Russians were to attack those countries, we would have to come to the defence of those countries, there’s no question about that. I would support that.”

More surprisingly, on the subject of China and Taiwain, which you might think bears a resemblance to Russia and Ukraine as a smaller Western-backed entity in the orbit of a rival regional hegemon, he takes the opposite view.

“I have a fundamentally different view on China than I do on Russia. And therefore, my thinking about Taiwan is different from my thinking about Ukraine. I believe that China is a peer competitor of the United States, and that it threatens to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. … From an American point of view, that’s unacceptable. And I think that’s correct. I think the United States should not want China to dominate Asia, the way we dominate the western hemisphere. So we’re going to go to great lengths to contain China. And for purposes of containing China, it is important for us to defend Taiwan.”

Mearsheimerism, then, is not quite what either his followers or his detractors might think it is. It is not an anti-war doctrine (his branch of “Offensive Realism” specifically sees aggression as a necessary part of great powers’ survival); nor is it fundamentally sceptical of American power. He supports American power being projected in its interests, but believes that the war in Ukraine is a distraction from the real threat, which is China, and worse, will drive Russia into the arms of China when it is in America’s interests to drive them apart.

A week before we met, Isaac Chotiner published a transcript of a telephone interview with Mearsheimer in the New Yorker. It was ostensibly about Ukraine, but Chotiner pushed Mearsheimer to talk about his recent meeting with Viktor Orbán. Which he refused to do. The effect was to imply that he was covering up murky friendships in the illiberal (and Russia-sympathetic) fringes of Europe.

Mearsheimer tells me, which he refused to do on the phone to Chontiner, that he was in Hungary to promote the translation of his latest book The Great Delusion, and that the prime minister and president requested a meeting via the publisher. He says he jumped at the chance, and ended up having a three-hour conversation with Orbán.

“I was very interested in talking to him for two reasons. One, I was interested in hearing his views on Ukraine, and how his views compare to the views of other European leaders and where he thought this was all headed. But I was also very interested in talking to him about nationalism and liberalism, the relationship between those two isms, this is one of the central themes in my book. What I have in common with Orbán is he thinks nationalism is a very important force, obviously, and I agree with him. But where I disagree with him is I think that liberalism is a very powerful force, and it’s all for the good. He, on the other hand, detests liberalism, so what he sees is liberalism and nationalism as polar opposites, and he favours nationalism, and wants to crush liberalism. I, on the other hand, see nationalism and liberalism as two ideologies that differ in important ways, but nevertheless, can coexist.”

Is he not worried that, whatever the content, by having those kinds of meetings, he will start to be seen as an activist with a political agenda more than an observer and an analyst?

“I’m not an activist, I’m an academic, I’m a scholar. And this is part of my research. My goal is to understand what’s going on in Europe… I’m not condoning Victor Orbán’s policies, or condemning them, I’m simply talking to him to understand what is going on in his mind and what is going on in Hungary and what is going on in Europe more generally… The fact that people are trying to smear me because I talked to Viktor Orbán is hardly surprising in the context that we now operate, because people are really not that interested these days in talking about facts and logic. What they prefer to do is to smear people who they disagree with.”

It is perhaps not surprising that Mearsheimer’s brand of cold realism has become popular in our increasingly multipolar, competitive world. But there is an impassive, observational quality to it which sounds negative and even cynical to the progressive ear. I ask him whether this uncertain, multipolar world is here to stay and if so, is that a good thing?

“I think it’s definitely here to stay. And I think it’s more dangerous than the Cold War was. I was born and raised during the Cold War, and the world was bipolar at that point in time… During the Cold War, we had the United States and the Soviet Union. During the Unipolar Moment, you just had the sole pole, the United States. And today, you have three great powers, the United States, China, and Russia. Now, you could not have great power politics in the unipolar world, because there was only one great power. What we have today, with the US-China competition in East Asia, and the US-Russia competition, mainly over Ukraine, is two conflict dyads. They’re separate conflict dyads — US-China, US-Russia. I would argue that not only do you have two instead of one, each one of those dyads is more dangerous than the conflict dyad in the Cold War.

“The United States and Russia are almost at war in Ukraine, and we can hypothesise plausible scenarios where the United States ends up fighting against Russia in Ukraine. And then we talked about the US China competition and the problems associated with Taiwan. And Taiwan is not the only flashpoint in East Asia, there’s also the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Korean peninsula. So you can imagine a war breaking out between the United States and China in East Asia, and a war breaking out in Ukraine involving the United States and Russia, I think more easily than you could imagine a war breaking out during the Cold War in Europe, or in East Asia involving the United States and the Soviet Union.

So I think we live in more dangerous times today than we did during the Cold War, and certainly than we did during the Unipolar Moment. And I think if anything, this situation is only going to get worse.”

I really hope you’re wrong, I say. “I hope I’m wrong too,” he replies.


Freddie Sayers is the Editor-in-Chief & CEO of UnHerd. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.

freddiesayers

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

363 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

Mearsheimmer’s analysis makes sense to me. Good interview, thank you Freddie Sayers.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Answering – as I still cannot comment.

Very interesting and refreshing interview, yes. But I challenge Mearsheimer on one point: Russia did not just want the ‘neutrality’ of Ukraine. They wanted Ukraine to be under Russian political control, even if formally independent, a vassal state in the Russian empire, like Belarus. I think Putin himself said that he did not mind formal independence as long as the country was part of the Russian world. It was the idea of a functional independent Ukrainian state with close ties to the EU – militarily neutral or not – that Russia refused to accept. As one of their propagandists put it on Unherd ‘Get rid of the corrupt pro-western oligarchs, and have Ukraine run by a group of corrupt pro-Russian oligarchs instead. No need for war and suffering at all.’ The size of the Russian invasion force could have been sufficient to achieve that – Zelensky flees the invasion, some friendly oligarch takes over, and the Russian troops are enough to convince people to accept the new regime. Only the Ukrainians insisted on fighting.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree with you, there is no doubt in my mind Putin wants Ukraine back under Russian control. It seems to me the history of that area and Russia’s idea about itself makes that inevitable. Even Solzenitzyn was strongly against an independent Ukraine.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

there is no evidence to support that claire, in fact everything thats happened over the years suggests the opposite as i point out in my reply above to rasmus

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

You might be right, but remember that politicians, including Putin, are just as likely to change course in life as anyone else. Circumstances change, eg, the Maidan revolution, Biden following Trump into the White House, Zelensky’s promises before his election and his turn around afterwards + Russia has played it’s part for good or ill. Politicians alter course all the time, they have to to survive. Putin’s intentions in 2015 may have been as you say but they were unlikely to remain the same.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
Emily G
Emily G
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

You need to know you are trying to understand politicians from the politicians that you know of. It is certain that the politicians you know of cannot represents what politicians are, at least this does not fit for every politicians. Jump outside of the mind box.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago
Reply to  Emily G

Let’s not have the “mad Kaiser” theory again.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago
Reply to  Emily G

Let’s not have the “mad Kaiser” theory again.

Emily G
Emily G
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

You need to know you are trying to understand politicians from the politicians that you know of. It is certain that the politicians you know of cannot represents what politicians are, at least this does not fit for every politicians. Jump outside of the mind box.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

You might be right, but remember that politicians, including Putin, are just as likely to change course in life as anyone else. Circumstances change, eg, the Maidan revolution, Biden following Trump into the White House, Zelensky’s promises before his election and his turn around afterwards + Russia has played it’s part for good or ill. Politicians alter course all the time, they have to to survive. Putin’s intentions in 2015 may have been as you say but they were unlikely to remain the same.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

The issue since 2013 is Putin’s attempt to corral Ukraine into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union. The Sochi Olympics were designed to put the cherry on its top.
In a sense, his behaviour since has been to try to somehow resurrect that dead parrot. But his invasion has put the final nail in the coffin. Note how cold Tokayev was at their latest meeting.
Even with a destroyed Ukraine, Russia will be a crippled nation for decades to come.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

If the Russian Federation had been so great, countries would have been trying to join instead of escaping.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL…
Countries are indeed running and stand in line to join brics,… a club of states… why should they join the state Russia itself anyway?
Has any state tried to join the US or UK lately… or ever?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Many, people and states, are very keen to join with USA, UK Europe, EU, NAFTA Japan, ASEAN etc that’s why these countries are the wealthiest, happiest, freest, and why they have immigration problems – as opposed to miserable Russia which has a massive emigration problem, and North Korea, which would have if they didn’t so effectively threaten anyone thinking about leaving with death or imprisonment.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Dude, dont let your superiority complex ruin your thinking.
Look up real world statistics. Russia is on balance a IMMIGRATION country, Top 3 in numbers for sure.
The point was not joining with a state, but join A state.
And even in joining WITH a state, Russia and its state clubs are superior right now… look at the line waiting to join BRICS,… e.g Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many more
How many of states has the West (US+ca. 50 Vassals) succeeded to convince to JOIN the sanctions against Russia, within the 8 months (!) since they started??? Hint: a FAT zero…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Population of Russia has fallen by 4 million in the last 30 years (up to 2020), In the same period UK pop went up by 10 million and USA by 80 million. Russia is very keen to attract immigrants because of it’s population crisis:

https://fortune.com/2022/10/18/russia-population-historic-decline-emigration-war-plunging-birth-rate-form-perfect-storm/

If you ask the questions – how many immigrants relative to the population or geographic size? – Russia plummets down the list. Similarly, if you ask migrants where they’d like to emigrate to, Russia is fairly low on the list (1% of immigrants to US’s 25%):
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

Beware that your inferiority complex leads you into the well-worn Soviet defences – denial, rationalisation, repression, and projection.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yeah dude, whatever your superiority complex wants you to believe, you’ll find some skewed data to support your fallacy…
Anyone can instead look up the raw data for himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe#2013_UN_data
–> Russia is by far the first on the list as destination among European countries.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yeah dude, whatever your superiority complex wants you to believe, you’ll find some skewed data to support your fallacy…
Anyone can instead look up the raw data for himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe#2013_UN_data
–> Russia is by far the first on the list as destination among European countries.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Population of Russia has fallen by 4 million in the last 30 years (up to 2020), In the same period UK pop went up by 10 million and USA by 80 million. Russia is very keen to attract immigrants because of it’s population crisis:

https://fortune.com/2022/10/18/russia-population-historic-decline-emigration-war-plunging-birth-rate-form-perfect-storm/

If you ask the questions – how many immigrants relative to the population or geographic size? – Russia plummets down the list. Similarly, if you ask migrants where they’d like to emigrate to, Russia is fairly low on the list (1% of immigrants to US’s 25%):
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

Beware that your inferiority complex leads you into the well-worn Soviet defences – denial, rationalisation, repression, and projection.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Dude, dont let your superiority complex ruin your thinking.
Look up real world statistics. Russia is on balance a IMMIGRATION country, Top 3 in numbers for sure.
The point was not joining with a state, but join A state.
And even in joining WITH a state, Russia and its state clubs are superior right now… look at the line waiting to join BRICS,… e.g Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many more
How many of states has the West (US+ca. 50 Vassals) succeeded to convince to JOIN the sanctions against Russia, within the 8 months (!) since they started??? Hint: a FAT zero…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Many, people and states, are very keen to join with USA, UK Europe, EU, NAFTA Japan, ASEAN etc that’s why these countries are the wealthiest, happiest, freest, and why they have immigration problems – as opposed to miserable Russia which has a massive emigration problem, and North Korea, which would have if they didn’t so effectively threaten anyone thinking about leaving with death or imprisonment.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL…
Countries are indeed running and stand in line to join brics,… a club of states… why should they join the state Russia itself anyway?
Has any state tried to join the US or UK lately… or ever?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

If the Russian Federation had been so great, countries would have been trying to join instead of escaping.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

there is no evidence to support that claire, in fact everything thats happened over the years suggests the opposite as i point out in my reply above to rasmus

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

The issue since 2013 is Putin’s attempt to corral Ukraine into his abortive Eurasian Economic Union. The Sochi Olympics were designed to put the cherry on its top.
In a sense, his behaviour since has been to try to somehow resurrect that dead parrot. But his invasion has put the final nail in the coffin. Note how cold Tokayev was at their latest meeting.
Even with a destroyed Ukraine, Russia will be a crippled nation for decades to come.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

what evidence is there to support your claim regarding putin wanting ukraine under russian rule. since the war started in 2015 russia has tried its best to keep the country together under the minsk accords, even when the donetsk and luhansk regions carried out votes to separate from ukraine and applied to join russia putin said no and tried to keep minsk alive. this isnt the actions of a man who wanted to take over ukraine. also as pointed out in the article the military operation was a mere 190k personnel, hardly an invasion force intended to subdue an entire country.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

190,000 men was plenty of force to subdue a willing country. Ukraine wasn’t willing to be subdued. Given the problems Russia has had supplying its 190,000 men, it probably couldn’t muster the men necessary to subdue an unwilling Ukraine, and it certainly couldn’t supply them.
Remember, the Nazis marched into the Rhineland a mere 20,000 strong — all the force the Nazi regime could muster in 1936. They were greeted jubilantly by the Rhinelanders.
The German General Staff were quaking in their boots. If either Britain or France had responded with force, the 20,000 men would have been toast. Neither Britain nor France did anything, and a jubilant Fuhrer was on his way to world domination.
Be warned.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

either you didnt read what i wrote correctly or youre intentionally misinterpreting it and your making some comparisons that are not at all comparable at all, for example the rhineland is miniscule compared to the size of ukraine.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Excellent point! Upvotes don’t seem to be working.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Rhineland was/ is a pure German region (Land) and always belonged to Germany. The invasion by the Nazi Regime was so successful, because there was no resistance from the inhabitants and they were jubilant to be “freed”. Rhineland was occupied by the French because the Germans were behind their payment of the Reparations. So there is no comparison with the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

either you didnt read what i wrote correctly or youre intentionally misinterpreting it and your making some comparisons that are not at all comparable at all, for example the rhineland is miniscule compared to the size of ukraine.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Excellent point! Upvotes don’t seem to be working.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Rhineland was/ is a pure German region (Land) and always belonged to Germany. The invasion by the Nazi Regime was so successful, because there was no resistance from the inhabitants and they were jubilant to be “freed”. Rhineland was occupied by the French because the Germans were behind their payment of the Reparations. So there is no comparison with the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

I did say ‘Russian control’, not ‘Russian rule’.

First, that the conquest of Crimea and the Russian-fomented ‘insurgency’ in the Donbas were triggered by the Maidan, where Ukraine refused to join the Russian orbit and made a deal with the EU (*not* NATO). Second, that I see the Minsk accords as, effectively, a form of Russian control. The Donbas regions would be effectively ruled from Moscow – whatever the constitutional arrangements any local government there would be 100% dependent on Russian military force for its survival. And, being still part of Ukraine, those regions would give Moscow an effective veto over Ukrainian foreign and security policy. One of the disagreements that sank the Minsk accords, I seem to remember, was how much control Ukraine would have over elections in the Donbas, which is sort of suggestive. Ukrainian connection to the Russian economic system and forced disconnection from the Western one would do the rest. Once Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian (and likely corrupt) elite, it would be a safely Russian vassal state (like Belarus) without going to the trouble of actually conquering it. Which is of course why Ukraine was not willing to abide by the Minsk accords.

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The kind of authoritarian kleptocracy Putin runs can’t survive unless it can keep its people focused on external threats, real and imagined, against which their fearless leader will protect them. A truly independent, prosperous Ukraine would, by its very existence, be a threat to such a regime. If Putin really wanted to encourage Slavic brotherhood that can be done without subjugating people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The kind of authoritarian kleptocracy Putin runs can’t survive unless it can keep its people focused on external threats, real and imagined, against which their fearless leader will protect them. A truly independent, prosperous Ukraine would, by its very existence, be a threat to such a regime. If Putin really wanted to encourage Slavic brotherhood that can be done without subjugating people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim McDonnell
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

He stated it explicitly in the paper he published. Just like Adolf – Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer! 

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

190,000 men was plenty of force to subdue a willing country. Ukraine wasn’t willing to be subdued. Given the problems Russia has had supplying its 190,000 men, it probably couldn’t muster the men necessary to subdue an unwilling Ukraine, and it certainly couldn’t supply them.
Remember, the Nazis marched into the Rhineland a mere 20,000 strong — all the force the Nazi regime could muster in 1936. They were greeted jubilantly by the Rhinelanders.
The German General Staff were quaking in their boots. If either Britain or France had responded with force, the 20,000 men would have been toast. Neither Britain nor France did anything, and a jubilant Fuhrer was on his way to world domination.
Be warned.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

I did say ‘Russian control’, not ‘Russian rule’.

First, that the conquest of Crimea and the Russian-fomented ‘insurgency’ in the Donbas were triggered by the Maidan, where Ukraine refused to join the Russian orbit and made a deal with the EU (*not* NATO). Second, that I see the Minsk accords as, effectively, a form of Russian control. The Donbas regions would be effectively ruled from Moscow – whatever the constitutional arrangements any local government there would be 100% dependent on Russian military force for its survival. And, being still part of Ukraine, those regions would give Moscow an effective veto over Ukrainian foreign and security policy. One of the disagreements that sank the Minsk accords, I seem to remember, was how much control Ukraine would have over elections in the Donbas, which is sort of suggestive. Ukrainian connection to the Russian economic system and forced disconnection from the Western one would do the rest. Once Ukraine was run by a pro-Russian (and likely corrupt) elite, it would be a safely Russian vassal state (like Belarus) without going to the trouble of actually conquering it. Which is of course why Ukraine was not willing to abide by the Minsk accords.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

He stated it explicitly in the paper he published. Just like Adolf – Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer! 

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree with this assessment. It is no less consistent with political realism than Mearsheimer’s opinion and as you mention it better fits the facts such as troop levels and overall military strategy. The Russians were attempting to do what the Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan and hoping their proximity and lack of moral scruples would allow them more success. Also, your point fits with the origin of the conflict, the 2014 revolution that ousted the pro-Russian Yanukovych. The Russians believed that the coup was backed by NATO and the US. The nearest analogy for the Americans would be if someone staged a coup and installed a Chinese/Russian pawn regime in Mexico or Canada. Obviously, the US would not and could not simply ignore this. They would, logically, attempt to bring a friendly government to power and bring the nation back into the American sphere of influence. Whether that rose to the level of military conflict would depend on specific circumstances, threat levels, the current domestic and geopolitical climate, etc.
Also, I am able to comment on some articles but not others. It’s very strange. I think it must be some computer bug.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I could quibble a bit. Ukraine did not belong to Russia before 2014, so it is not a question of bringing it ‘back’, and I do think it makes a difference that your ‘coup’ has been repeatedly legitimised by free elections. This was not some generals taking over, but a government falling to popular insurgency, like the Arab Spring.

Still, the parallel with Iraq and Afghanistan, while painful, is unfortunately rather apt.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

A ‘coup’ is used to take away democracy and free elections. You have it backwards. The people of Ukraine are not slaves to be owned by Russians. They have a right to their own government that they control. So do the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. A “government” that is NOT elected is by definition illegitimate.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Near as I can see we agree about what is happening. What is it you think I am saying that you disagree with?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Near as I can see we agree about what is happening. What is it you think I am saying that you disagree with?

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You’re correct in that subsequent history does vindicate the Maidan Revolution as more a popular revolution than a ‘coup’. Had the Yanukovych election been legitimate, future elections would have shown as much. Russia would, of course, contest that interpretation.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

A ‘coup’ is used to take away democracy and free elections. You have it backwards. The people of Ukraine are not slaves to be owned by Russians. They have a right to their own government that they control. So do the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. A “government” that is NOT elected is by definition illegitimate.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You’re correct in that subsequent history does vindicate the Maidan Revolution as more a popular revolution than a ‘coup’. Had the Yanukovych election been legitimate, future elections would have shown as much. Russia would, of course, contest that interpretation.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Sorry, since 1848 the US has had many unfriendly govts in Mexico. Some have been overtly Marxist.
Except for one questionable foray after a border raid, the US has tried to maintain good relations. And I recall a nation about 90 miles away that is as hostile as you claim Ukraine was to Russia.
The idea that Ukraine would immediately become a NATO missile base is simply disinformatin.
Zelensky only wanted in when he thought Russia would invade.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I could quibble a bit. Ukraine did not belong to Russia before 2014, so it is not a question of bringing it ‘back’, and I do think it makes a difference that your ‘coup’ has been repeatedly legitimised by free elections. This was not some generals taking over, but a government falling to popular insurgency, like the Arab Spring.

Still, the parallel with Iraq and Afghanistan, while painful, is unfortunately rather apt.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Sorry, since 1848 the US has had many unfriendly govts in Mexico. Some have been overtly Marxist.
Except for one questionable foray after a border raid, the US has tried to maintain good relations. And I recall a nation about 90 miles away that is as hostile as you claim Ukraine was to Russia.
The idea that Ukraine would immediately become a NATO missile base is simply disinformatin.
Zelensky only wanted in when he thought Russia would invade.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Russia did not just want the ‘neutrality’ of Ukraine. They wanted Ukraine to be under Russian political control”
Strangely, this desire did not seem to become apparent till 2014.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

For the very good reason that until 2014 Russia thought, not without reason, that they could get the control they wanted by political means. The Yanukovich government accepted to ditch the EU and opt for Russias economic sphere in return for Russian cash promises (and maybe some discreet threats?). Only Yanukovich could not carry his people with him so that his government fell and the plan fell through. On to plan B: Conquest of Crimea, send the ‘little green men’ into the Donbas, and use the Minsk accords to keep Ukraine under control. Only Ukraine refused to remain bound by the accords (the other side did not respect the details much either), so there was no stable control to get here either. On to plan C and invasion.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Governments only exist with the permission of their people. Unhappy people overthrow illegitimate governments.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

No, they usually dont, they do however vote governments out in elections in functional democracies (quite few nowadays)… If a few % of radicals do try to do a insurrection, they usually end in prison, like 6th January…
Maidan was an exemption which confirmes the rule, and only succeeded because of outside help.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

they usually don’t…until they do.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yes indeed, a few % of the population can overturn a government, if they have radical (Nazis) prominently agitating among them… Especially if they are massively supported by foreign powers.
So governments, beware!

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin beware! And boy he knows it, hiding from his own team, his own people, imprisoning and killing any of them who so much as hurt his feelings, and paying hacks and hackers to ‘create content’. Rarely in history has the distance between a mans ambition & self regard, and the reality, been so great, and so pathetic. Chekist loser punk.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Hey Dominic,
Are you still showering regularly?
I heard Putin ordered an even longer table to distance himself from his EU guests, once he heard, that EU countries advise their citizens to take less showers… He must have an overly sensitive nose…;-)

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Hey Dominic,
Are you still showering regularly?
I heard Putin ordered an even longer table to distance himself from his EU guests, once he heard, that EU countries advise their citizens to take less showers… He must have an overly sensitive nose…;-)

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin beware! And boy he knows it, hiding from his own team, his own people, imprisoning and killing any of them who so much as hurt his feelings, and paying hacks and hackers to ‘create content’. Rarely in history has the distance between a mans ambition & self regard, and the reality, been so great, and so pathetic. Chekist loser punk.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yes indeed, a few % of the population can overturn a government, if they have radical (Nazis) prominently agitating among them… Especially if they are massively supported by foreign powers.
So governments, beware!

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

they usually don’t…until they do.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

You want to tell that to the Canadian truckers or the Dutch farmers?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

No, they usually dont, they do however vote governments out in elections in functional democracies (quite few nowadays)… If a few % of radicals do try to do a insurrection, they usually end in prison, like 6th January…
Maidan was an exemption which confirmes the rule, and only succeeded because of outside help.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

You want to tell that to the Canadian truckers or the Dutch farmers?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Governments only exist with the permission of their people. Unhappy people overthrow illegitimate governments.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Because before 2014, Putin had a puppet government in Uraine that was under Russian political control.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Strangely, this desire was apparent, which makes you seem either ignorant, or a shill. Gary Kasparov was very vocal, before Putin even took power, in warning Russian and the World of Putin’s mindset and intention to ‘rebuild Russia’ using whatever means necessary (crime, aggression). The West largely ignored him, as they ignored Boris Nemstov, until Putin had him killed.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

For the very good reason that until 2014 Russia thought, not without reason, that they could get the control they wanted by political means. The Yanukovich government accepted to ditch the EU and opt for Russias economic sphere in return for Russian cash promises (and maybe some discreet threats?). Only Yanukovich could not carry his people with him so that his government fell and the plan fell through. On to plan B: Conquest of Crimea, send the ‘little green men’ into the Donbas, and use the Minsk accords to keep Ukraine under control. Only Ukraine refused to remain bound by the accords (the other side did not respect the details much either), so there was no stable control to get here either. On to plan C and invasion.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Because before 2014, Putin had a puppet government in Uraine that was under Russian political control.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Strangely, this desire was apparent, which makes you seem either ignorant, or a shill. Gary Kasparov was very vocal, before Putin even took power, in warning Russian and the World of Putin’s mindset and intention to ‘rebuild Russia’ using whatever means necessary (crime, aggression). The West largely ignored him, as they ignored Boris Nemstov, until Putin had him killed.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Just fully refresh Unherd page. It’s either ctrl+f5 or ctrl+r.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree with you, there is no doubt in my mind Putin wants Ukraine back under Russian control. It seems to me the history of that area and Russia’s idea about itself makes that inevitable. Even Solzenitzyn was strongly against an independent Ukraine.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

what evidence is there to support your claim regarding putin wanting ukraine under russian rule. since the war started in 2015 russia has tried its best to keep the country together under the minsk accords, even when the donetsk and luhansk regions carried out votes to separate from ukraine and applied to join russia putin said no and tried to keep minsk alive. this isnt the actions of a man who wanted to take over ukraine. also as pointed out in the article the military operation was a mere 190k personnel, hardly an invasion force intended to subdue an entire country.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I agree with this assessment. It is no less consistent with political realism than Mearsheimer’s opinion and as you mention it better fits the facts such as troop levels and overall military strategy. The Russians were attempting to do what the Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan and hoping their proximity and lack of moral scruples would allow them more success. Also, your point fits with the origin of the conflict, the 2014 revolution that ousted the pro-Russian Yanukovych. The Russians believed that the coup was backed by NATO and the US. The nearest analogy for the Americans would be if someone staged a coup and installed a Chinese/Russian pawn regime in Mexico or Canada. Obviously, the US would not and could not simply ignore this. They would, logically, attempt to bring a friendly government to power and bring the nation back into the American sphere of influence. Whether that rose to the level of military conflict would depend on specific circumstances, threat levels, the current domestic and geopolitical climate, etc.
Also, I am able to comment on some articles but not others. It’s very strange. I think it must be some computer bug.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Russia did not just want the ‘neutrality’ of Ukraine. They wanted Ukraine to be under Russian political control”
Strangely, this desire did not seem to become apparent till 2014.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Just fully refresh Unherd page. It’s either ctrl+f5 or ctrl+r.

Andy Gilop
Andy Gilop
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

What makes me wonder is that Mearsheimer does not seem to take into account what the Ukrainians themselves wanted. We discuss the Russian point of view, West’s strategy etc and the will of the Ukrainian people is absent. Do Ukrainians want to be part of the EU or NATO or Russian Federation or …Starfleet? They should be able to join whatever organization they wish for.
Coming from a democratic tradition, I find inexplicable that lack of supporting the will of a Nation. Why Russian, Western or Chinese interests should block, at least in principle, Ukrainians to decide for themselves?
I have read dozens of articles in which the Ukrainian point of view is dismissed as non relevant. But, defending Democracy, we have first and above all ask the Ukrainian people how they wish to live.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andy Gilop
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

as mearsheimer points out in his lectures, yes in an ideal world democracy should prevail, however we dont live in that ideal world. so this is when different rules need to come into play for the sake of the human race, and if that means ukraine doesnt get a say and has to stay neutral to save us all from being blown to smithereens then so be it

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Keeping Ukraine demilitarised and out of NATO should not be a problem – provided of course they could trust Russia not to invade them. This is not about neutralisation, but about subjugation.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Keeping Ukraine demilitarised and out of NATO should not be a problem – provided of course they could trust Russia not to invade them. This is not about neutralisation, but about subjugation.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Unfortunately no one ever cares what Ukrainians want…
Starting with US proclaiming in 2007 at the NATO summit, that Ukraine will be part of NATO , when polls in Ukraine showed there was around 20% public support in Ukraine for joining…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

You mean the US was going to incorporate Ukraine into NATO by force, against the will of the Ukrainian government? Or that the outcome of opinion polls trump government decisions?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What else is an election but a type of opinion poll.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What else is an election but a type of opinion poll.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

That’s obvious nonsense. That was 14 years ago, and Ukraine still wasn’t part of NATO. Countries have to apply to be part of NATO. People of the country have to want to be part of NATO. It doesn’t get decided from the outside by a military invasion like Russian monsters prefer. Typical that a Russian troll would have no understanding of how NATO works. Freedom and democracy baffle people who prefer slavery to a brutal dictator.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

This were not my words but the ones of US President GW Bush…
Anyone can go find them and read them for themself…

But awesome that you find the whole thing to be nonsense, totally agree, btw… GW Bush and all US governents since have been mostly whackos imho…
And the dude before Bush,.. with the cigar in the girl and “read my lips” lying, ah… yes: Clinton, BFF of Epstein was not better either…

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

This were not my words but the ones of US President GW Bush…
Anyone can go find them and read them for themself…

But awesome that you find the whole thing to be nonsense, totally agree, btw… GW Bush and all US governents since have been mostly whackos imho…
And the dude before Bush,.. with the cigar in the girl and “read my lips” lying, ah… yes: Clinton, BFF of Epstein was not better either…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The moves to bring Ukraine into NATO was led by the Ukrainian government – no, it was not a popular position until after 2014, when Putin showed himself and taught Ukrainian people why being part of NATO would protect them. I would imagine now that a large majority of Ukrainians would like to join, and wish they had. They probably also wished that they had not got rid of their nukes, as Putin reneged on his promise not to invade, whilst the West has not reneged on their promise to support Ukraine.

Moreover, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was generally a headache for NATO, which is why they delayed it.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

You mean the US was going to incorporate Ukraine into NATO by force, against the will of the Ukrainian government? Or that the outcome of opinion polls trump government decisions?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

That’s obvious nonsense. That was 14 years ago, and Ukraine still wasn’t part of NATO. Countries have to apply to be part of NATO. People of the country have to want to be part of NATO. It doesn’t get decided from the outside by a military invasion like Russian monsters prefer. Typical that a Russian troll would have no understanding of how NATO works. Freedom and democracy baffle people who prefer slavery to a brutal dictator.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The moves to bring Ukraine into NATO was led by the Ukrainian government – no, it was not a popular position until after 2014, when Putin showed himself and taught Ukrainian people why being part of NATO would protect them. I would imagine now that a large majority of Ukrainians would like to join, and wish they had. They probably also wished that they had not got rid of their nukes, as Putin reneged on his promise not to invade, whilst the West has not reneged on their promise to support Ukraine.

Moreover, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was generally a headache for NATO, which is why they delayed it.

Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Exactly! To the Mearsheimer’s of this world the desires of the little people are irrelevant. They have no agency at all. That’s real politik. The corollary is that “powers” have “legitimate” spheres of influence that others need to respect.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Because Mearsheimer agrees with the Russians that they own Ukraine instead of the people of Ukraine owning themselves and their country. He is all about power and dictatorship like a proper Putin tool. He thinks people should be forced to stay as slaves of the dictator in power.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

as mearsheimer points out in his lectures, yes in an ideal world democracy should prevail, however we dont live in that ideal world. so this is when different rules need to come into play for the sake of the human race, and if that means ukraine doesnt get a say and has to stay neutral to save us all from being blown to smithereens then so be it

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Unfortunately no one ever cares what Ukrainians want…
Starting with US proclaiming in 2007 at the NATO summit, that Ukraine will be part of NATO , when polls in Ukraine showed there was around 20% public support in Ukraine for joining…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Exactly! To the Mearsheimer’s of this world the desires of the little people are irrelevant. They have no agency at all. That’s real politik. The corollary is that “powers” have “legitimate” spheres of influence that others need to respect.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Gilop

Because Mearsheimer agrees with the Russians that they own Ukraine instead of the people of Ukraine owning themselves and their country. He is all about power and dictatorship like a proper Putin tool. He thinks people should be forced to stay as slaves of the dictator in power.

Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Thank you Freddie for a really good interview. It would be good if you followed this up with an interview on Are sanctions working? Now it has become apparent how dependent on Russia we still are in Europe. To give a couple of examples 40% of Uranium supply still comes from Russia, 20% of LPG is is still coming from Russia etc etc

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Answering – as I still cannot comment.

Very interesting and refreshing interview, yes. But I challenge Mearsheimer on one point: Russia did not just want the ‘neutrality’ of Ukraine. They wanted Ukraine to be under Russian political control, even if formally independent, a vassal state in the Russian empire, like Belarus. I think Putin himself said that he did not mind formal independence as long as the country was part of the Russian world. It was the idea of a functional independent Ukrainian state with close ties to the EU – militarily neutral or not – that Russia refused to accept. As one of their propagandists put it on Unherd ‘Get rid of the corrupt pro-western oligarchs, and have Ukraine run by a group of corrupt pro-Russian oligarchs instead. No need for war and suffering at all.’ The size of the Russian invasion force could have been sufficient to achieve that – Zelensky flees the invasion, some friendly oligarch takes over, and the Russian troops are enough to convince people to accept the new regime. Only the Ukrainians insisted on fighting.

Andy Gilop
Andy Gilop
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

What makes me wonder is that Mearsheimer does not seem to take into account what the Ukrainians themselves wanted. We discuss the Russian point of view, West’s strategy etc and the will of the Ukrainian people is absent. Do Ukrainians want to be part of the EU or NATO or Russian Federation or …Starfleet? They should be able to join whatever organization they wish for.
Coming from a democratic tradition, I find inexplicable that lack of supporting the will of a Nation. Why Russian, Western or Chinese interests should block, at least in principle, Ukrainians to decide for themselves?
I have read dozens of articles in which the Ukrainian point of view is dismissed as non relevant. But, defending Democracy, we have first and above all ask the Ukrainian people how they wish to live.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andy Gilop
Jeff Watkins
Jeff Watkins
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Thank you Freddie for a really good interview. It would be good if you followed this up with an interview on Are sanctions working? Now it has become apparent how dependent on Russia we still are in Europe. To give a couple of examples 40% of Uranium supply still comes from Russia, 20% of LPG is is still coming from Russia etc etc

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

Mearsheimmer’s analysis makes sense to me. Good interview, thank you Freddie Sayers.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Nobody has done more to knock Russia out of the ranks of the great powers than President Putin. Russia appears well on its way to becoming a vassal state of China’s; just a bigger version of North Korea or Uganda. If Ukraine becomes a failed state, due either to Russian invasion or to its forced subjugation to Russia (“a neutral Ukraine” as Mearsheimer calls it), then many millions more of its population will migrate west, which in itself is a security threat to the rest of Europe. If little Estonia is to get the benefit of an article 5 guarantee, with the resulting possibility of nuclear war, it is not clear why Ukraine should not get the support of the US and UK as fellow parties of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal to Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Mustard Clementine
Mustard Clementine
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

This is what came to mind for me as well, when he stated nationalism could also factor in to Russia’s efforts. I don’t see how you could know anything about Russia, or actual Russian people, and think this could be anything but a negative force.

To any Russian who felt like they were finally beginning to actually be a part of the wider world, to have opportunities and improvements to their lot in life – this war has been a devastating blow. I have heard people who fled talk about how homeless and hopeless they feel, like the Russia they knew and/or at least thought it was possible could one day become is now likely lost forever, at least in their lifetime.

This effort may have been seen as a restoration of greatness to someone like Putin – but to many, it was actually the death of Russian potential. They are now back to being a pariah, back to USSR, as it were – and other than the rallies Putin forces government employees to attend, or the online trolls he pays to push a narrative – I don’t hear a lot of Russians expressing any sort of nationalism. I hear a lot of despair and fatalism.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

Yep. He said in the article that Russia planning to invade the Nordic states was only in the Western imagination. The idea that NATO was any type of offensive threat to Russia is absurd. Not even Putin believes it. You’re also right about the aspirations of the Russian people; They have no desire to invade Ukraine and restore greater Rus, they want to join the modern world as the proud nation they are.
Apart from anything else it’s just heartbreaking.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

“The idea that NATO was any type of offensive threat to Russia is absurd. ”
Absolutely. Ask Serbia, Libya and Iraq.
There was absolutely nothing wrong about Ukraine joining NATO and US missiles literally next door to Moscow.
After all, recall how gracefully the US accepted Cuba’s right to join the Soviet bloc and Soviet missiles being based there.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

You’re sounding a bit like a self-pitying Russian.
Since Russia already has NATO states on all its western borders, and Putin’s explicit reason for invading was that Ukrainians are really “just Russians,” it was actually the best way to get NATO missiles “literally on Russia’s doorstep.”
Wherever you put the border, NATO will alwasy be on teh other side.
Of course, one could then negotiate a treaty, as Reagan and Gorbachev did.
But invasions are so much more fun!

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ukraine never intended to join NATO before Putin attacked. The Ukrainians thought the Russians would abide by their prior agreement to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes.
If Putin is really concerned about war with NATO, he shouldn’t constantly be trying to cause one. If Putin is so concerned about missiles next door to Russia, he shouldn’t be taking actions almost guaranteed to cause just that. Is he really that stupid, or is it just you Russian trolls who are?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“Absolutely. Ask Serbia, Libya and Iraq”

NATO was not a threat to these countries, but to Milosevic, Gaddafi and Hussein.

Authoritarians; always confusing the country with the bossman.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yeah!!! PURE LOGIC man…
Of course the death of 500.000 Iraqi children, that Albright claimed were an O.K. price to remove the henchman Hussein from Iraq were not a threat to the country Iraq… Never mind talking about victims other than children… These stoopid Iraqis should not take their deaths so personal… just business, baby. These dead kids if they had any sense of morality should instead sing as angels in heavenly choirs and praise the nobility and harmlessness of US/Nato.
Also never mind, that Saddam himself was an US stooge before, and massively supported by US to inflict death and destruction on the neighboring state Iran, just because the people choose to rather live under even the Ayatollahs, than the US stooge Shah, after the US and UK first overthrew the legally democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh, who did not want to continue to give US+UK Irans Oil basically for free…
Nah, the US (or its puppet self financing foreign legion NATO) is NO danger to anyone…
The people of Libya can totally confirm this! What the heck did they need that highest human development index (HDI) of all Africa for, before the benevolent Nato intervention???
HDI is so totally overrated, Libyan people now enjoy living in the mad Max world of warlords, where you never know if you still have to eat or if you even are alive the next day… MUCH more fun! Thanks, Nato!
Nato was never a danger to them, but brought them heaven on earth!

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

By your logic, Germany’s main threat mid C20th was not Hitler and his NSDAP, but the Allies – and the Allies are responsible for German deaths. Maybe they should be paying reparations to the German people? And did you conveniently forget, or not know, that NATO did not get into the Iraq War?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

So you like to play naming games and are throwing in straw-man arguments.
Any reasonable person does not care if you call it “coalition of the willing” if it anyway is mostly US + her vassals in Nato.
How do you compare Germany with Libya?
Did Libya or Iraq declare war against US as Hitler did in 43? Note that the US did NOT even declare war on Germany before that (because of so called humanitarian reasons, “fight against evil”), but waited that Germany exhausted itself against Russia before they joined the fight to pick up Western Europe on the cheap…

Mike Keohane
Mike Keohane
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

You undermine everything else that you try to argue for by saying that Hitler declared war on the US in 1943 and claiming on that basis that the US waited until the Germans had exhausted themselves fighting the Russians before joing the war in Europe/North Africa. In fact, today is the 81st anniversary of Hitler’s declaration of war against the US, on December 11th 1941. At that stage the German invasion of the USSR had been highly successful, and most historians presume, logically, that Hitler in acting as he did must have thought completing the conquset of the country was simply a matter of time. You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you get such basics wrong: but then, you come across as someone who hates the US and is eager to take the opportunity to vent that hatred.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Keohane

You are completely right! Thank you for the correction!
I remembered it wrong and confused it with the first US active fighting in Europe in 1943.
Wiki:
“The United States entered the war in the west with Operation Torch on 8 November 1942, after their Soviet allies had pushed for a second front against the Germans.”
–> in Africa, close to a year after declaration of war vs. US.
combined allied (US/UK/etc.) troops ca 100K vs . ca 125K axis forces (incl. lots of Vichy French, who surrendered/switched sides quite fast). At the same time the Axis had 3700K forces on Eatern Front vs ca. 3000K Soviets.
the US joined the bombing campaign in 1942:
“In mid-1942, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) arrived in the UK and carried out a few raids across the English Channel.”
“The first stepping stone for the Allied liberation of Europe was invading Europe through Italy. Launched on 9 July 1943…”
–>close to 2 years after Hitler declared war.
combined ally troops 160K, in Sicily vs. ca. 200K axis troops, later in Italy 180K allies vs 100K Axis.
Same time on Eastern Front: Axis forces 3700K vs Soviet 5200K.
Finally the main US thrust with significant numbers followed only in Normandy in 1944 almost 3 years after declaration of war:
“The second European front that the Soviets had pressed for was finally opened on 6 June 1944, when the Allies launched an invasion of Normandy.”
Allied forces (13 countries, mainly US UK) 1450K vs. Axis 380K (later 600K).
At the same time on the eastern front: 3370K Axis vs. 6800K Soviet.

So the US/western allies forces impact did never engaged more than 5% of Axis forces, until Normandy in 1944, when it was close to 20%
–> My point still stands, though I was clearly mistaken with the date of the declaration of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#Europe_first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Keohane

And I dont hate US, far from it!
I just despise most actions of the US government in other countries, once it became the western hegemon after WWII, just as I despise most of the actions of the eastern hegemon, the communist Party in Soviet Russia.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Keohane

You are completely right! Thank you for the correction!
I remembered it wrong and confused it with the first US active fighting in Europe in 1943.
Wiki:
“The United States entered the war in the west with Operation Torch on 8 November 1942, after their Soviet allies had pushed for a second front against the Germans.”
–> in Africa, close to a year after declaration of war vs. US.
combined allied (US/UK/etc.) troops ca 100K vs . ca 125K axis forces (incl. lots of Vichy French, who surrendered/switched sides quite fast). At the same time the Axis had 3700K forces on Eatern Front vs ca. 3000K Soviets.
the US joined the bombing campaign in 1942:
“In mid-1942, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) arrived in the UK and carried out a few raids across the English Channel.”
“The first stepping stone for the Allied liberation of Europe was invading Europe through Italy. Launched on 9 July 1943…”
–>close to 2 years after Hitler declared war.
combined ally troops 160K, in Sicily vs. ca. 200K axis troops, later in Italy 180K allies vs 100K Axis.
Same time on Eastern Front: Axis forces 3700K vs Soviet 5200K.
Finally the main US thrust with significant numbers followed only in Normandy in 1944 almost 3 years after declaration of war:
“The second European front that the Soviets had pressed for was finally opened on 6 June 1944, when the Allies launched an invasion of Normandy.”
Allied forces (13 countries, mainly US UK) 1450K vs. Axis 380K (later 600K).
At the same time on the eastern front: 3370K Axis vs. 6800K Soviet.

So the US/western allies forces impact did never engaged more than 5% of Axis forces, until Normandy in 1944, when it was close to 20%
–> My point still stands, though I was clearly mistaken with the date of the declaration of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#Europe_first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Keohane

And I dont hate US, far from it!
I just despise most actions of the US government in other countries, once it became the western hegemon after WWII, just as I despise most of the actions of the eastern hegemon, the communist Party in Soviet Russia.

Mike Keohane
Mike Keohane
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

You undermine everything else that you try to argue for by saying that Hitler declared war on the US in 1943 and claiming on that basis that the US waited until the Germans had exhausted themselves fighting the Russians before joing the war in Europe/North Africa. In fact, today is the 81st anniversary of Hitler’s declaration of war against the US, on December 11th 1941. At that stage the German invasion of the USSR had been highly successful, and most historians presume, logically, that Hitler in acting as he did must have thought completing the conquset of the country was simply a matter of time. You can’t expect to be taken seriously when you get such basics wrong: but then, you come across as someone who hates the US and is eager to take the opportunity to vent that hatred.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Sorry double post, did not see the above in the thread so I rewrote, but more detailed:
Playing with names?
So how exactly is it different when you call US +Vassals the “Coalition of the willing” instead of US+Nato, if it is overwhelmingly the same countries?
Another straw-man argument from you with throwing Hitler-Germany into the mix…
So how exactly does Hitler-Germany equate to Iraq or Libya?
With Iraq US had to invent the false testimony of incubator atrocities by the Iraqis, just to convince their own population, that Saddam is now bad invading Kuwait and not doing the exact same as before, when invading Iran, when the West supported him with even giving him chemical weapons he used against the Kurds…
What did Libya do, that was even in the slightest comparable to Germany?
Not to mention that US did not fight against Germany (for “humanitarian reasons”, “fight against evil”) until Germany themselves declared war on US and defacto US started fighting only when Germany has exhausted themselves and the soviet Union…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

LOL… While checking to edit my double post, I noticed that I received 2 negative “likes” on both of them within minutes, between refreshing to check if they are in the thread…
Looking down further I seemingly received the exact same 2 negative likes on ALL of my posts, even from yesterday… while the post I was responding to, received always 2 positive likes at the same time…
LOL… nice job with your double/triple accounts you sockpuppet! (thumbsup)

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

And there we go… ROTFLMAO
Looking in to the thread again I seemingly got 5-6 further negative likes on ALL my ca. 30 comments in this tread in the these 30 minutes between checking. The same positives likes went to the posts I answered to, if I was arguing against it… While other comments barely moved in their likes in this time.
Dude, don’t you have anything better to do?
You could at least try to do the manly thing, to defeat my posts with arguments. ;-D

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Just came back to see the progress…
Seems after clicking most of my posts into the red within an hour the dude stopped… Now almost no move in likes for 2 hours. Did his mouse break down clicking?
LOL

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Here we go again…
He bought a new mouse!
Another 6-7 negatives on all my comments within the last hour.
Though this sockpuppet’s intellectual skill to argue may be lacking, you’ve got to admire his energy in creating additional accounts and clicking all these likes/dislikes. Kudos to him!

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Here we go again…
He bought a new mouse!
Another 6-7 negatives on all my comments within the last hour.
Though this sockpuppet’s intellectual skill to argue may be lacking, you’ve got to admire his energy in creating additional accounts and clicking all these likes/dislikes. Kudos to him!

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Just came back to see the progress…
Seems after clicking most of my posts into the red within an hour the dude stopped… Now almost no move in likes for 2 hours. Did his mouse break down clicking?
LOL

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Good effort, Someone’s flipping the votes on here…..

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

And there we go… ROTFLMAO
Looking in to the thread again I seemingly got 5-6 further negative likes on ALL my ca. 30 comments in this tread in the these 30 minutes between checking. The same positives likes went to the posts I answered to, if I was arguing against it… While other comments barely moved in their likes in this time.
Dude, don’t you have anything better to do?
You could at least try to do the manly thing, to defeat my posts with arguments. ;-D

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Good effort, Someone’s flipping the votes on here…..

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

LOL… While checking to edit my double post, I noticed that I received 2 negative “likes” on both of them within minutes, between refreshing to check if they are in the thread…
Looking down further I seemingly received the exact same 2 negative likes on ALL of my posts, even from yesterday… while the post I was responding to, received always 2 positive likes at the same time…
LOL… nice job with your double/triple accounts you sockpuppet! (thumbsup)

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

So you like to play naming games and are throwing in straw-man arguments.
Any reasonable person does not care if you call it “coalition of the willing” if it anyway is mostly US + her vassals in Nato.
How do you compare Germany with Libya?
Did Libya or Iraq declare war against US as Hitler did in 43? Note that the US did NOT even declare war on Germany before that (because of so called humanitarian reasons, “fight against evil”), but waited that Germany exhausted itself against Russia before they joined the fight to pick up Western Europe on the cheap…

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Sorry double post, did not see the above in the thread so I rewrote, but more detailed:
Playing with names?
So how exactly is it different when you call US +Vassals the “Coalition of the willing” instead of US+Nato, if it is overwhelmingly the same countries?
Another straw-man argument from you with throwing Hitler-Germany into the mix…
So how exactly does Hitler-Germany equate to Iraq or Libya?
With Iraq US had to invent the false testimony of incubator atrocities by the Iraqis, just to convince their own population, that Saddam is now bad invading Kuwait and not doing the exact same as before, when invading Iran, when the West supported him with even giving him chemical weapons he used against the Kurds…
What did Libya do, that was even in the slightest comparable to Germany?
Not to mention that US did not fight against Germany (for “humanitarian reasons”, “fight against evil”) until Germany themselves declared war on US and defacto US started fighting only when Germany has exhausted themselves and the soviet Union…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

By your logic, Germany’s main threat mid C20th was not Hitler and his NSDAP, but the Allies – and the Allies are responsible for German deaths. Maybe they should be paying reparations to the German people? And did you conveniently forget, or not know, that NATO did not get into the Iraq War?

fiso jukijk
fiso jukijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

NATO is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, just as the US is the greatest threat to peace in the world.
The greatest terrorist country on the planet, bar none, is the good ol’ USA.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yeah!!! PURE LOGIC man…
Of course the death of 500.000 Iraqi children, that Albright claimed were an O.K. price to remove the henchman Hussein from Iraq were not a threat to the country Iraq… Never mind talking about victims other than children… These stoopid Iraqis should not take their deaths so personal… just business, baby. These dead kids if they had any sense of morality should instead sing as angels in heavenly choirs and praise the nobility and harmlessness of US/Nato.
Also never mind, that Saddam himself was an US stooge before, and massively supported by US to inflict death and destruction on the neighboring state Iran, just because the people choose to rather live under even the Ayatollahs, than the US stooge Shah, after the US and UK first overthrew the legally democratically elected prime minister Mossadegh, who did not want to continue to give US+UK Irans Oil basically for free…
Nah, the US (or its puppet self financing foreign legion NATO) is NO danger to anyone…
The people of Libya can totally confirm this! What the heck did they need that highest human development index (HDI) of all Africa for, before the benevolent Nato intervention???
HDI is so totally overrated, Libyan people now enjoy living in the mad Max world of warlords, where you never know if you still have to eat or if you even are alive the next day… MUCH more fun! Thanks, Nato!
Nato was never a danger to them, but brought them heaven on earth!

fiso jukijk
fiso jukijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

NATO is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, just as the US is the greatest threat to peace in the world.
The greatest terrorist country on the planet, bar none, is the good ol’ USA.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

You’re sounding a bit like a self-pitying Russian.
Since Russia already has NATO states on all its western borders, and Putin’s explicit reason for invading was that Ukrainians are really “just Russians,” it was actually the best way to get NATO missiles “literally on Russia’s doorstep.”
Wherever you put the border, NATO will alwasy be on teh other side.
Of course, one could then negotiate a treaty, as Reagan and Gorbachev did.
But invasions are so much more fun!

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ukraine never intended to join NATO before Putin attacked. The Ukrainians thought the Russians would abide by their prior agreement to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes.
If Putin is really concerned about war with NATO, he shouldn’t constantly be trying to cause one. If Putin is so concerned about missiles next door to Russia, he shouldn’t be taking actions almost guaranteed to cause just that. Is he really that stupid, or is it just you Russian trolls who are?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“Absolutely. Ask Serbia, Libya and Iraq”

NATO was not a threat to these countries, but to Milosevic, Gaddafi and Hussein.

Authoritarians; always confusing the country with the bossman.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

“The idea that NATO was any type of offensive threat to Russia is absurd. ”
Absolutely. Ask Serbia, Libya and Iraq.
There was absolutely nothing wrong about Ukraine joining NATO and US missiles literally next door to Moscow.
After all, recall how gracefully the US accepted Cuba’s right to join the Soviet bloc and Soviet missiles being based there.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Putin is only concerned with his own greatness as “owner” of the Russian Federation. He wants to expand his ownership. He has no concern for the welfare of the Russian people.

lewis guignard
lewis guignard
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Having no concern for their people is true of many, if not most, politicians. Those who do care about their people stand out.

lewis guignard
lewis guignard
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Having no concern for their people is true of many, if not most, politicians. Those who do care about their people stand out.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

Yep. He said in the article that Russia planning to invade the Nordic states was only in the Western imagination. The idea that NATO was any type of offensive threat to Russia is absurd. Not even Putin believes it. You’re also right about the aspirations of the Russian people; They have no desire to invade Ukraine and restore greater Rus, they want to join the modern world as the proud nation they are.
Apart from anything else it’s just heartbreaking.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Putin is only concerned with his own greatness as “owner” of the Russian Federation. He wants to expand his ownership. He has no concern for the welfare of the Russian people.

Michael McDonald
Michael McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Ukraine surrendered “its” nuclear weapons because, since Ukraine was part of USSR, the nuclear weapons were actually part of the Russian arsenal. It was understood by all parties that NATO would not expand to the east.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago

So what belonged to the ‘Union’ automatically became Russian after the break-up? Those were NOT the terms of the USSR break-up.
Nor should they have been. A lot of Soviet technology, nuclear and otherwise, was developed in Ukraine, not Russia.
And any which way, Ukraine did agree to disarm in exchange for assurances over the protection of its border.
If such agreements are seen to be worthless, then the world will soon realise just how easy it is for tinpot countries to build nuclear arsenals.

fiso jukijk
fiso jukijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

Russia never attacked Ukraine for decades, until Obama began his brainless move to overthrow Ukraine’s elected government.
In fact, Russia leased Crimea from Ukraine, and paid as agreed, for many years.
Then the black Marxist (aka Obama) came in and in 2014, began to destroy Ukraine through his foolish policies.

fiso jukijk
fiso jukijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

Russia never attacked Ukraine for decades, until Obama began his brainless move to overthrow Ukraine’s elected government.
In fact, Russia leased Crimea from Ukraine, and paid as agreed, for many years.
Then the black Marxist (aka Obama) came in and in 2014, began to destroy Ukraine through his foolish policies.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Russia comprised 51% of the population of the USSR in 1989. If a partnership is wound up, a 51% shareholder doesn’t get to keep all the key assets, potentially to use them against their former partners. Ukraine received security assurances from the US, UK and Russia in 1994 in exchange for surrendering to Russia the nuclear weapons deployed within its borders, which Russia had already recognised. In those circumstances, potential NATO membership for Ukraine did not arise. As Russia has now reneged on the security assurances it then gave, making the achievement of similar nuclear non-proliferation agreements in the future much less likely, the US and UK have a legitimate interest in the security of Ukraine.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago

You got a document for that “understanding?” It’s certainly not in the text of the agreement.
What is in the text of the agreement is the statement that all of the signatories will respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, refrain from the use of force or economic coercion against Ukraine, and not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or any other non-nuclear state.
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/v3007.pdf, pages 168-171
Russia broke all these openly published agreements when it invaded Crimea in 2014 and again when it went into Ukraine proper last February. Ukraine only applied to join NATO after Crimea, and who can blame them?
Your argument is so feeble, you should be ashamed.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

The Budapest memorandum was null and void after the US and EU staged the coup and insurrection against a legally elected Ukrainian government with the so called Maidan “revolution”. This was a clear breach against the memorandum and its agreement to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The US/EU disrespect and thus destruction of the Budapest memorandum went even as far as Victoria Nuland deciding who shall be next president/prime-minister in Ukraine…
Agreements are there for ALL sides to respect them. If one side first does not but breaches it and then accuses the other, that it IN TURN as well does not respect it (Russia taking Crimea), then this is pure hypocrisy and shows a shameful lack of understanding of pure logic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The US/EU did not stage a revolution. The Ukrainians did that all by themselves – at most the US/EU made some promises. Besides there have been several legally elected Ukrainian governments since 2014. All of them had the option to undo that supposed ‘coup’, yet none of them did. Anyway. do you really think that the FSB did not interfere on the other side? That would put Russia as much in the wrong. Finally, just check the memorandum. It says nothing about the memorandum being null and void if any of the signatories should be unhappy with the way future Ukrainian governments are formed.

You are just looking for pretexts.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You wrote that ironically?
The political party which has been legally in government before the insurrection has been declared illegal by the hunta installed by US, as well as any party which had a similar program. That party had more than 50% of the population before the coup..
Members of parliament have been lynched, any opposing mass media forbidden… Dozens of People have been burned ALIVE (without any consequence for the perpetrators TILL TODAY, 8 years after. Overall a nice democratic atmosphere for “legal elections” after the coup…
But still, Zelensky came only to power because he promised peace with Russia in his campaign… look it up yourself.

Or you can stay in Lala-land…

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Looks like Russia will go the way of Serbia.
Nobody planned it that way, but some nations just aren’t meant to be.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

LOL…
Amazing how delusional people can be!
You, just like the US/Western governments have totally lost contact to reality.
Yeah, sure you’ll do to Russia as you did to Serbia!?!?!…. 😀
Well, Albright mentioned once how it was unfair that Russia owns so much real estate in Siberia, that it does not really “need”… And US pundits have tried to circulate the idea how Russia needs to be “decolonized” (aka reduced to a small territory around Moscow),…
LOL again…
If even small Serbia had had a few nukes US would not have dared to touch her, just like NKorea now…
Sure US, as world champion producer of “collateral damage” everywhere it goes and philanthropic sponsor of human rights institutions like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, would have groaned and moaned, huffed and puffed about how “Hitlerite the demonic Serbs” were, and all of the “international Community” (=US+Vassals) would have joined the choir….but they would not have touched Serbia.
Russia has more nukes than US and could turn it into glowing ash… Be carefull how much you want to bite of Russia like of YU/Serbia, you might regret it one day.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin bootlicker.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Any arguments of substance? Or do you do just ad hominem attacks?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Any arguments of substance? Or do you do just ad hominem attacks?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin bootlicker.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

As if. You Russian trolls are such terrible liars. Nobody ever planned to invade Russia in modern times, and that still won’t happen even after what you have done.
Russians make their own troubles and blame it on other people. No one will invade, BUT: You have made yourselves pariahs. No one will trust you to keep agreements. No one will do business with you, either. Europe was set to buy all your gas and be your trading partner, and you threw all that in the garbage for fantasies of empire. You’re your own worst enemies.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL. Delusional.
Though Putin proposed a “common European House” from Lissabon to Vladivostok, Russia sure does not necessarily need neither EU money nor EU love, if it comes with the price of being treated very disrespectfully.

Russia has options, more then EU has. You are completely disconnected from reality, if you think that US+UK+puddles (EU and the few other vassals) are the REAL “international community”.
Russia is totally selfsufficient in all its needs. EU is NOT, which will be an unpleasant thing to watch this winter.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Serbians are scary – like Russians – they seem to be unable to rise above their pathetic liitle delusions of grandeur – stuck in some kind of megalomaniac obsession. Bad news for anyone in their vicinity. in an ideal world natural selection would have thinned their ranks, maybe it is -but it is taking WAY too long….

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

LOL.
Nice analysis (from a hobbyist psychiatric?).
Lots of projection going on in your post.
But seriously, you should have a shrink look into that racist genocidal dreams you write about…
Best wishes and get well soon!

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

LOL.
Nice analysis (from a hobbyist psychiatric?).
Lots of projection going on in your post.
But seriously, you should have a shrink look into that racist genocidal dreams you write about…
Best wishes and get well soon!

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Serbians are scary – like Russians – they seem to be unable to rise above their pathetic liitle delusions of grandeur – stuck in some kind of megalomaniac obsession. Bad news for anyone in their vicinity. in an ideal world natural selection would have thinned their ranks, maybe it is -but it is taking WAY too long….

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL. Delusional.
Though Putin proposed a “common European House” from Lissabon to Vladivostok, Russia sure does not necessarily need neither EU money nor EU love, if it comes with the price of being treated very disrespectfully.

Russia has options, more then EU has. You are completely disconnected from reality, if you think that US+UK+puddles (EU and the few other vassals) are the REAL “international community”.
Russia is totally selfsufficient in all its needs. EU is NOT, which will be an unpleasant thing to watch this winter.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

LOL…
Amazing how delusional people can be!
You, just like the US/Western governments have totally lost contact to reality.
Yeah, sure you’ll do to Russia as you did to Serbia!?!?!…. 😀
Well, Albright mentioned once how it was unfair that Russia owns so much real estate in Siberia, that it does not really “need”… And US pundits have tried to circulate the idea how Russia needs to be “decolonized” (aka reduced to a small territory around Moscow),…
LOL again…
If even small Serbia had had a few nukes US would not have dared to touch her, just like NKorea now…
Sure US, as world champion producer of “collateral damage” everywhere it goes and philanthropic sponsor of human rights institutions like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, would have groaned and moaned, huffed and puffed about how “Hitlerite the demonic Serbs” were, and all of the “international Community” (=US+Vassals) would have joined the choir….but they would not have touched Serbia.
Russia has more nukes than US and could turn it into glowing ash… Be carefull how much you want to bite of Russia like of YU/Serbia, you might regret it one day.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

As if. You Russian trolls are such terrible liars. Nobody ever planned to invade Russia in modern times, and that still won’t happen even after what you have done.
Russians make their own troubles and blame it on other people. No one will invade, BUT: You have made yourselves pariahs. No one will trust you to keep agreements. No one will do business with you, either. Europe was set to buy all your gas and be your trading partner, and you threw all that in the garbage for fantasies of empire. You’re your own worst enemies.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Pot.kettle.black award.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

You get the whataboutism award.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

First of all, since I didn’t do a “whatabout”. But more important, I agree with YOU. It’s those you were arguing with who deserve the pot.kettle.black award. If you look closely, you’ll see my comment was to the delusional vojin subasic.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

The pot calling the kettle black seems to to be per definition a “whataboutism” argument!
But I see the usual lazy “whataboutism” reply itself as a total non-argument, rather is any “whataboutism” reference the best way to out oneself as a hypocrite…

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

The pot calling the kettle black seems to to be per definition a “whataboutism” argument!
But I see the usual lazy “whataboutism” reply itself as a total non-argument, rather is any “whataboutism” reference the best way to out oneself as a hypocrite…

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

First of all, since I didn’t do a “whatabout”. But more important, I agree with YOU. It’s those you were arguing with who deserve the pot.kettle.black award. If you look closely, you’ll see my comment was to the delusional vojin subasic.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

You get the whataboutism award.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Looks like Russia will go the way of Serbia.
Nobody planned it that way, but some nations just aren’t meant to be.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Pot.kettle.black award.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You wrote that ironically?
The political party which has been legally in government before the insurrection has been declared illegal by the hunta installed by US, as well as any party which had a similar program. That party had more than 50% of the population before the coup..
Members of parliament have been lynched, any opposing mass media forbidden… Dozens of People have been burned ALIVE (without any consequence for the perpetrators TILL TODAY, 8 years after. Overall a nice democratic atmosphere for “legal elections” after the coup…
But still, Zelensky came only to power because he promised peace with Russia in his campaign… look it up yourself.

Or you can stay in Lala-land…

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Yanukovych was ousted by a majority of the Ukrainian Parliament after plans were found that he planned to kill many of the protestors by sniper guns. He was also secretly planning to change the Ukrainian Constitution.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin’s puppet government was NOT legitimate. The present government was legally elected. There was nothing in that agreement about Russia keeping control of Ukraine’s government by dictatorship.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The US/EU did not stage a revolution. The Ukrainians did that all by themselves – at most the US/EU made some promises. Besides there have been several legally elected Ukrainian governments since 2014. All of them had the option to undo that supposed ‘coup’, yet none of them did. Anyway. do you really think that the FSB did not interfere on the other side? That would put Russia as much in the wrong. Finally, just check the memorandum. It says nothing about the memorandum being null and void if any of the signatories should be unhappy with the way future Ukrainian governments are formed.

You are just looking for pretexts.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Yanukovych was ousted by a majority of the Ukrainian Parliament after plans were found that he planned to kill many of the protestors by sniper guns. He was also secretly planning to change the Ukrainian Constitution.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin’s puppet government was NOT legitimate. The present government was legally elected. There was nothing in that agreement about Russia keeping control of Ukraine’s government by dictatorship.

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

There is no a document for that “understanding “.
However, James Baker (then the United States Secretary of State) gave a verbal promise to Eduard Shevardnadze (then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union) that NATO would not expand Eastwards during negotiations regarding the situation with the sudden collapse of Eastern Germany (DDR or GDR). It was not written on paper, but it was said with a few people present in the room including interpreters.
I cannot judge to what extent it was a legally binding statement. However, it seems that the Russians viewed it as a morally binding one.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

The problem is: it was made to the Soviets, when many present nations were still in the Union. When it broke up, as sovereign states, they were free to do what they wanted.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

So true. As if James Baker had the power to decide for Eastern Europeans what they were permitted to do in perpetuity.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

So true. As if James Baker had the power to decide for Eastern Europeans what they were permitted to do in perpetuity.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

The problem is: it was made to the Soviets, when many present nations were still in the Union. When it broke up, as sovereign states, they were free to do what they wanted.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

spot on…The top and bottom is that if you start a war you own all of it… what your side does and what the other side do, and what non involved nations or people do.
All of this is on Putin and his own already ramshackle country is suffering as well. I agree with the article that 190,000 wasn’t meant to seize and hold the country, but it was meant to kill Zelensky and others, decapitate the state and insert client politicians , and they messed that up.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Ted Ditchburn

it seems to me that Putin knows EXACTLY what he is doing – ie turning the Ukraine into a rubbish dump at minimal expense to the Russians – because they cant risk attacking inside Russia. Damned easy to sit on the safe sidelines firing endless rockets into Ukraine knowing that they wont fire back -p cant lose unfortunately – this should have been sorted years ago- but we all got sidetracked by that super ultra killer bug from our other global megalomaniacs. The US, are of course, also megalomaniacs but at least they have the problem of democracy to cause a little hauling of the reins ….

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Ted Ditchburn

it seems to me that Putin knows EXACTLY what he is doing – ie turning the Ukraine into a rubbish dump at minimal expense to the Russians – because they cant risk attacking inside Russia. Damned easy to sit on the safe sidelines firing endless rockets into Ukraine knowing that they wont fire back -p cant lose unfortunately – this should have been sorted years ago- but we all got sidetracked by that super ultra killer bug from our other global megalomaniacs. The US, are of course, also megalomaniacs but at least they have the problem of democracy to cause a little hauling of the reins ….

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

The Budapest memorandum was null and void after the US and EU staged the coup and insurrection against a legally elected Ukrainian government with the so called Maidan “revolution”. This was a clear breach against the memorandum and its agreement to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The US/EU disrespect and thus destruction of the Budapest memorandum went even as far as Victoria Nuland deciding who shall be next president/prime-minister in Ukraine…
Agreements are there for ALL sides to respect them. If one side first does not but breaches it and then accuses the other, that it IN TURN as well does not respect it (Russia taking Crimea), then this is pure hypocrisy and shows a shameful lack of understanding of pure logic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Irene Ve
Irene Ve
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

There is no a document for that “understanding “.
However, James Baker (then the United States Secretary of State) gave a verbal promise to Eduard Shevardnadze (then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union) that NATO would not expand Eastwards during negotiations regarding the situation with the sudden collapse of Eastern Germany (DDR or GDR). It was not written on paper, but it was said with a few people present in the room including interpreters.
I cannot judge to what extent it was a legally binding statement. However, it seems that the Russians viewed it as a morally binding one.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

spot on…The top and bottom is that if you start a war you own all of it… what your side does and what the other side do, and what non involved nations or people do.
All of this is on Putin and his own already ramshackle country is suffering as well. I agree with the article that 190,000 wasn’t meant to seize and hold the country, but it was meant to kill Zelensky and others, decapitate the state and insert client politicians , and they messed that up.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago

You got a document for that “understanding?” It’s certainly not in the text of the agreement.
What is in the text of the agreement is the statement that all of the signatories will respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, refrain from the use of force or economic coercion against Ukraine, and not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or any other non-nuclear state.
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/v3007.pdf, pages 168-171
Russia broke all these openly published agreements when it invaded Crimea in 2014 and again when it went into Ukraine proper last February. Ukraine only applied to join NATO after Crimea, and who can blame them?
Your argument is so feeble, you should be ashamed.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Sorry for the double post.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

It needed repeating.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

It needed repeating.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

Sorry for the double post.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Er, that was something called the USSR–not Russia.
The latter is half the size, with a much smaller miltiary force.
And the treaty stating that is…where?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Outrageous BS. Pure Russian agitprop. Ukraine surrendered its nukes after Russia agreed to respect its sovereignty. Putin broke that promise long before the invasion. And Meirsheimer’s idiotic claim about 190,000 Russians not being enough is 20/20 hindsight. Before the invasion, he (and most others) thought Ukraine would fold in a week, so more troops weren’t required. The Germans did NOT think that about the Poles in 1939.

Marek Nowicki
Marek Nowicki
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

He is a demagogue and useful idiot. On the positive note: He understands Mafia. He is from Chicago….

Marek Nowicki
Marek Nowicki
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

He is a demagogue and useful idiot. On the positive note: He understands Mafia. He is from Chicago….

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

As I recall the agreement, Ukraine would be an independent state with that condition guaranteed by the US, UK and Russia. There was no “understanding” given the guarantee made that step unnecessary. Russia violated the agreement in 2014, even more so today.
In 2014 it seemed more a contest of which criminal gangs were to operate and where. The current Ukrainian government has decided to clean out a large number of those gangs.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago

So what belonged to the ‘Union’ automatically became Russian after the break-up? Those were NOT the terms of the USSR break-up.
Nor should they have been. A lot of Soviet technology, nuclear and otherwise, was developed in Ukraine, not Russia.
And any which way, Ukraine did agree to disarm in exchange for assurances over the protection of its border.
If such agreements are seen to be worthless, then the world will soon realise just how easy it is for tinpot countries to build nuclear arsenals.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Russia comprised 51% of the population of the USSR in 1989. If a partnership is wound up, a 51% shareholder doesn’t get to keep all the key assets, potentially to use them against their former partners. Ukraine received security assurances from the US, UK and Russia in 1994 in exchange for surrendering to Russia the nuclear weapons deployed within its borders, which Russia had already recognised. In those circumstances, potential NATO membership for Ukraine did not arise. As Russia has now reneged on the security assurances it then gave, making the achievement of similar nuclear non-proliferation agreements in the future much less likely, the US and UK have a legitimate interest in the security of Ukraine.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago

You got a document for that “understanding?” It’s certainly not in the text of the agreement.
What is in the text of the agreement is the statement that all of the signatories will respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, refrain from the use of force or economic coercion against Ukraine, and not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or any other non-nuclear state.
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/v3007.pdf, pages 168-171
Russia broke all these openly published agreements when it invaded Crimea in 2014 and again when it went into Ukraine proper last February. Ukraine only applied to join NATO after Crimea, and who can blame them?
Your argument is so feeble, you should be ashamed.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago

You got a document for that “understanding?” It’s certainly not in the text of the agreement.
What is in the text of the agreement is the statement that all of the signatories will respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, refrain from the use of force or economic coercion against Ukraine, and not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or any other non-nuclear state.
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/v3007.pdf, pages 168-171
Russia broke all these openly published agreements when it invaded Crimea in 2014 and again when it went into Ukraine proper last February. Ukraine only applied to join NATO after Crimea, and who can blame them?
Your argument is so feeble, you should be ashamed.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Er, that was something called the USSR–not Russia.
The latter is half the size, with a much smaller miltiary force.
And the treaty stating that is…where?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Outrageous BS. Pure Russian agitprop. Ukraine surrendered its nukes after Russia agreed to respect its sovereignty. Putin broke that promise long before the invasion. And Meirsheimer’s idiotic claim about 190,000 Russians not being enough is 20/20 hindsight. Before the invasion, he (and most others) thought Ukraine would fold in a week, so more troops weren’t required. The Germans did NOT think that about the Poles in 1939.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

As I recall the agreement, Ukraine would be an independent state with that condition guaranteed by the US, UK and Russia. There was no “understanding” given the guarantee made that step unnecessary. Russia violated the agreement in 2014, even more so today.
In 2014 it seemed more a contest of which criminal gangs were to operate and where. The current Ukrainian government has decided to clean out a large number of those gangs.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

you cite the 1994 agreement however you neglect to mention the agreement russia had at the end of the cold war, twhere nato would not expand east of the elbe. if we hadnt have broken that agreement we wouldnt be in this mess right now.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Which “we”? You can’t have an agreement that the people it is made about never agreed to. Where is the document, and where are the signatures of the democratically ELECTED governments of those Eastern European countries that supposedly agreed to never join NATO? Russians think they can make slaves of other people in other countries.
Not joining NATO was also obviously a mistake, because those are the only countries vulnerable to Russian invasion. Thus the rush of unaligned nations to join NATO for protection from Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Which “we”? You can’t have an agreement that the people it is made about never agreed to. Where is the document, and where are the signatures of the democratically ELECTED governments of those Eastern European countries that supposedly agreed to never join NATO? Russians think they can make slaves of other people in other countries.
Not joining NATO was also obviously a mistake, because those are the only countries vulnerable to Russian invasion. Thus the rush of unaligned nations to join NATO for protection from Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

The idea that Putin was never trying to conquer Ukraine is nonsense. He thought he could do it with a lot fewer troops than he really needs, wishful thinking because he still doesn’t have as many troops as he really needs. The opportunity for peace, if we are to take Putin seriously, never existed barring Ukraine’s unconditional surrender on Day One. A cease fire now would simply allow him to lick his wounds and build up his forces for another attack later on. What alternative is there now but for Russia to suffer humiliation on the battlefield and economic ruin at home until it can no longer continue its war effort?

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Yes, Mearsheimer is using Putin’s failure to date to achieve his war aims to retrospectively spin that they were never his war aims in the first place.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Yes he seems to be spinning furiously to match events to his theory.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Yes he seems to be spinning furiously to match events to his theory.

B Stern
B Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

My opinion is that Putin was thinking Belarus, not Chechnya or Syria. He intended to remove the Ukrainian govt and replace it with a Russian-friendly regime, in a short period of time. Given that that hasn’t happened he’s now thinking Chechnya or Syria.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Stern

The problem is that he is no longer thinking or listening to sane advisors.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Stern

The problem is that he is no longer thinking or listening to sane advisors.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

if all the Russions want to do is trash Ukraine – THEY CANNOT LOSE ….

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

Yes, Mearsheimer is using Putin’s failure to date to achieve his war aims to retrospectively spin that they were never his war aims in the first place.

B Stern
B Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

My opinion is that Putin was thinking Belarus, not Chechnya or Syria. He intended to remove the Ukrainian govt and replace it with a Russian-friendly regime, in a short period of time. Given that that hasn’t happened he’s now thinking Chechnya or Syria.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim McDonnell

if all the Russions want to do is trash Ukraine – THEY CANNOT LOSE ….

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

His argument fell over right at the start when he said:
“They made no effort to conquer all of Ukraine. They didn’t even come close. “
The whole point of the paratroopers taking the airport at Kiev was to quickly capture and decapitate the Ukraine leadership and insert their own puppets. So of course they were trying to conquer all of Ukraine through this approach.
I sense that he’ll state anything to promote his theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

That’s real close to what they did in Afghanistan, where they succeeded but only up to a point. They never could really conquer the place because if the natives want you out badly enough and you can’t wipe them out you’re bound to wind up leaving sooner or later. So having failed at Plan A, Putin is now on Plan B, part of which is genocide.
Mearsheimer’s initial point about the reaction inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was bound to provoke is solid enough (and we bungled that, we just stoked Russian paranoia without providing the Ukrainians and Georgians with any protection), but as for NATO “expansion” being the cause of all this trouble I first have to point out that NATO didn’t expand outward on its own initiative. All those former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet republics wanted in so they’d have insurance against having to go through precisely what the Ukrainians are going through now. Were we wrong to let them in? Absolutely not. And looking forward to a post-war world, if the rest of us don’t lose heart and wind up selling the Ukrainians out, I say we need the Ukrainians in NATO. They’re good role models for the rest of us.
And I haven’t forgotten the Georgians. For a while they had more troops in Afghanistan than most NATO countries. We owe them something.

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

That’s real close to what they did in Afghanistan, where they succeeded but only up to a point. They never could really conquer the place because if the natives want you out badly enough and you can’t wipe them out you’re bound to wind up leaving sooner or later. So having failed at Plan A, Putin is now on Plan B, part of which is genocide.
Mearsheimer’s initial point about the reaction inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was bound to provoke is solid enough (and we bungled that, we just stoked Russian paranoia without providing the Ukrainians and Georgians with any protection), but as for NATO “expansion” being the cause of all this trouble I first have to point out that NATO didn’t expand outward on its own initiative. All those former Warsaw Pact nations and former Soviet republics wanted in so they’d have insurance against having to go through precisely what the Ukrainians are going through now. Were we wrong to let them in? Absolutely not. And looking forward to a post-war world, if the rest of us don’t lose heart and wind up selling the Ukrainians out, I say we need the Ukrainians in NATO. They’re good role models for the rest of us.
And I haven’t forgotten the Georgians. For a while they had more troops in Afghanistan than most NATO countries. We owe them something.

Paul Devlin
Paul Devlin
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

As soon as Ukraine gets the green light from the EU, half the population will decamp west anyway, along with any Russian, Belarusian, Kazakh etc etc with a Ukrainian grandparent or the cash to buy a Ukrainian passport. There’s already 70 thousand here in Ireland and most of them were never near any fighting whatsoever. I’ve started noticing quite a lot of high value Ukrainian cars driving round, even Porsches. We’re being played

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

As sympathetic as I am to the Ukrainian cause I also understand why some EU leaders are wary of letting them in. That will have to occur in stages.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

Why would they leave after fighting so hard to keep their land? That makes no sense.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

logic or common sense seems not to be your strong side…
Neither the Ukrainians nor any other nation is monolithic, they are all individuals. Some decided to fight, but some (millions) decided or intend to leave and live another day… in a hopefully financially better circumstance than in Ukraine. Ukraine has been the poorest nation in Europe even before the war.
But I dont envy neither the ones who stay nor the ones who leave (to EU).

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

logic or common sense seems not to be your strong side…
Neither the Ukrainians nor any other nation is monolithic, they are all individuals. Some decided to fight, but some (millions) decided or intend to leave and live another day… in a hopefully financially better circumstance than in Ukraine. Ukraine has been the poorest nation in Europe even before the war.
But I dont envy neither the ones who stay nor the ones who leave (to EU).

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

As sympathetic as I am to the Ukrainian cause I also understand why some EU leaders are wary of letting them in. That will have to occur in stages.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Devlin

Why would they leave after fighting so hard to keep their land? That makes no sense.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

“If Ukraine becomes a failed stat”
No if. They are done, whichever way the war ends. Just like Libya and Iraq.

When Putin came to power, Russian life expectancy had fallen by over a decade, the economy had fallen apart, suicides had skyrocketed and oligarchs were stealing away billions to western countries that today talk of “democracy”.

Simultaneously, the military was completely inoperative and no threat. Despite this, it was exactly during this period that “defensive” NATO (the same block that launched despicable, destructive wars in Iraq and Libya) expanded all the way across Europe

Putin and co didn’t demand a new Russian empire, they pointed out that expanding NATO to Ukraine would be the last straw. All they wanted was a neutral Ukraine and cessation of hostilities towards Russian minorities (remember the war on Serbia, “war crime” trials etc? Same concept.)

The reasons Russia will be in the China camp has nothing to do with Putin, and everything to do with the West. And let’s be clear, you couldn’t care less if Russia became a vassal, just like you couldn’t care less for Russia when you propped up Yelstin and his looters.

The bottomline is very simple. China lacks energy and food. China is the West’s biggest enemy. And you solved both of their problems in one go, with your deceit and arrogance.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The nations of Eastern Europe hurried to get into NATO while they could, before Russia again got strong enough to threaten them and force them to submit to Russia instead. For some reason they did not trust Russia’s future peaceful intent. Sounds like a wise decision.

Anyway, Russia did not demand Ukrainian neutrality. They demanded control of Ukraine.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

True. Ukraine was neutral before the invasion, so Putin already had what he claims he wanted.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL, …
Ukraine was defacto in all but name a NATO country already, with all the NATO “advisers” and Nato compatibility stuff ongoing… The US installed insurrectionist hunta even rewrote the Ukrainian constitution, so that NATO membership is a definitive target.
Ukraine was and is not a full member of the club however, more like having much of the responsibility, but few of the rights… a classic vassal (of second or lesser class, unlike the first class vassals/EU)
Ukraine after the coup being neutral is really a funny joke. You are quite a comedian, I’ll give you that.
.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL, …
Ukraine was defacto in all but name a NATO country already, with all the NATO “advisers” and Nato compatibility stuff ongoing… The US installed insurrectionist hunta even rewrote the Ukrainian constitution, so that NATO membership is a definitive target.
Ukraine was and is not a full member of the club however, more like having much of the responsibility, but few of the rights… a classic vassal (of second or lesser class, unlike the first class vassals/EU)
Ukraine after the coup being neutral is really a funny joke. You are quite a comedian, I’ll give you that.
.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

True. Ukraine was neutral before the invasion, so Putin already had what he claims he wanted.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

So what you’re really saying is that Russia will implode, and the “real” Real Politik will involve a tug of war between the EU/US and China, over who gets what in Russia.
That actually makes more sense. Russia is no longer a significant power, and, never having been a true nation, will inevitably fragment.
We need to be ready to come to an amicable agreement on Russia with China. Taiwan is enough of a problem for us as it is.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Russia is a poor country. The far north is almost devoid of people, too. There isn’t much in it worth having, so I wouldn’t worry much about a tug of war

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL…. (Facepalm)

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Thank you!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Thank you!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Just much ignorance. Compare:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account
West has debt, russia has a flush account, see how bad it is?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

LOL…. (Facepalm)

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Just much ignorance. Compare:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account
West has debt, russia has a flush account, see how bad it is?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

There’s an old saying: Russia is never as strong, as it looks, and never as weak, as it looks.Treating about Russia with China is not a real option. China can get the whole of it, why would it trade anything?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Russia is a poor country. The far north is almost devoid of people, too. There isn’t much in it worth having, so I wouldn’t worry much about a tug of war

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

There’s an old saying: Russia is never as strong, as it looks, and never as weak, as it looks.Treating about Russia with China is not a real option. China can get the whole of it, why would it trade anything?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Putin bootlicker.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

For a “failed state”, the Ukrainians have been awfully effective at defending themselves. It’s now Russia that is in danger of becoming a failed state with any previous progress destroyed. If Ukraine becomes part of NATO, it will be Putin’s fault for invading. The reason Russia and China are in any way aligned is because they are both despotic dictatorships in a world of democracies. Any looting Yeltsin might have done is utterly dwarfed by what Putin and his oligarchs have in foreign bank accounts.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The nations of Eastern Europe hurried to get into NATO while they could, before Russia again got strong enough to threaten them and force them to submit to Russia instead. For some reason they did not trust Russia’s future peaceful intent. Sounds like a wise decision.

Anyway, Russia did not demand Ukrainian neutrality. They demanded control of Ukraine.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

So what you’re really saying is that Russia will implode, and the “real” Real Politik will involve a tug of war between the EU/US and China, over who gets what in Russia.
That actually makes more sense. Russia is no longer a significant power, and, never having been a true nation, will inevitably fragment.
We need to be ready to come to an amicable agreement on Russia with China. Taiwan is enough of a problem for us as it is.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Putin bootlicker.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

For a “failed state”, the Ukrainians have been awfully effective at defending themselves. It’s now Russia that is in danger of becoming a failed state with any previous progress destroyed. If Ukraine becomes part of NATO, it will be Putin’s fault for invading. The reason Russia and China are in any way aligned is because they are both despotic dictatorships in a world of democracies. Any looting Yeltsin might have done is utterly dwarfed by what Putin and his oligarchs have in foreign bank accounts.

mac mahmood
mac mahmood
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Ukraine could have obtained the equivalent of the Article 5 guarantee by the US/Nato enabling her to become neutral with the assurance that in the event of hostilities breaking out involving Ukraine and Russia, Nato will come to Ukraine’s defence.

B Stern
B Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

What Ukraine wanted and still wants is to become a real democracy. In fact the standard of living in Ukraine before the war was higher than in Russia. I don’t think NATO membership was their biggest goal.
I read in one interview that Russian soldiers stole practically everything from towns that they captured but they didn’t take robot vacuums like Roombas because they didn’t know what they were.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Stern

They wouldn’t have needed NATO if Russia had kept the 1994 agreement, so of course it wasn’t their biggest goal.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Stern

They wouldn’t have needed NATO if Russia had kept the 1994 agreement, so of course it wasn’t their biggest goal.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

If you’re in an alliance, you’re not neutral. That makes no sense.

B Stern
B Stern
1 year ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

What Ukraine wanted and still wants is to become a real democracy. In fact the standard of living in Ukraine before the war was higher than in Russia. I don’t think NATO membership was their biggest goal.
I read in one interview that Russian soldiers stole practically everything from towns that they captured but they didn’t take robot vacuums like Roombas because they didn’t know what they were.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

If you’re in an alliance, you’re not neutral. That makes no sense.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I agree. Blaming Putin’s war on Ukraine/’The West’ is just blaming the victim. Putin is blaming Ukraine for making him attack like abusers blame their victims for making them beat them. It’s nonsense. Ukraine was never a real threat to Putin. He just wants the USSR empire back, and this is one of the excuses.
This all also assumes that the people in these countries in Eastern Europe are owned by Russia like slaves instead of belonging to themselves.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Now they belong to the American arms dealers instead.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Now they belong to the American arms dealers instead.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I’m surprised that the top comments ignore the central message of the interview. What realpolitik implies is that it does not matter who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, who signed what and who broke his promises. What matters is whether the political goals we want to achieve are realistic or not, taking into account the circumstances and the assets we have.
Putin clearly failed in that respect, but this does not mean the West is doing better.
There are no realistic scenarios to end this conflict. That ship is gone.
What is your goal? To remove Putin from power and replace him with some kind of Jelcin or Navalnij, who will surrender and sign a peace treaty acknowledging the loss of Donbas and Crimea, and coming back to cooperation with the West as a humiliated underdog? Ridiculous. Aiming at this is even less realistic than hoping for a democratic Afghanistan. Didn’t you learn anything from that war (and the previous ones)?
What else then? To destroy Russia as a state? What then? A series of unpredictable dictators with nuclear weapons at hand fighting each other and the rest of the world? Do you want to see Prigojin and Kadirov and the likes as little Putins with nuclear power? What good is that?
The most likely outcome is that low-intensity conflict will go on, the front will be frozen at some point, while Russia will slowly become a Chinese vassal state, deeply hostile towards the West. The less likely outcome is that Putin will be eventually replaced by some real warlord, and limited nuclear conflict emerges with the same outcome, only with far more destruction.
In either case, Russia is doomed. At the same time, Europe (particularly Germany) is doomed as well, as most industrial activities won’t be competitive anymore given the new energy prices. That means, no defence industry either, so no possibility to create military power. This might be seen as a desirable outcome from the UK and US, only that it also means the US standing alone against China on the European front, with some “allies” who are nothing but a burden. This will eventually lead to the US giving up the European front to concentrate on the Pacific, leaving to Europe face its fate alone.
You might celebrate for a few years the victory of democracy in Herson, but if Western idealism keeps prevailing in foreign politics, sooner than we think the whole of Europe will become a huge Kabul airport.
As opposed to that scenario, realpolitik would imply some kind of peaceful coexistence with Russia, requiring compromises based on common sense and not dictated terms resulting from your (real, or presumed, does not matter) moral supremacy. Such compromises were reachable in the last decade (and were reached indeed, the Minsk agreement being the last one of them), but with the EU losing influence and the US turning back to idealistic politics driven by internal policy demand their time came to an end. Today, there is hard to see any possible solution. That was the point of the article, not some moralisation about who is wrong and who is right.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

That gets an upvote.

There is a lot of sense in what you say (apart from being a little too sure of yourself in your long-term forecasts), and we need people like Mearsheimer exactly to check what is actually achievable. Only the problem was always ‘peaceful coexistence’ on what terms? Russia seems to demand the respect and power that it had back when it was one of the two equal superpowers of the world – which would imply de facto control over not only the ex-soviet countries but a lot of further neighbours as well. The west would not be willing to accept that (never mind the neighbours themselves) – except for the nukes Russia is simply not that powerful. It may not have been handled well, but it was always a bit of a dilemma – arm yourself for defense and Russia feels threatened; stay disarmed and Russia is free to grab what its ego demands and reach out for more. The Minsk agreements failed because Russia effectively demanded de-facto control over Ukraine, Ukraine refused to accept it, and the west was not willing to do a Munich and hand over Ukraine for the sake of peace.

What common-sense compromise do you see that would have produced a stable peace rather than just a pause in Russian expansionism?

Personally I could see giving up Crimea and parts of the Donbas in return for Ukrainian EU membership and a stable peace with an end to further Russian expansionism as a price worth paying. Of course the people who actually live there and would have to pay the price may have very different ideas. But I do not think that was ever on offer. Just for starters, Russias would have to abandon TransDnistria as earnest of their lack of futher teritorial claims. Does not sound realistic, does it?

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

As I said before, I fully agree with Mearsheimer: there is no more chance for a negotiated peace. I think the Minsk agreement was the last real chance: keeping the Donbas in Ukraine, with special rights that would ensure that Ukraine can never become a NATO member. These days it would be impossible for Ukraine to give up any territory after so much sacrifice. The same is true for Russia, they won’t back off. The EU is screwed and simply does not matter anymore. We are looking ahead to a Westeros-style long winter.
The good thing is -as you’ve pointed out very correctly – that one can never be sure of any predictions to become true.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

I disagree here with you and Mearsheimer. There still are possible diplomatic routes to a stop of the war or even lasting peace in Ukraine. The time is not ripe yet however. Just like the Russians gambled on a fast collapse of the Kiev regime and invaded with a comparatively tiny army, the US/West gambled as well, on a short- to midterm collapse of Russia, mostly economically but also through military exhaustion.
On both sides the hopes are still up high, of these options happening. However, once US realizes, that there is no hope to achieve enough weakening of Russia in economic or military terms, I see it backing off and drop its puppets in Ukraine like hot potatoes, as they have done to countless temporary allies before. In the end, I believe, Mersheimer is correct in the point, that the Ukraine, while of existential national interest for Russia, is not the same for US, but rather just a tool to weaken Russia. A destroyed Ukraine is in US view good enough of an outcome, compared with a functional Ukraine aligned with Russia.
Mearsheimer claims, this would be an unacceptable face-loss to the US at this point of time, after being invested at this level. However I claim, the US is not so vain, and behaves indeed according realistic power principles. They will shrug it off just like Afghanistan or Vietnam. Also they will tell the Russians: suck it up, lets be nice again, you did the same to us, when you armed and supported the Vietnamese, so it was fair game…
US might “loose” the Ukraine war, but even then they successfully separated the economies of Germany (EU) and Russia, so there stays a win for US.
Regarding the future of the economies, please remember that these are nonlinear issues. Germany for instance produced the most impressive military machine, that the world has seen, a mere decade after being totally ruined in the 20’s of the last century.
Looking macroscopically on the economics issues: with the improvements regarding A.I. much more cheap and capable automatisation in manufacturing and other industries will be possible. Thus the benefit of cheep labor will gradually be reduced and maybe completely lost (by China mostly) The same will be true for the military forces and the manpower there, which will be a lesser factor compared to the A.I. weapon systems. I dont believe in “THE” A.I. taking over the world, since A.I. consciousness seems to be a problem too hard to solve for now, but “dumb” A.I. will make radical changes in the next 50 years in the economies as useful (though dangerous) tools.
Once the costs of labor will get negligible, the cost and value of resources will rapidly rise in comparison. This is something Russia (and US) has comparatively in abundance, but China/EU have not. So Russia may get cosy, but CANNOT get dependent on China (or EU), Russia knows that, else it will have to hand over its resources basically just for pennies. And US knows that Russia knows that. Thus there will always be room for a reset and negotiations between US/Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Interesting – much as we disagree overall.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

I hope very much that future reality will come closer to your predictions than to mine.
However, please note that today’s Ukraine from a US perspective is Afghanistan in 1985, not in 2005. Even better: the US is the champion of the Free World, Russians are bleeding, and top-sucker Germany is financing the whole show through 4-5 x energy prices while losing industrial competitiveness at international levels. This is such a sweet candy for US leaders that it will be really hard to give up on it even if the long-term consequences will clearly favour China. Very few decision-makers can afford to think in the long term.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

with the risk of being “captain obvious”:
US WILL give it up, once(/if) the there is a diminished or negative return on the investment.
If they push too hard/too far, so that Germany (EU) collapses too fast/ too bad, Germany might make an U-turn and distance/free itself from US and re-approach Russia for cheap energy, just like Turkey is doing, where US miscalculated/overplayed, trying to overthrow Erdogan, so Turkey now is not a reliable factor for the US anymore, even though US is trying to reverse/keep in balance the situation there and is not pushing against Erdogan anymore.
So US would not give anything up, once it becomes clear, that there are no more gains (in weakening Russia by proxy of the Ukraine situation) possible, but the risk of loosing the won situation in the EU increases…
At that point “giving it up” just means: trying to stabilize and keep the won situation (full control) in EU.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

with the risk of being “captain obvious”:
US WILL give it up, once(/if) the there is a diminished or negative return on the investment.
If they push too hard/too far, so that Germany (EU) collapses too fast/ too bad, Germany might make an U-turn and distance/free itself from US and re-approach Russia for cheap energy, just like Turkey is doing, where US miscalculated/overplayed, trying to overthrow Erdogan, so Turkey now is not a reliable factor for the US anymore, even though US is trying to reverse/keep in balance the situation there and is not pushing against Erdogan anymore.
So US would not give anything up, once it becomes clear, that there are no more gains (in weakening Russia by proxy of the Ukraine situation) possible, but the risk of loosing the won situation in the EU increases…
At that point “giving it up” just means: trying to stabilize and keep the won situation (full control) in EU.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Interesting – much as we disagree overall.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

I hope very much that future reality will come closer to your predictions than to mine.
However, please note that today’s Ukraine from a US perspective is Afghanistan in 1985, not in 2005. Even better: the US is the champion of the Free World, Russians are bleeding, and top-sucker Germany is financing the whole show through 4-5 x energy prices while losing industrial competitiveness at international levels. This is such a sweet candy for US leaders that it will be really hard to give up on it even if the long-term consequences will clearly favour China. Very few decision-makers can afford to think in the long term.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

I disagree here with you and Mearsheimer. There still are possible diplomatic routes to a stop of the war or even lasting peace in Ukraine. The time is not ripe yet however. Just like the Russians gambled on a fast collapse of the Kiev regime and invaded with a comparatively tiny army, the US/West gambled as well, on a short- to midterm collapse of Russia, mostly economically but also through military exhaustion.
On both sides the hopes are still up high, of these options happening. However, once US realizes, that there is no hope to achieve enough weakening of Russia in economic or military terms, I see it backing off and drop its puppets in Ukraine like hot potatoes, as they have done to countless temporary allies before. In the end, I believe, Mersheimer is correct in the point, that the Ukraine, while of existential national interest for Russia, is not the same for US, but rather just a tool to weaken Russia. A destroyed Ukraine is in US view good enough of an outcome, compared with a functional Ukraine aligned with Russia.
Mearsheimer claims, this would be an unacceptable face-loss to the US at this point of time, after being invested at this level. However I claim, the US is not so vain, and behaves indeed according realistic power principles. They will shrug it off just like Afghanistan or Vietnam. Also they will tell the Russians: suck it up, lets be nice again, you did the same to us, when you armed and supported the Vietnamese, so it was fair game…
US might “loose” the Ukraine war, but even then they successfully separated the economies of Germany (EU) and Russia, so there stays a win for US.
Regarding the future of the economies, please remember that these are nonlinear issues. Germany for instance produced the most impressive military machine, that the world has seen, a mere decade after being totally ruined in the 20’s of the last century.
Looking macroscopically on the economics issues: with the improvements regarding A.I. much more cheap and capable automatisation in manufacturing and other industries will be possible. Thus the benefit of cheep labor will gradually be reduced and maybe completely lost (by China mostly) The same will be true for the military forces and the manpower there, which will be a lesser factor compared to the A.I. weapon systems. I dont believe in “THE” A.I. taking over the world, since A.I. consciousness seems to be a problem too hard to solve for now, but “dumb” A.I. will make radical changes in the next 50 years in the economies as useful (though dangerous) tools.
Once the costs of labor will get negligible, the cost and value of resources will rapidly rise in comparison. This is something Russia (and US) has comparatively in abundance, but China/EU have not. So Russia may get cosy, but CANNOT get dependent on China (or EU), Russia knows that, else it will have to hand over its resources basically just for pennies. And US knows that Russia knows that. Thus there will always be room for a reset and negotiations between US/Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

As I said before, I fully agree with Mearsheimer: there is no more chance for a negotiated peace. I think the Minsk agreement was the last real chance: keeping the Donbas in Ukraine, with special rights that would ensure that Ukraine can never become a NATO member. These days it would be impossible for Ukraine to give up any territory after so much sacrifice. The same is true for Russia, they won’t back off. The EU is screwed and simply does not matter anymore. We are looking ahead to a Westeros-style long winter.
The good thing is -as you’ve pointed out very correctly – that one can never be sure of any predictions to become true.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

As it happens, you can see a lot of parallels here with 1930’s Germany. A major power that has lost a war (the Cold War, in this case), gone through a terrible time economically, and insists on undoing the loss and going back to its rightful place – i.e. the strength and power they used to have. European countries back then tried quite hard to make ‘compromises based on common sense’ that would reconcile Germany with its current status and keep the peace – but they failed because nothing less than full restoration would be enough. How sure are you that today is different?

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

There are differences, too: Germany was a rising power with strong demographic and innovation potential, while Russia is a declining power with very few young men. Germany was seeking (and potentially able) to control Europe, Russia is nothing like that. Russia would have been fine in peace if left alone in its sphere of influence (see Huntington, 1995).
I see more similarities with 1914. We were living in a world of peace and prosperity, but that was not good enough, so we started a war that could have been avoided.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Good point, about the demographic. But then Germany wanted to make new conquests, whereas Russia merely wants to take back what it used to have, i.e.. the Warsaw pact.

I would like to hear your opinion. If ‘Russia would have been fine in peace if left alone in its sphere of influence‘, how big would that sphere of influence have to be? Which countries would have to be handed over for Moscow to control before Russia was willing to be satisfied with what it had? It is hard to judge this as a policy option without knowing that kind of detail. My guess would be that the Baltic states, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and maybe (as another poster commented) Kasakhstan would surely be on the shopping list. Finland and Poland would be question marks, if the chance was there. But hopefully you know more than I do.

What I really found noticeable was not that Russia could not accept NATO membership for Ukraine (that never sounded realistic to me anyway), but that allying with the (non-military) EU was also unacceptable. I wondered if under Minsk Ukraine would have ended up somewhere like East Germany, which, notoriously, was so neutral that it did not even interfere in its own internal affairs.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I know nothing… But my impression is that Russia has given up on the Baltics, let alone the rest of Europe. They wanted cooperation with Europe, not confrontation. Ukraine is very different, for geopolitical, historical, and cultural reasons. Obviously, if they had the potential, the Russians would take it all, with Berlin, Paris, and Madrid included – but they have no potential. I think their ambitions don’t go beyond ex-soviet territories, even with a military weak EU ahead. On the other hand, it’s not a rule that EU should have no military power. There are contact talks about the common defence force, that should have been constructed long ago. Poland right now is on its way to building an army that would deter any Russian attack. Germany could have done that decades ago. So the Russian threat to Europe could be easily handled, even without the US. It is really hard to see any German or Russian interest in the present conflict. They could have come to terms, but that would harm US (and UK) interests. It is well known, that the most important geopolitical strategy of the US is to prevent the creation of a strong power in the Eurasian heartland. That threat has been solved now for some decades unless peace is negotiated. Another reason not to reach any peace agreement.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Thanks for some good answers. I guess that this is as far as we can get. I am not really convinced. Would Russia really give up on the Baltics as long as St Petersburg and Kaliningrad are located where they are? I certainly do not think it is in the interest of anyone in Europe to have a strong power in the Eurasian heartland, particularly if that power is Russia. If Europe anyway needs an army that can deter a Russian attack, is it really smart to let Russia grow big and strong first?

Ah well. Qui vivra, verra.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

There never was and there is NO indication that Russia wants to conquer Europe, unlike the ideologically driven soviet communists, which also wanted “only” to spread their ideology. Even then the eastern block countries were not swallowed/absorbed into Russia/USSR but were merely vassals, just as EU countries still now are vassals of US. Though most of the eastern block countries had (willingly or forced by the Reich) actively taken part in Germany’s attack on the USSR, Russia did NOT annex them after victory.
The only times when Russia invaded Europe, were, when they took Paris and Berlin, both after first being attacked and invaded by Napoleon and Hitler. Both times they left the conquered capitals voluntarily, without being beaten back.
East-Germany was kept as a vassal after victory over Germany, because of partly the ideological nature of the communist apparatchiks but mostly because the confrontation/cold war with the western powers was already foreseeable after victory over Germany. And if an active conflict had broken out, the battlefield would have been Germany and not already from the start the borderlands or even interior of USSR.
The only country in Europe which historically has rightful fears of Russian expansionist ideas is Turkey, because of the Russian historical stance regarding Constantinople/Istanbul. Russian Tsars saw themselves as the heirs of Byzantium and the rightful heirs of the Roman Tsardom, because of the marriage of a daughter of the Byzantine emperor to the Russian king Vladimir, when Vladimir accepted the orthodox christian faith for him and his country. But probably more importantly because of the straits where Istanbul is located. These straits can cut off Russia’s warm water ports in the Black Sea. Thus Turkey is not giving any reasons to Russia to pick up these ideas, and adheres minutely to the point of the treaty regarding Russian crossing rights in the straits.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Thanks for some good answers. I guess that this is as far as we can get. I am not really convinced. Would Russia really give up on the Baltics as long as St Petersburg and Kaliningrad are located where they are? I certainly do not think it is in the interest of anyone in Europe to have a strong power in the Eurasian heartland, particularly if that power is Russia. If Europe anyway needs an army that can deter a Russian attack, is it really smart to let Russia grow big and strong first?

Ah well. Qui vivra, verra.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

There never was and there is NO indication that Russia wants to conquer Europe, unlike the ideologically driven soviet communists, which also wanted “only” to spread their ideology. Even then the eastern block countries were not swallowed/absorbed into Russia/USSR but were merely vassals, just as EU countries still now are vassals of US. Though most of the eastern block countries had (willingly or forced by the Reich) actively taken part in Germany’s attack on the USSR, Russia did NOT annex them after victory.
The only times when Russia invaded Europe, were, when they took Paris and Berlin, both after first being attacked and invaded by Napoleon and Hitler. Both times they left the conquered capitals voluntarily, without being beaten back.
East-Germany was kept as a vassal after victory over Germany, because of partly the ideological nature of the communist apparatchiks but mostly because the confrontation/cold war with the western powers was already foreseeable after victory over Germany. And if an active conflict had broken out, the battlefield would have been Germany and not already from the start the borderlands or even interior of USSR.
The only country in Europe which historically has rightful fears of Russian expansionist ideas is Turkey, because of the Russian historical stance regarding Constantinople/Istanbul. Russian Tsars saw themselves as the heirs of Byzantium and the rightful heirs of the Roman Tsardom, because of the marriage of a daughter of the Byzantine emperor to the Russian king Vladimir, when Vladimir accepted the orthodox christian faith for him and his country. But probably more importantly because of the straits where Istanbul is located. These straits can cut off Russia’s warm water ports in the Black Sea. Thus Turkey is not giving any reasons to Russia to pick up these ideas, and adheres minutely to the point of the treaty regarding Russian crossing rights in the straits.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I know nothing… But my impression is that Russia has given up on the Baltics, let alone the rest of Europe. They wanted cooperation with Europe, not confrontation. Ukraine is very different, for geopolitical, historical, and cultural reasons. Obviously, if they had the potential, the Russians would take it all, with Berlin, Paris, and Madrid included – but they have no potential. I think their ambitions don’t go beyond ex-soviet territories, even with a military weak EU ahead. On the other hand, it’s not a rule that EU should have no military power. There are contact talks about the common defence force, that should have been constructed long ago. Poland right now is on its way to building an army that would deter any Russian attack. Germany could have done that decades ago. So the Russian threat to Europe could be easily handled, even without the US. It is really hard to see any German or Russian interest in the present conflict. They could have come to terms, but that would harm US (and UK) interests. It is well known, that the most important geopolitical strategy of the US is to prevent the creation of a strong power in the Eurasian heartland. That threat has been solved now for some decades unless peace is negotiated. Another reason not to reach any peace agreement.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Good point, about the demographic. But then Germany wanted to make new conquests, whereas Russia merely wants to take back what it used to have, i.e.. the Warsaw pact.

I would like to hear your opinion. If ‘Russia would have been fine in peace if left alone in its sphere of influence‘, how big would that sphere of influence have to be? Which countries would have to be handed over for Moscow to control before Russia was willing to be satisfied with what it had? It is hard to judge this as a policy option without knowing that kind of detail. My guess would be that the Baltic states, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and maybe (as another poster commented) Kasakhstan would surely be on the shopping list. Finland and Poland would be question marks, if the chance was there. But hopefully you know more than I do.

What I really found noticeable was not that Russia could not accept NATO membership for Ukraine (that never sounded realistic to me anyway), but that allying with the (non-military) EU was also unacceptable. I wondered if under Minsk Ukraine would have ended up somewhere like East Germany, which, notoriously, was so neutral that it did not even interfere in its own internal affairs.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

There are differences, too: Germany was a rising power with strong demographic and innovation potential, while Russia is a declining power with very few young men. Germany was seeking (and potentially able) to control Europe, Russia is nothing like that. Russia would have been fine in peace if left alone in its sphere of influence (see Huntington, 1995).
I see more similarities with 1914. We were living in a world of peace and prosperity, but that was not good enough, so we started a war that could have been avoided.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Brilliant analysis thanks.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

That gets an upvote.

There is a lot of sense in what you say (apart from being a little too sure of yourself in your long-term forecasts), and we need people like Mearsheimer exactly to check what is actually achievable. Only the problem was always ‘peaceful coexistence’ on what terms? Russia seems to demand the respect and power that it had back when it was one of the two equal superpowers of the world – which would imply de facto control over not only the ex-soviet countries but a lot of further neighbours as well. The west would not be willing to accept that (never mind the neighbours themselves) – except for the nukes Russia is simply not that powerful. It may not have been handled well, but it was always a bit of a dilemma – arm yourself for defense and Russia feels threatened; stay disarmed and Russia is free to grab what its ego demands and reach out for more. The Minsk agreements failed because Russia effectively demanded de-facto control over Ukraine, Ukraine refused to accept it, and the west was not willing to do a Munich and hand over Ukraine for the sake of peace.

What common-sense compromise do you see that would have produced a stable peace rather than just a pause in Russian expansionism?

Personally I could see giving up Crimea and parts of the Donbas in return for Ukrainian EU membership and a stable peace with an end to further Russian expansionism as a price worth paying. Of course the people who actually live there and would have to pay the price may have very different ideas. But I do not think that was ever on offer. Just for starters, Russias would have to abandon TransDnistria as earnest of their lack of futher teritorial claims. Does not sound realistic, does it?

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

As it happens, you can see a lot of parallels here with 1930’s Germany. A major power that has lost a war (the Cold War, in this case), gone through a terrible time economically, and insists on undoing the loss and going back to its rightful place – i.e. the strength and power they used to have. European countries back then tried quite hard to make ‘compromises based on common sense’ that would reconcile Germany with its current status and keep the peace – but they failed because nothing less than full restoration would be enough. How sure are you that today is different?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Borsos Endre

Brilliant analysis thanks.

John Grillo
John Grillo
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

It’s difficult to accept these ‘experts’ who need to be considered seriously. Invaded with 190,000K troops but yet the “special military operation” targets civilians, civilian infrastructure. Conducting war in a criminal manner has nothing to do with the threat of NATO, US Policy, or a limited operation as the ‘expert’ suggests, etc. All wars have their criminal nature to them, but Putin’s goal from the outset was to use “terror” as the strategic weapon of choice. Not nukes, not 190k troops…terror. I am in complete disagreement…Russia was never a threat, never will be a threat militarily. The Ukrainians have better logistics, command and control, leadership, and better training/delegated decision making within its noncommissioned officer corps, can fight a defensive war, and now Western weapons. How can these experts dispute that from the outset of the war, Ukraine was outnumbered 10:1 in everything from personnel, tanks, and aircraft? Aside from nukes, the ‘expert’ should consider not treating Russia as if it was some sort of military power. Russia is beaten militarily and “terror” only created misery among the civilian population. It is obvious that Russia wants negotiations to move forward (the hints are coming in loud and clear)–they are losing–there will be no nukes. Xi has pretty much told them that is off the table. When big daddy China calls, little Russia comes running with their hats in their hand.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Grillo
Maria Armstrong
Maria Armstrong
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Hmm … just like the UK has already become a “vassal state” of the USA …?Or the EU states (formerly sovereign countries) have become vassal states to Brussels. As for the many millions of Ukrainians “migrating west” … the west is already “full” of refugee/migrants and can no longer justify taking any more while thousands of their own citizens sleep in the streets.
You underestimate the Russian Federations ability to quickly rebuild Ukraine – at such time the Ukrainians will go flocking back to enjoy a superior Russian standard of living. Visited Moscow recently? Richer city than London or Paris!

Mustard Clementine
Mustard Clementine
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

This is what came to mind for me as well, when he stated nationalism could also factor in to Russia’s efforts. I don’t see how you could know anything about Russia, or actual Russian people, and think this could be anything but a negative force.

To any Russian who felt like they were finally beginning to actually be a part of the wider world, to have opportunities and improvements to their lot in life – this war has been a devastating blow. I have heard people who fled talk about how homeless and hopeless they feel, like the Russia they knew and/or at least thought it was possible could one day become is now likely lost forever, at least in their lifetime.

This effort may have been seen as a restoration of greatness to someone like Putin – but to many, it was actually the death of Russian potential. They are now back to being a pariah, back to USSR, as it were – and other than the rallies Putin forces government employees to attend, or the online trolls he pays to push a narrative – I don’t hear a lot of Russians expressing any sort of nationalism. I hear a lot of despair and fatalism.

Michael McDonald
Michael McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Ukraine surrendered “its” nuclear weapons because, since Ukraine was part of USSR, the nuclear weapons were actually part of the Russian arsenal. It was understood by all parties that NATO would not expand to the east.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

you cite the 1994 agreement however you neglect to mention the agreement russia had at the end of the cold war, twhere nato would not expand east of the elbe. if we hadnt have broken that agreement we wouldnt be in this mess right now.

Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

The idea that Putin was never trying to conquer Ukraine is nonsense. He thought he could do it with a lot fewer troops than he really needs, wishful thinking because he still doesn’t have as many troops as he really needs. The opportunity for peace, if we are to take Putin seriously, never existed barring Ukraine’s unconditional surrender on Day One. A cease fire now would simply allow him to lick his wounds and build up his forces for another attack later on. What alternative is there now but for Russia to suffer humiliation on the battlefield and economic ruin at home until it can no longer continue its war effort?

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

His argument fell over right at the start when he said:
“They made no effort to conquer all of Ukraine. They didn’t even come close. “
The whole point of the paratroopers taking the airport at Kiev was to quickly capture and decapitate the Ukraine leadership and insert their own puppets. So of course they were trying to conquer all of Ukraine through this approach.
I sense that he’ll state anything to promote his theory.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Paul Devlin
Paul Devlin
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

As soon as Ukraine gets the green light from the EU, half the population will decamp west anyway, along with any Russian, Belarusian, Kazakh etc etc with a Ukrainian grandparent or the cash to buy a Ukrainian passport. There’s already 70 thousand here in Ireland and most of them were never near any fighting whatsoever. I’ve started noticing quite a lot of high value Ukrainian cars driving round, even Porsches. We’re being played

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

“If Ukraine becomes a failed stat”
No if. They are done, whichever way the war ends. Just like Libya and Iraq.

When Putin came to power, Russian life expectancy had fallen by over a decade, the economy had fallen apart, suicides had skyrocketed and oligarchs were stealing away billions to western countries that today talk of “democracy”.

Simultaneously, the military was completely inoperative and no threat. Despite this, it was exactly during this period that “defensive” NATO (the same block that launched despicable, destructive wars in Iraq and Libya) expanded all the way across Europe

Putin and co didn’t demand a new Russian empire, they pointed out that expanding NATO to Ukraine would be the last straw. All they wanted was a neutral Ukraine and cessation of hostilities towards Russian minorities (remember the war on Serbia, “war crime” trials etc? Same concept.)

The reasons Russia will be in the China camp has nothing to do with Putin, and everything to do with the West. And let’s be clear, you couldn’t care less if Russia became a vassal, just like you couldn’t care less for Russia when you propped up Yelstin and his looters.

The bottomline is very simple. China lacks energy and food. China is the West’s biggest enemy. And you solved both of their problems in one go, with your deceit and arrogance.

mac mahmood
mac mahmood
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Ukraine could have obtained the equivalent of the Article 5 guarantee by the US/Nato enabling her to become neutral with the assurance that in the event of hostilities breaking out involving Ukraine and Russia, Nato will come to Ukraine’s defence.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I agree. Blaming Putin’s war on Ukraine/’The West’ is just blaming the victim. Putin is blaming Ukraine for making him attack like abusers blame their victims for making them beat them. It’s nonsense. Ukraine was never a real threat to Putin. He just wants the USSR empire back, and this is one of the excuses.
This all also assumes that the people in these countries in Eastern Europe are owned by Russia like slaves instead of belonging to themselves.

Borsos Endre
Borsos Endre
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

I’m surprised that the top comments ignore the central message of the interview. What realpolitik implies is that it does not matter who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, who signed what and who broke his promises. What matters is whether the political goals we want to achieve are realistic or not, taking into account the circumstances and the assets we have.
Putin clearly failed in that respect, but this does not mean the West is doing better.
There are no realistic scenarios to end this conflict. That ship is gone.
What is your goal? To remove Putin from power and replace him with some kind of Jelcin or Navalnij, who will surrender and sign a peace treaty acknowledging the loss of Donbas and Crimea, and coming back to cooperation with the West as a humiliated underdog? Ridiculous. Aiming at this is even less realistic than hoping for a democratic Afghanistan. Didn’t you learn anything from that war (and the previous ones)?
What else then? To destroy Russia as a state? What then? A series of unpredictable dictators with nuclear weapons at hand fighting each other and the rest of the world? Do you want to see Prigojin and Kadirov and the likes as little Putins with nuclear power? What good is that?
The most likely outcome is that low-intensity conflict will go on, the front will be frozen at some point, while Russia will slowly become a Chinese vassal state, deeply hostile towards the West. The less likely outcome is that Putin will be eventually replaced by some real warlord, and limited nuclear conflict emerges with the same outcome, only with far more destruction.
In either case, Russia is doomed. At the same time, Europe (particularly Germany) is doomed as well, as most industrial activities won’t be competitive anymore given the new energy prices. That means, no defence industry either, so no possibility to create military power. This might be seen as a desirable outcome from the UK and US, only that it also means the US standing alone against China on the European front, with some “allies” who are nothing but a burden. This will eventually lead to the US giving up the European front to concentrate on the Pacific, leaving to Europe face its fate alone.
You might celebrate for a few years the victory of democracy in Herson, but if Western idealism keeps prevailing in foreign politics, sooner than we think the whole of Europe will become a huge Kabul airport.
As opposed to that scenario, realpolitik would imply some kind of peaceful coexistence with Russia, requiring compromises based on common sense and not dictated terms resulting from your (real, or presumed, does not matter) moral supremacy. Such compromises were reachable in the last decade (and were reached indeed, the Minsk agreement being the last one of them), but with the EU losing influence and the US turning back to idealistic politics driven by internal policy demand their time came to an end. Today, there is hard to see any possible solution. That was the point of the article, not some moralisation about who is wrong and who is right.

John Grillo
John Grillo
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

It’s difficult to accept these ‘experts’ who need to be considered seriously. Invaded with 190,000K troops but yet the “special military operation” targets civilians, civilian infrastructure. Conducting war in a criminal manner has nothing to do with the threat of NATO, US Policy, or a limited operation as the ‘expert’ suggests, etc. All wars have their criminal nature to them, but Putin’s goal from the outset was to use “terror” as the strategic weapon of choice. Not nukes, not 190k troops…terror. I am in complete disagreement…Russia was never a threat, never will be a threat militarily. The Ukrainians have better logistics, command and control, leadership, and better training/delegated decision making within its noncommissioned officer corps, can fight a defensive war, and now Western weapons. How can these experts dispute that from the outset of the war, Ukraine was outnumbered 10:1 in everything from personnel, tanks, and aircraft? Aside from nukes, the ‘expert’ should consider not treating Russia as if it was some sort of military power. Russia is beaten militarily and “terror” only created misery among the civilian population. It is obvious that Russia wants negotiations to move forward (the hints are coming in loud and clear)–they are losing–there will be no nukes. Xi has pretty much told them that is off the table. When big daddy China calls, little Russia comes running with their hats in their hand.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Grillo
Maria Armstrong
Maria Armstrong
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Hmm … just like the UK has already become a “vassal state” of the USA …?Or the EU states (formerly sovereign countries) have become vassal states to Brussels. As for the many millions of Ukrainians “migrating west” … the west is already “full” of refugee/migrants and can no longer justify taking any more while thousands of their own citizens sleep in the streets.
You underestimate the Russian Federations ability to quickly rebuild Ukraine – at such time the Ukrainians will go flocking back to enjoy a superior Russian standard of living. Visited Moscow recently? Richer city than London or Paris!

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Nobody has done more to knock Russia out of the ranks of the great powers than President Putin. Russia appears well on its way to becoming a vassal state of China’s; just a bigger version of North Korea or Uganda. If Ukraine becomes a failed state, due either to Russian invasion or to its forced subjugation to Russia (“a neutral Ukraine” as Mearsheimer calls it), then many millions more of its population will migrate west, which in itself is a security threat to the rest of Europe. If little Estonia is to get the benefit of an article 5 guarantee, with the resulting possibility of nuclear war, it is not clear why Ukraine should not get the support of the US and UK as fellow parties of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal to Russia.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

The main problem with Mearheimer is that Russia is not a great power in any real sense aside from possessing a nuclear arsenal and a lot of oil and gas. Are we expected to allow all nuclear powers the right to recover former colonies? Would a realist policy be to let the UK invade Ireland if it wanted to or France to recover its colonies to establish its geopolitical safety? What about great powers like Israel etc?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

its exactly the fact that russia has a nuclear arsenal of such a scale that it can destroy the world that does make them a great power.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Not it doesn’t, because they can’t use that arsenal. If they use tactical nukes, NATO can crush them with conventional forces, if they use strategic nukes, the world ends. The weapons can not be used in any productive way.

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
1 year ago
Reply to  Snapper AG

The flaw in your reasoning is you assume that all participants are rational and using the same logic.
For example, if they use strategic nukes, the world does not exactly end – there would be survivors (I read, somewhere about 10-20% of population would survive).
Now think of it their way. Right now the West is more powerful because they are rich. After the nuke strikes the world playground would become more even where the more well-off (pre-strikes) players have lost the most. So, in relative terms, they (Russia) would lose less than the West…

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

So, they think the few survivors living underground “win”. Truly insane. Don’t they have any concern for the suffering and death they would experience?
Or more likely, you think this kind of intimidation will get you an unconditional surrender without a fight. Putin: “I’m insane, so you better do what I want.” Pathetic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Emily G
Emily G
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Oh, seriously. Think what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Emily G
Emily G
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Oh, seriously. Think what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

Oioioi, Irene…
Russians are people too and love their children just as anyone else.
Really strange that anyone needs to be reminded of that.
However, the game that the US and Russia are playing (who is gonna blink first) is not fun for anyone, if TEOTWAWKI is a possible outcome.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

So, they think the few survivors living underground “win”. Truly insane. Don’t they have any concern for the suffering and death they would experience?
Or more likely, you think this kind of intimidation will get you an unconditional surrender without a fight. Putin: “I’m insane, so you better do what I want.” Pathetic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Irene Ve

Oioioi, Irene…
Russians are people too and love their children just as anyone else.
Really strange that anyone needs to be reminded of that.
However, the game that the US and Russia are playing (who is gonna blink first) is not fun for anyone, if TEOTWAWKI is a possible outcome.

Irene Ve
Irene Ve
1 year ago
Reply to  Snapper AG

The flaw in your reasoning is you assume that all participants are rational and using the same logic.
For example, if they use strategic nukes, the world does not exactly end – there would be survivors (I read, somewhere about 10-20% of population would survive).
Now think of it their way. Right now the West is more powerful because they are rich. After the nuke strikes the world playground would become more even where the more well-off (pre-strikes) players have lost the most. So, in relative terms, they (Russia) would lose less than the West…

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Not it doesn’t, because they can’t use that arsenal. If they use tactical nukes, NATO can crush them with conventional forces, if they use strategic nukes, the world ends. The weapons can not be used in any productive way.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

As if a tiny country like Israel is a great power. lol

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Obviously it is! Surrounded by dozens of states with many hundreds of millions of people who mostly loath the state Israel, and still they stand strong.
Regardless of what one may or may not think of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, Israel is objectively a great power indeed.
Much greater than Great Britain for instance… The “Great” in the name there is quite misleading.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The “Great” in the name there is quite misleading – to those who are ignorant of it’s meaning – Great as in Bigger, as in the Biggest Island of the British Islands.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Nah dude…
I rather think the reason that the word “Great” stuck has some historic roots in its hegemonial history as an empire… just like “Das Großdeutsche Reich”

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Nah dude…
I rather think the reason that the word “Great” stuck has some historic roots in its hegemonial history as an empire… just like “Das Großdeutsche Reich”

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The “Great” in the name there is quite misleading – to those who are ignorant of it’s meaning – Great as in Bigger, as in the Biggest Island of the British Islands.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Obviously it is! Surrounded by dozens of states with many hundreds of millions of people who mostly loath the state Israel, and still they stand strong.
Regardless of what one may or may not think of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, Israel is objectively a great power indeed.
Much greater than Great Britain for instance… The “Great” in the name there is quite misleading.

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

its exactly the fact that russia has a nuclear arsenal of such a scale that it can destroy the world that does make them a great power.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

As if a tiny country like Israel is a great power. lol

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

The main problem with Mearheimer is that Russia is not a great power in any real sense aside from possessing a nuclear arsenal and a lot of oil and gas. Are we expected to allow all nuclear powers the right to recover former colonies? Would a realist policy be to let the UK invade Ireland if it wanted to or France to recover its colonies to establish its geopolitical safety? What about great powers like Israel etc?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago

Where Mearsheimmer’s analysis falls apart completely is he’s fundamentally wrong about Russia’s motivations and ultimate objectives. There is nothing “realistic” about his position any more than Neville Chamberlain was “realistic” about Hitler. You can no more buy off Putin with Donbas & Crimea than Hitler could be bought off with the Sudetenland in 1938. That did not result in “peace in our time” and neither would appeasing Putin in 2008, 2014 or 2022, because that misunderstand Russian motivations.  
This was *never* about Russia seeking a neutral Ukraine for fear of NATO, even though that is the RT (Russia Today) narrative aimed at westerners. But clearly Mearsheimmer is aware of the very different narratives aimed at Russians, the ones you read in RIA Novosti & all the output of the assorted “Russkiy Mir” publications and think-tanks. Those have been quite upfront about Russian geopolitics being about re-establishing Imperial Russia in a pretty literal sense.
A month into the war when Russian victory was still taken for granted (at least in Moscow), the fact Moldova was next was being opening talked about, the logical next step once Odessa was captured. Kazakhstan too is very much on the to-do list, and quite openly so.
The driver of Russian action has always been Russian perceptions of western moral and political weakness, regardless of the military realities. This sprang from various ministries of defence talking more about introducing gender neutral ranks & only recruiting minority pilots than building up deeper logistic stockpiles. A corrupt senile old fool in the White House, a classics spouting buffoon in Downing Street, a weirdo with a messiah complex in the Elysée, and a wide swath of the compromised German political class quite literally on the Russian payroll? From Russia’s perspective, the actual military balance must have seemed irreverent if the other side is so politically weak and culturally decadent they don’t have the stomach to take risks. All those nifty F-35s don’t count for anything if fear of Russia’s nukes means they’ll never be allowed to take off.
Frankly, can you blame Putin for thinking all the west would do was spend a few weeks clutching their pearls and making official grimaces after Russia took Kyiv in a coup de main?
And all this was married to Russia’s vastly inflated notion of their own capabilities, plus the assumption that even after Operation Orbital, they would still be facing the shambolic and corrupt Ukrainian army of 2014 rather than Valerii Zaluzhnyi and the very much reformed army of 2022 .
So no, Russia did not attack Ukraine because they feared it would join NATO, they attacked it because it was not in NATO, which is an entirely different proposition. There were open discussions on Russian TV a couple years ago about how Russia could occupy Swedish Gotland because why not?
And if the west did nothing substantive in 2022 the way they did nothing in 2014, more than a few Russians wondered out loud how solid was NATO? Regardless of predictable Polish howls of dismay, would Washington, London and Paris risk confronting Russia to save Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius? The more articles people like Mearsheimmer and his ilk wrote, the more observers in Russia concluded “probably not for the Baltics and certainly not for Kyiv”.
The “realists” position always meant at the very least Russia would once again border on Romania and Slovakia with interior supply lines. And that would once again place an Imperial Russia as a major political player at the heart of European affairs, rather than a problem out on Europe’s periphery. What could possibly go wrong with that? The “realists” like Mearsheimmer were and still are anything but realistic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Perry de Havilland
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

First rate analysis.

Mike Keohane
Mike Keohane
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I totally agree! And good to hear so much about thinking within Russia, it seems to me that there’s far too little curiosity amongst Western journalists about actual mindsets within Russia.

Mike Keohane
Mike Keohane
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I totally agree! And good to hear so much about thinking within Russia, it seems to me that there’s far too little curiosity amongst Western journalists about actual mindsets within Russia.

Will D. Mann
Will D. Mann
1 year ago

In the 1980s Russia’s political leaders found the Taliban overthrow of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan intolerable and a threat to Russian security. After years of conflict and huge Russian casualties the Russian people themselves made it clear that they didn’t think the winning the war worth the deaths of so many young soldiers and the war ended ( until the USA and UK decided to repeat the Russian mistake)

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Dictators always think democracies are weak. Unfortunately for Russia, Biden and the rest aren’t as weak as they thought. Democracies are strong enough to embrace debate and controversy, which is what authoritarians can’t understand.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Well said. Democracies also allow us to get rid of corrupt and incompetent politicians and officials (eventually – not always as quickly as we’d like). Totalitarian states tend to promote based on loyalty and not competence and the incompetent and corrupt can hang around for decades. I’d go further – having too many competent subordinates in a dictatorship is actually dangerous for the leader. So you end up with poor leadership and decision making. Russia today is a case in point.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Well said. Democracies also allow us to get rid of corrupt and incompetent politicians and officials (eventually – not always as quickly as we’d like). Totalitarian states tend to promote based on loyalty and not competence and the incompetent and corrupt can hang around for decades. I’d go further – having too many competent subordinates in a dictatorship is actually dangerous for the leader. So you end up with poor leadership and decision making. Russia today is a case in point.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

First rate analysis.

Will D. Mann
Will D. Mann
1 year ago

In the 1980s Russia’s political leaders found the Taliban overthrow of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan intolerable and a threat to Russian security. After years of conflict and huge Russian casualties the Russian people themselves made it clear that they didn’t think the winning the war worth the deaths of so many young soldiers and the war ended ( until the USA and UK decided to repeat the Russian mistake)

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Dictators always think democracies are weak. Unfortunately for Russia, Biden and the rest aren’t as weak as they thought. Democracies are strong enough to embrace debate and controversy, which is what authoritarians can’t understand.

Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago

Where Mearsheimmer’s analysis falls apart completely is he’s fundamentally wrong about Russia’s motivations and ultimate objectives. There is nothing “realistic” about his position any more than Neville Chamberlain was “realistic” about Hitler. You can no more buy off Putin with Donbas & Crimea than Hitler could be bought off with the Sudetenland in 1938. That did not result in “peace in our time” and neither would appeasing Putin in 2008, 2014 or 2022, because that misunderstand Russian motivations.  
This was *never* about Russia seeking a neutral Ukraine for fear of NATO, even though that is the RT (Russia Today) narrative aimed at westerners. But clearly Mearsheimmer is aware of the very different narratives aimed at Russians, the ones you read in RIA Novosti & all the output of the assorted “Russkiy Mir” publications and think-tanks. Those have been quite upfront about Russian geopolitics being about re-establishing Imperial Russia in a pretty literal sense.
A month into the war when Russian victory was still taken for granted (at least in Moscow), the fact Moldova was next was being opening talked about, the logical next step once Odessa was captured. Kazakhstan too is very much on the to-do list, and quite openly so.
The driver of Russian action has always been Russian perceptions of western moral and political weakness, regardless of the military realities. This sprang from various ministries of defence talking more about introducing gender neutral ranks & only recruiting minority pilots than building up deeper logistic stockpiles. A corrupt senile old fool in the White House, a classics spouting buffoon in Downing Street, a weirdo with a messiah complex in the Elysée, and a wide swath of the compromised German political class quite literally on the Russian payroll? From Russia’s perspective, the actual military balance must have seemed irreverent if the other side is so politically weak and culturally decadent they don’t have the stomach to take risks. All those nifty F-35s don’t count for anything if fear of Russia’s nukes means they’ll never be allowed to take off.
Frankly, can you blame Putin for thinking all the west would do was spend a few weeks clutching their pearls and making official grimaces after Russia took Kyiv in a coup de main?
And all this was married to Russia’s vastly inflated notion of their own capabilities, plus the assumption that even after Operation Orbital, they would still be facing the shambolic and corrupt Ukrainian army of 2014 rather than Valerii Zaluzhnyi and the very much reformed army of 2022 .
So no, Russia did not attack Ukraine because they feared it would join NATO, they attacked it because it was not in NATO, which is an entirely different proposition. There were open discussions on Russian TV a couple years ago about how Russia could occupy Swedish Gotland because why not?
And if the west did nothing substantive in 2022 the way they did nothing in 2014, more than a few Russians wondered out loud how solid was NATO? Regardless of predictable Polish howls of dismay, would Washington, London and Paris risk confronting Russia to save Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius? The more articles people like Mearsheimmer and his ilk wrote, the more observers in Russia concluded “probably not for the Baltics and certainly not for Kyiv”.
The “realists” position always meant at the very least Russia would once again border on Romania and Slovakia with interior supply lines. And that would once again place an Imperial Russia as a major political player at the heart of European affairs, rather than a problem out on Europe’s periphery. What could possibly go wrong with that? The “realists” like Mearsheimmer were and still are anything but realistic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Perry de Havilland
Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago

What Mearsheimer seems to ignore is that states that have been coerced into Russian subjectivity in the USSR days are determined not to return to Putin’s 2.0 version.
At any cost.
The West has made it clear that this is Ukraine’s call – when to stap, when to deal – how far they want to go. The West is limiting itself to support.
Another mistake is comparing Russian forces invading Ukraine with the Nazi invasion of Poland. Poland was well armed and ready with a large standing army.
Ukraine wasn’t, and all the indications are that Putin was aiming to roll into Kyiv in much the same way as the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague.
Of course someone with his background knows this. Dare I suggest the ‘opportunist’ is a more appropriate title than ‘realist’.

ian wright
ian wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

“all the indications are that Putin was aiming to roll into Kyiv in much the same way as the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague” – except that when the Russian tanks rolled into Prague they were supported by around 500,000 troops. Czechoslovakia was about 20% the size of Ukraine so the idea that Putin believed he could conquer and control Ukraine, a country with a population of 44 million, with an army of less than 200,000 is a ridiculous fantasy. More likely he hoped he could topple the Government and remove the ultra-nationalists who were in control despite never being elected and leave more reasonable people in control. Having failed he’ll settle for controlling the predominantly Russian speaking ares east of the Dnieper.

JJ JJ
JJ JJ
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Thank you for putting things in perspective –
size matters –
Russias push against Kiew in the start of the war was clearly a decoy to give leeway for the push into east Ukraine.
Simple as that!

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ JJ

Total nonsense. No one gets one-third of their army, including its best units, chewed up in a decoy. DOES NOT HAPPEN.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ JJ

Just as the retreat from Kharkiv and Kherson were decoys.
When he retreats from all of Ukraine, his master plan will be complete.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ JJ

Total nonsense. No one gets one-third of their army, including its best units, chewed up in a decoy. DOES NOT HAPPEN.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ JJ

Just as the retreat from Kharkiv and Kherson were decoys.
When he retreats from all of Ukraine, his master plan will be complete.

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

There are no ultra-nationalists in the Ukrainian Gov’t. That’s Russian propaganda.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Ultra-nationalists? lol So, by your logic, Russia isn’t ultra-nationalist for wanting to control other countries? What is it, their divine right?
What makes you think the Russian speaking people in Ukraine even want Putin? Especially with all those mass graves to remind them what they’re getting? If they had really wanted to be in Russia, all they had to do before the war was walk across the border.
BTW Hate to disappoint you, but Zelensky was elected.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Zelenskyy was elected. Moreover, far from throwing flowers at Russian troops, Russian speaking areas like Kharkiv greeted them with NLAWs & artillery.

JJ JJ
JJ JJ
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Thank you for putting things in perspective –
size matters –
Russias push against Kiew in the start of the war was clearly a decoy to give leeway for the push into east Ukraine.
Simple as that!

Snapper AG
Snapper AG
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

There are no ultra-nationalists in the Ukrainian Gov’t. That’s Russian propaganda.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Ultra-nationalists? lol So, by your logic, Russia isn’t ultra-nationalist for wanting to control other countries? What is it, their divine right?
What makes you think the Russian speaking people in Ukraine even want Putin? Especially with all those mass graves to remind them what they’re getting? If they had really wanted to be in Russia, all they had to do before the war was walk across the border.
BTW Hate to disappoint you, but Zelensky was elected.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
1 year ago
Reply to  ian wright

Zelenskyy was elected. Moreover, far from throwing flowers at Russian troops, Russian speaking areas like Kharkiv greeted them with NLAWs & artillery.

ian wright
ian wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

“all the indications are that Putin was aiming to roll into Kyiv in much the same way as the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague” – except that when the Russian tanks rolled into Prague they were supported by around 500,000 troops. Czechoslovakia was about 20% the size of Ukraine so the idea that Putin believed he could conquer and control Ukraine, a country with a population of 44 million, with an army of less than 200,000 is a ridiculous fantasy. More likely he hoped he could topple the Government and remove the ultra-nationalists who were in control despite never being elected and leave more reasonable people in control. Having failed he’ll settle for controlling the predominantly Russian speaking ares east of the Dnieper.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago

What Mearsheimer seems to ignore is that states that have been coerced into Russian subjectivity in the USSR days are determined not to return to Putin’s 2.0 version.
At any cost.
The West has made it clear that this is Ukraine’s call – when to stap, when to deal – how far they want to go. The West is limiting itself to support.
Another mistake is comparing Russian forces invading Ukraine with the Nazi invasion of Poland. Poland was well armed and ready with a large standing army.
Ukraine wasn’t, and all the indications are that Putin was aiming to roll into Kyiv in much the same way as the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague.
Of course someone with his background knows this. Dare I suggest the ‘opportunist’ is a more appropriate title than ‘realist’.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Mersheimer is consistently wrong about everything.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

What has he been proved wrong in?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

That Russia is still a Great Power.
The abject failure of every foreign adventure of Putin since 2012 shows Russia has little real agency in the world. Even in Syria most of the actual combat was done by Iran, and the country is still as divided as ever. Libya was an outright loss, and Ukraine…?
Putin’s brand of govt and warfare makes the nation uniquely incapable of leveraging even the resources it still controls. Naturally, he will soon be replaced. But it’s almost certain that whoever comes after him will be at least as delusional as he, if not more so.

Jeremy Stone
Jeremy Stone
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I wrote a comment here which I then thought better of, and wished to delete. But apparently this is not allowed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Stone
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

every foreign adventure? the only ones they have been involved in was syria by invitation and they mainly provided air support in taking down isis. georgia which they swept through with ease in 2008, and now ukraine which is only now about to start.
libya had nothing to do with russia and was one of the many failed nato wars of the 21st century

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Libya has nothing to do with Russia because Turkish drones defeated the Libyan faction backed by Russia.
Since 2014, Putina–and Russia–has known nothing but failure.
This is just the most egregious example.
The empire that failed.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

“they swept through with ease in 2008”
You might it sound like a beautiful performance by the Bolshoi …..

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Libya has nothing to do with Russia because Turkish drones defeated the Libyan faction backed by Russia.
Since 2014, Putina–and Russia–has known nothing but failure.
This is just the most egregious example.
The empire that failed.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

“they swept through with ease in 2008”
You might it sound like a beautiful performance by the Bolshoi …..

Jeremy Stone
Jeremy Stone
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I wrote a comment here which I then thought better of, and wished to delete. But apparently this is not allowed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Stone
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

every foreign adventure? the only ones they have been involved in was syria by invitation and they mainly provided air support in taking down isis. georgia which they swept through with ease in 2008, and now ukraine which is only now about to start.
libya had nothing to do with russia and was one of the many failed nato wars of the 21st century

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Read the article. It is a master class of goal post moving.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I read it again. Where has he moved the goal posts?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I read it again. Where has he moved the goal posts?

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“There is no way they could have conquered Ukraine with 190,000 troops….When the Germans invaded Poland, in 1939, they invaded with 1.5 million troops…This was a limited aim strategy”. The Germans also invaded Poland with hundreds of thousands of horses. Putin didn’t send in any. Is that also evidence of a limited aim strategy? Russia has invested heavily in military technology. In theory this should reduce reliance on raw manpower compared to invading armies of 83 years ago. In any case by December 1941 the Germany held France with just 100,000 occupying troops, with the cooperation of local civil authorities, which Putin thought he would get in Ukraine. It is clear that Putin intended to remove the democratically elected government of Ukraine, and impose a puppet regime to act in Russia’s interests, propped up by Russian troops. That is a conquest.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Actually it was a rather inept attempt at “Blitzkrieg “, but the motive was there, as you rightly say.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

If Russia invested heavily in military technology it all got stolen.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

“That is a conquest.”

But it wasn’t, was it. What you’ve done is imagine someone’s thoughts, built a theory, thrown in a bit if history, then created an outcome, that didn’t happen. And you think you’ve proven Mersheimer moved the goal posts.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Well, he did invade, his choice of strategy is a matter of record, and he undoubtedly had a reason. The explanation given here is rational and plausible. What would your explanation be?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The conversation is “conquest”, not “invade”.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The conversation is “conquest”, not “invade”.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Well, he did invade, his choice of strategy is a matter of record, and he undoubtedly had a reason. The explanation given here is rational and plausible. What would your explanation be?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

Actually it was a rather inept attempt at “Blitzkrieg “, but the motive was there, as you rightly say.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

If Russia invested heavily in military technology it all got stolen.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

“That is a conquest.”

But it wasn’t, was it. What you’ve done is imagine someone’s thoughts, built a theory, thrown in a bit if history, then created an outcome, that didn’t happen. And you think you’ve proven Mersheimer moved the goal posts.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

That Russia is still a Great Power.
The abject failure of every foreign adventure of Putin since 2012 shows Russia has little real agency in the world. Even in Syria most of the actual combat was done by Iran, and the country is still as divided as ever. Libya was an outright loss, and Ukraine…?
Putin’s brand of govt and warfare makes the nation uniquely incapable of leveraging even the resources it still controls. Naturally, he will soon be replaced. But it’s almost certain that whoever comes after him will be at least as delusional as he, if not more so.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Read the article. It is a master class of goal post moving.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

“There is no way they could have conquered Ukraine with 190,000 troops….When the Germans invaded Poland, in 1939, they invaded with 1.5 million troops…This was a limited aim strategy”. The Germans also invaded Poland with hundreds of thousands of horses. Putin didn’t send in any. Is that also evidence of a limited aim strategy? Russia has invested heavily in military technology. In theory this should reduce reliance on raw manpower compared to invading armies of 83 years ago. In any case by December 1941 the Germany held France with just 100,000 occupying troops, with the cooperation of local civil authorities, which Putin thought he would get in Ukraine. It is clear that Putin intended to remove the democratically elected government of Ukraine, and impose a puppet regime to act in Russia’s interests, propped up by Russian troops. That is a conquest.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

which roughly translates to ‘Mearsheimer doesnt agree with me so hes wrong, wrong, wrong’

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Considering how badly Russia is losing, Mearsheimer certainly isn’t right.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  alison rain

Considering how badly Russia is losing, Mearsheimer certainly isn’t right.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

What has he been proved wrong in?

alison rain
alison rain
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

which roughly translates to ‘Mearsheimer doesnt agree with me so hes wrong, wrong, wrong’

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Mersheimer is consistently wrong about everything.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

The real question has nothing to do with Real Politik (which would actually mandate that Europe and America insure that Russia never dominates Ukraine).
The real question is:
What happens when a deluded Russian leadership is replaced by a psychotic one?
No, Putin isn’t crazy. He was just inside an information bubble that sealed him off from reality.
But the pro-war faction in Russia already sees that this crumpled up little man is incapable of winning. And with the Army totally discredited, non-state actors like Vagner and the Chechens are going to take more and more power. Prigozhin’s senseless attacks in Bakhmut are just a means of showing that only his faction can “save Russia.” The entire society needs to be mobilized–and therefore totally suppressed. The “sledgehammer approach.”
So, sit back and watch the horror show. Soon the symbol of Russia will be neither the hammer and sickle, nor the cross. It will be Prigozhin’s sledgehammer.
And this new era will make Stalin’s Russia seem like fin de siècle France.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Stalin had a bigger army. Russian forces are already exhausted just trying to conquer Ukraine. Millions of Russians have already fled across the borders. A “sledgehammer” will just cause more rebellion and chaos inside Russia–not a strategy for success.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Stalin had a bigger army. Russian forces are already exhausted just trying to conquer Ukraine. Millions of Russians have already fled across the borders. A “sledgehammer” will just cause more rebellion and chaos inside Russia–not a strategy for success.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

The real question has nothing to do with Real Politik (which would actually mandate that Europe and America insure that Russia never dominates Ukraine).
The real question is:
What happens when a deluded Russian leadership is replaced by a psychotic one?
No, Putin isn’t crazy. He was just inside an information bubble that sealed him off from reality.
But the pro-war faction in Russia already sees that this crumpled up little man is incapable of winning. And with the Army totally discredited, non-state actors like Vagner and the Chechens are going to take more and more power. Prigozhin’s senseless attacks in Bakhmut are just a means of showing that only his faction can “save Russia.” The entire society needs to be mobilized–and therefore totally suppressed. The “sledgehammer approach.”
So, sit back and watch the horror show. Soon the symbol of Russia will be neither the hammer and sickle, nor the cross. It will be Prigozhin’s sledgehammer.
And this new era will make Stalin’s Russia seem like fin de siècle France.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Seeing 190,000 on the border, I said that’s nowhere near enough, Putin’s just sabre rattling. How wrong I was.
Putin had the chance to pull back when the sanctions started but no and now it’s a fight to the death.
This interview takes a long time to say, like the rest of us, he just doesn’t know.

Jonathan Webb
Jonathan Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

I think the key determinant will be coalition loyalty. WIll the army turn on him or nay?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Webb

The determining factor is going to be lack of supplies. Putin’s new “recruits” have almost no training, old weapons, no medical care, little shelter, and it’s getting cold. They aren’t fighting for their own homes and families, either. What do the soldiers get out of it?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

A Russian journalist covers those questions in this article. In one case, it’s a plasma TV, but mostly because, in his words, Russians are slaves – they do whatever the brutal bosses tell them to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlI-qu7-4io

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

A Russian journalist covers those questions in this article. In one case, it’s a plasma TV, but mostly because, in his words, Russians are slaves – they do whatever the brutal bosses tell them to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlI-qu7-4io

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Webb

Which “coalition” is that ? The Russians don’t have many friends or allies here. And probably no longstanding, reliable allies.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Webb

The determining factor is going to be lack of supplies. Putin’s new “recruits” have almost no training, old weapons, no medical care, little shelter, and it’s getting cold. They aren’t fighting for their own homes and families, either. What do the soldiers get out of it?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Webb

Which “coalition” is that ? The Russians don’t have many friends or allies here. And probably no longstanding, reliable allies.

Jonathan Webb
Jonathan Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

I think the key determinant will be coalition loyalty. WIll the army turn on him or nay?

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Seeing 190,000 on the border, I said that’s nowhere near enough, Putin’s just sabre rattling. How wrong I was.
Putin had the chance to pull back when the sanctions started but no and now it’s a fight to the death.
This interview takes a long time to say, like the rest of us, he just doesn’t know.

Priscilla Seidler
Priscilla Seidler
1 year ago

This was absolutely fascinating, Freddie asking excellent questions and John Mearsheimer altogether brilliant, calm, reasoned, unemotional, objective. Would that we had diplomats or politicians like him. I would love to talk with him, especially to say that the reason certain countries have abandoned their liberalism (or liberal leaders), eg Italy, is because they are hugely disenchanted with where said liberalism has taken them (moral decay etc). Surely that’s obvious. Thank you, Freddie, for interviewing this marvellous man.

Priscilla Seidler
Priscilla Seidler
1 year ago

This was absolutely fascinating, Freddie asking excellent questions and John Mearsheimer altogether brilliant, calm, reasoned, unemotional, objective. Would that we had diplomats or politicians like him. I would love to talk with him, especially to say that the reason certain countries have abandoned their liberalism (or liberal leaders), eg Italy, is because they are hugely disenchanted with where said liberalism has taken them (moral decay etc). Surely that’s obvious. Thank you, Freddie, for interviewing this marvellous man.

Simon Humphries
Simon Humphries
1 year ago

One of the problems for the so-called realist position of those like Mearsheimer is that the wishes of the people of the country being invaded, never seem to feature in the discussion. It’s just about big powers and how they might, or might not, move their chess pieces about the board. It’s certainly an approach to world politics – it just seems a pity that such people want to call themselves liberals.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Trouble is, we do live in that world when it comes to the kind of power struggle we have at the moment, say what’s anyone going to do if russia did fire a load of missiles at Poland tonight? We aren’t going to stop nato and Russia going to war are we? No one will ask us, its just not how the world works, that would be it, war, no referendum, no amount of protest would be able to prevent it, too late, you’re suddenly fighting for Europe, its already agreed nato would do that. Or if China or North Korea kick off? It sets in motion events far, far beyond control of the electorate in any given country. That’s why it’s a realist position. In war big powers play chess with all our shit. It’s not nice or pretty and no one gets a fair deal, but it’s always been the same through history. It’s just how it is. Then we build new and do it all over again. You can still hold a Liberal political view and consider the world in these terms.

Simon Humphries
Simon Humphries
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

There is much difference between description and prescription, but I doubt one can be justified in calling oneself a liberal without a belief that people have a right to choose their own futures

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

I feel maybe you can believe that people should be free to make their own choices but simultaneously recognise that’s not the world we’re living in when comes to choosing whether to go to war at the moment. Whatever you believe set it off or why, or whether it was right when russia went into Ukraine that was it. The Russian people didn’t choose, the Ukrainian people definitely didn’t choose, none of the people have been consulted on arms deals or who should do what with who, it’s now how we’re set up to deal with conflicts. It’s all top down command, military, shady, business. Its how our governments and military have operated for many years, we haven’t called to change it, it’s one of those parts of policy that just Is.
If you don’t like that or think that should change then that’s fair enough, that is a Liberal perspective, I personally think they are all mental and I can’t believe we’ve really got tanks fighting in Europe again, it should have been better dealt with by the un for a start, but I see that we are unlikely to now change course, events have pretty much overtaken us now to pull back, so we have no choice but to stick with what we have and hope to high heaven America and NATO can do this. I don’t like any of it, but I feel to understand it from the perspective what’s really going on you have try to analyse it without letting political bias skew your view,(which is hard I have a particular love for ranting about America I’ve discovered, makes me feel better about our own diabolical state of affairs I think :)) or you end up with an unrealistic picture of what is really happening. And that’s hard enough to build with the crazy that’s been flying around with covid as well. The world has gone officially mental.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

When attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. The people of Ukraine could have chosen to surrender, but knew that would be a death sentence for their future. They still had a choice, and they made it.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

But they could only make that choice because they had billions in dollars of gear from America in Europe. Otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to fight with, so they did not have a free choice, it was russia or America. That’s it.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

But they could only make that choice because they had billions in dollars of gear from America in Europe. Otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to fight with, so they did not have a free choice, it was russia or America. That’s it.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

yes. i certainly didn’t vote to send zelensky billions when we are about to implode over here. imo democrats are evil and republicans are worthless and both parties are full of warmongers who don’t seem to care that we are being invaded from the south.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Hey, yeah got a feeling the us and UK ships are frantically bailing water out at the moment, see the down votes, most people are in denial.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Hey, yeah got a feeling the us and UK ships are frantically bailing water out at the moment, see the down votes, most people are in denial.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

When attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. The people of Ukraine could have chosen to surrender, but knew that would be a death sentence for their future. They still had a choice, and they made it.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

yes. i certainly didn’t vote to send zelensky billions when we are about to implode over here. imo democrats are evil and republicans are worthless and both parties are full of warmongers who don’t seem to care that we are being invaded from the south.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Being an authoritarian is NOT the same as being a liberal. It’s the oposite of being a liberal. Only authoritarians think that people don’t have the right to determine their own futures.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

I feel maybe you can believe that people should be free to make their own choices but simultaneously recognise that’s not the world we’re living in when comes to choosing whether to go to war at the moment. Whatever you believe set it off or why, or whether it was right when russia went into Ukraine that was it. The Russian people didn’t choose, the Ukrainian people definitely didn’t choose, none of the people have been consulted on arms deals or who should do what with who, it’s now how we’re set up to deal with conflicts. It’s all top down command, military, shady, business. Its how our governments and military have operated for many years, we haven’t called to change it, it’s one of those parts of policy that just Is.
If you don’t like that or think that should change then that’s fair enough, that is a Liberal perspective, I personally think they are all mental and I can’t believe we’ve really got tanks fighting in Europe again, it should have been better dealt with by the un for a start, but I see that we are unlikely to now change course, events have pretty much overtaken us now to pull back, so we have no choice but to stick with what we have and hope to high heaven America and NATO can do this. I don’t like any of it, but I feel to understand it from the perspective what’s really going on you have try to analyse it without letting political bias skew your view,(which is hard I have a particular love for ranting about America I’ve discovered, makes me feel better about our own diabolical state of affairs I think :)) or you end up with an unrealistic picture of what is really happening. And that’s hard enough to build with the crazy that’s been flying around with covid as well. The world has gone officially mental.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Being an authoritarian is NOT the same as being a liberal. It’s the oposite of being a liberal. Only authoritarians think that people don’t have the right to determine their own futures.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Don’t you know what an alliance is? NATO is an agreement for mutual protection that the populations of those countries agreed to be part of. Without it, all of Europe would have been conquered by the Russian empire decades ago, and then Russia would have attacked the U.S. There’s strength in numbers.
You’re kidding yourself if you think you are powerless or a liberal. Learned helpelssness is not the same as being powerless. It’s not being willing to use the power you have.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I think you need to reread. You’re completely missing the point.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I think you need to reread. You’re completely missing the point.

Simon Humphries
Simon Humphries
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

There is much difference between description and prescription, but I doubt one can be justified in calling oneself a liberal without a belief that people have a right to choose their own futures

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Don’t you know what an alliance is? NATO is an agreement for mutual protection that the populations of those countries agreed to be part of. Without it, all of Europe would have been conquered by the Russian empire decades ago, and then Russia would have attacked the U.S. There’s strength in numbers.
You’re kidding yourself if you think you are powerless or a liberal. Learned helpelssness is not the same as being powerless. It’s not being willing to use the power you have.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Trouble is, we do live in that world when it comes to the kind of power struggle we have at the moment, say what’s anyone going to do if russia did fire a load of missiles at Poland tonight? We aren’t going to stop nato and Russia going to war are we? No one will ask us, its just not how the world works, that would be it, war, no referendum, no amount of protest would be able to prevent it, too late, you’re suddenly fighting for Europe, its already agreed nato would do that. Or if China or North Korea kick off? It sets in motion events far, far beyond control of the electorate in any given country. That’s why it’s a realist position. In war big powers play chess with all our shit. It’s not nice or pretty and no one gets a fair deal, but it’s always been the same through history. It’s just how it is. Then we build new and do it all over again. You can still hold a Liberal political view and consider the world in these terms.

Simon Humphries
Simon Humphries
1 year ago

One of the problems for the so-called realist position of those like Mearsheimer is that the wishes of the people of the country being invaded, never seem to feature in the discussion. It’s just about big powers and how they might, or might not, move their chess pieces about the board. It’s certainly an approach to world politics – it just seems a pity that such people want to call themselves liberals.

Marek Nowicki
Marek Nowicki
1 year ago

He is a demagog. Besides I don’t take seriously anybody who say “Russians”. In totalitarian, cronies capitalism state run by repulsively rich mafia of ex KGB Guys and their cronies!!. These are NOT “Russians” ! They are criminals hanging to power because they know that outside of it is only one thing for them: ” unexpected death”.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Marek Nowicki

the ukraine oligarchs are not much better. bunter hiden anyone??

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I bet Asov give the kgb a run for their money too.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I bet Asov give the kgb a run for their money too.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Marek Nowicki

the ukraine oligarchs are not much better. bunter hiden anyone??

Marek Nowicki
Marek Nowicki
1 year ago

He is a demagog. Besides I don’t take seriously anybody who say “Russians”. In totalitarian, cronies capitalism state run by repulsively rich mafia of ex KGB Guys and their cronies!!. These are NOT “Russians” ! They are criminals hanging to power because they know that outside of it is only one thing for them: ” unexpected death”.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago

This is all kindergarten stuff.
Imagine if Putin (and Xi) suddenly ended all this paranoia, aggression and warmongering and just proclaimed peace. They could make immediate and eternal hero’s names for themselves at home and abroad with still limited risks of repercussions! Rebuilding international relations, reparations.. all child’s play compared to the alternatives.
Just dreaming..

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
1 year ago

This is all kindergarten stuff.
Imagine if Putin (and Xi) suddenly ended all this paranoia, aggression and warmongering and just proclaimed peace. They could make immediate and eternal hero’s names for themselves at home and abroad with still limited risks of repercussions! Rebuilding international relations, reparations.. all child’s play compared to the alternatives.
Just dreaming..

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Mearsheimer’s apparent clarity of thought – a great, academic, impersonal critique of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine falls down when he dismisses the China/Taiwan scenario as completely different because it has a direct effect on the USA.

Being American, it is easy to be clear and impartial and professorial about Europe because it is away in the distance.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris W
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

That is part of the ‘realistic’ school of great power politics. Saying that Russia should be allowed to ‘have’ Ukraine because it is a great power is the same logic as saying that the US should stop China from taking Taiwan, because that is in the US interest as a great power. You cannot switch from raw power politics to morality when it suits you.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What is screwed up is assuming the people in Ukraine and Taiwan don’t have a say in what happens to them, that they’re just slaves to be owned by “great powers”. That’s not at all realistic. The locals resist invaders for however long it takes for the invaders to run out of resources and will to try to stay.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

They don’t have a say, it’s that simple. It’s not nice or fair but it’s how it is. We won’t have a say if NATO and Russia end up fighting, the Taiwanese won’t have a say if China go for it, nor will they have a choice but to rely on Western powers to repel such an invasion. America is the only one big enough to square up to China, so they have no real choices. How America responds will be Americas decision not Taiwans. We are all ‘slaves’ to great powers to an extent. So you are not being realistic. Now it’s a different kettle of fish to say that they SHOULD have a choice which is fair enough and an entirely separate debate. And I’m afraid about as likely as pigs are to fly, I’m sorry but the world has NEVER worked in the way you would like it to. I can see why you would want it to be that way, but it’s just not how real geopolitics of big powers work.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“They don’t have a say, it’s that simple”
Nonetheless, they seem to be expressing themeselves, with words and bullets.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I feel like you don’t get me, I’m not saying that they’re not fighting, or doing a good job but Ukraine ultimately was always sandwiched between Russia and the west, it was always at some point going to be a flashpoint, as has the east west divide always been. If the west didn’t send them weapons they could decide to fight but it would still be hopeless faced with potentially the whole of the Russian army. So they don’t have a choice to be COMPLETELY FREE, they are either indebted to and reliant on America and Europe or they would have no choice but to surrender to Russia. Do you get me? So really there is only two choices. My writing skills need work granted. When it comes to military conflicts, by that point diplomacy has broken down, bullets are flying regardless that alone limits your freedom of choice, the people could vote for no war, but putin would still flatten it, they could vote to not have china in Taiwan but it would make no difference. China would go for it if they wanted to. Am I rambling?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Much of what you say, sure, true. I was just pointing out that we always have a say – to deny that is to miss what makes us human, not animal. Other points – Ukraine chose to surrender it’s nukes, so the West promised to protect them, and Putin not to to invade. Putin lied, Ukraine was decent, so the West, and the World generally is supporting Ukraine and contemptuous of Putin. That’s the choice, the say of Ukrainians – and it will defeat that hood Putin. We are all ‘ slaves’ in some way or other, but as a Russian journalist said recently, few more so than the Russian people, who are treated like trash, or tools, by their leaders. Poor Russia, great people, terrible leaders.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I get you, Im not trying to defend russia or china or anyone, I try to maintain a sceptical view of absolutely everything, that requires a degree of cynicism. I am cynical, I’m on this forum as a millennial that is watching multi national corporations, multi national banks, global institutions and war destroy the world around me. I’m on here trying to decide how bad that is going to be, what the f*** is really going on and attempting to challenge extreme views that seem to be spiralling out of control into insanity. Right.
The original commenter I replied to decried the fact the people weren’t free to choose. It’s is disingenuous, woefully ignorant, to expect to discuss the warring mega powers of Geopolitics in these terms. That is my objection.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I get you, Im not trying to defend russia or china or anyone, I try to maintain a sceptical view of absolutely everything, that requires a degree of cynicism. I am cynical, I’m on this forum as a millennial that is watching multi national corporations, multi national banks, global institutions and war destroy the world around me. I’m on here trying to decide how bad that is going to be, what the f*** is really going on and attempting to challenge extreme views that seem to be spiralling out of control into insanity. Right.
The original commenter I replied to decried the fact the people weren’t free to choose. It’s is disingenuous, woefully ignorant, to expect to discuss the warring mega powers of Geopolitics in these terms. That is my objection.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Much of what you say, sure, true. I was just pointing out that we always have a say – to deny that is to miss what makes us human, not animal. Other points – Ukraine chose to surrender it’s nukes, so the West promised to protect them, and Putin not to to invade. Putin lied, Ukraine was decent, so the West, and the World generally is supporting Ukraine and contemptuous of Putin. That’s the choice, the say of Ukrainians – and it will defeat that hood Putin. We are all ‘ slaves’ in some way or other, but as a Russian journalist said recently, few more so than the Russian people, who are treated like trash, or tools, by their leaders. Poor Russia, great people, terrible leaders.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I feel like you don’t get me, I’m not saying that they’re not fighting, or doing a good job but Ukraine ultimately was always sandwiched between Russia and the west, it was always at some point going to be a flashpoint, as has the east west divide always been. If the west didn’t send them weapons they could decide to fight but it would still be hopeless faced with potentially the whole of the Russian army. So they don’t have a choice to be COMPLETELY FREE, they are either indebted to and reliant on America and Europe or they would have no choice but to surrender to Russia. Do you get me? So really there is only two choices. My writing skills need work granted. When it comes to military conflicts, by that point diplomacy has broken down, bullets are flying regardless that alone limits your freedom of choice, the people could vote for no war, but putin would still flatten it, they could vote to not have china in Taiwan but it would make no difference. China would go for it if they wanted to. Am I rambling?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

“They don’t have a say, it’s that simple”
Nonetheless, they seem to be expressing themeselves, with words and bullets.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

They don’t have a say, it’s that simple. It’s not nice or fair but it’s how it is. We won’t have a say if NATO and Russia end up fighting, the Taiwanese won’t have a say if China go for it, nor will they have a choice but to rely on Western powers to repel such an invasion. America is the only one big enough to square up to China, so they have no real choices. How America responds will be Americas decision not Taiwans. We are all ‘slaves’ to great powers to an extent. So you are not being realistic. Now it’s a different kettle of fish to say that they SHOULD have a choice which is fair enough and an entirely separate debate. And I’m afraid about as likely as pigs are to fly, I’m sorry but the world has NEVER worked in the way you would like it to. I can see why you would want it to be that way, but it’s just not how real geopolitics of big powers work.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Saying that Russia should be allowed to ‘have’ Ukraine because it is a great power is the same logic as saying that the US should stop China from taking Taiwan, because that is in the US interest as a great power.”

Surely saying that ‘Russian should be allowed to have Ukraine’ is the same logic as saying that ‘China should be allowed to have Taiwan’? And what about the other superpowers (nuclear) that don’t want Russia to have Ukraine or China to have Taiwan? Are they the wrong/unrealistic sort of superpower?

Last edited 1 year ago by Dominic A
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What is screwed up is assuming the people in Ukraine and Taiwan don’t have a say in what happens to them, that they’re just slaves to be owned by “great powers”. That’s not at all realistic. The locals resist invaders for however long it takes for the invaders to run out of resources and will to try to stay.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

“Saying that Russia should be allowed to ‘have’ Ukraine because it is a great power is the same logic as saying that the US should stop China from taking Taiwan, because that is in the US interest as a great power.”

Surely saying that ‘Russian should be allowed to have Ukraine’ is the same logic as saying that ‘China should be allowed to have Taiwan’? And what about the other superpowers (nuclear) that don’t want Russia to have Ukraine or China to have Taiwan? Are they the wrong/unrealistic sort of superpower?

Last edited 1 year ago by Dominic A
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

That is part of the ‘realistic’ school of great power politics. Saying that Russia should be allowed to ‘have’ Ukraine because it is a great power is the same logic as saying that the US should stop China from taking Taiwan, because that is in the US interest as a great power. You cannot switch from raw power politics to morality when it suits you.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Mearsheimer’s apparent clarity of thought – a great, academic, impersonal critique of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine falls down when he dismisses the China/Taiwan scenario as completely different because it has a direct effect on the USA.

Being American, it is easy to be clear and impartial and professorial about Europe because it is away in the distance.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris W
Laurian
Laurian
1 year ago

I am surprised how little do people in the West understand Russia (or Ukraine for that matter). The comments reveal a lot of armchair Eastern European historians denying Mearsheimer’s knowledge on the subject of Great Powers. It reminds me of the attacks against Ioannidis because his take on Covid didn’t fit with the position promoted in early 2020 by some powerful officials with unclear (as seen then) interests. Haven’t we really learned anything from the recent past? Can we at least agree that Mearsheimer might be at least partially right?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Laurian

When exactly did you decide on Measheimer’s infallability and right to never be questioned? Probably about the time you decided to worship him as a god. Then you complain about OTHER people not learning anything from the past. lol

L BOER
L BOER
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Q.E.D.

L BOER
L BOER
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Q.E.D.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Laurian

No. He’s always wrong, and he’s spectacularly wrong on this. And his disdain for the democratically elected governments of eastern Europe and their understandable, historical fear of the Russian bear is as obvious as it is disgusting.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Laurian

When exactly did you decide on Measheimer’s infallability and right to never be questioned? Probably about the time you decided to worship him as a god. Then you complain about OTHER people not learning anything from the past. lol

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Laurian

No. He’s always wrong, and he’s spectacularly wrong on this. And his disdain for the democratically elected governments of eastern Europe and their understandable, historical fear of the Russian bear is as obvious as it is disgusting.

Laurian
Laurian
1 year ago

I am surprised how little do people in the West understand Russia (or Ukraine for that matter). The comments reveal a lot of armchair Eastern European historians denying Mearsheimer’s knowledge on the subject of Great Powers. It reminds me of the attacks against Ioannidis because his take on Covid didn’t fit with the position promoted in early 2020 by some powerful officials with unclear (as seen then) interests. Haven’t we really learned anything from the recent past? Can we at least agree that Mearsheimer might be at least partially right?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Freddie Sayers: “When I meet Mearsheimer, I am keen to focus on what we have learned since the February invasion began.”
I’m keen to understand what Mearsheimer has actually learned since the February invasion began. Nothing at all, ss far as I can determine. He is repeating the same nonsense he was back then. How an intelligent person can find nothing to learn from a year’s events in Ukraine astonishes me – I would be suspicious of anyone who has not learnt anything.
A year ago, I might have had a little sympathy for the Mearsheimer view that the West’s actions precipitated the crisis. But while we may have helped provided Russia with the opportunity to invade, the motive was Russian. It almost certainly would have happened at some point anyway.
And please stop using this ridiculous “realist” label for Mearsheimer. He’s the opposite of a realist.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Freddie Sayers: “When I meet Mearsheimer, I am keen to focus on what we have learned since the February invasion began.”
I’m keen to understand what Mearsheimer has actually learned since the February invasion began. Nothing at all, ss far as I can determine. He is repeating the same nonsense he was back then. How an intelligent person can find nothing to learn from a year’s events in Ukraine astonishes me – I would be suspicious of anyone who has not learnt anything.
A year ago, I might have had a little sympathy for the Mearsheimer view that the West’s actions precipitated the crisis. But while we may have helped provided Russia with the opportunity to invade, the motive was Russian. It almost certainly would have happened at some point anyway.
And please stop using this ridiculous “realist” label for Mearsheimer. He’s the opposite of a realist.

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago

‘To be a friend of the US can be dangerous, to be a friend is fatal’
H. Kissenger.
Oh boy will Europe learn how true that statement was, is and forever will be.
Even the deluded and bewildered are slowly beginning to realise that the US, in order to sustain it’s hegemony, wants to completely destroy the industrial base of Europe (think Nordstream!) and turn it into a cheap theme park for visiting Americans.
But failing that they’d settle to see it turned into a radioactive pile of rubble – anything to preserve the hegemony.

As another gracious and wise American – no less a person than Victoria Nuland – so pithely put it: ‘f**k the EU’.

(Sincere apologises to the more sensitive readers of Unherd for the crude language – it’s a word that would never pass my lips!)

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Aha, so are you working for Moscow rather than Beijing? Or just generally anti-west?

Sarolta Rónai
Sarolta Rónai
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What a truly original and constructive comment…

JJ JJ
JJ JJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

Yes Sarolta – agree, I was then on the other side tempted to ask if the Mr. Fogh is working for his father…
Put that aside – Mersheimer said it clearly that we live in a environment in the west, where rationale and argument doesn’t count – only the collective west hegemonic “rules based rule” can be considered. Else you are a person non grata…
Have we seen that before??

Last edited 1 year ago by JJ JJ
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

Well, last time I came across Mr P Branagan, he was absolutely horrified at “MSM’s constant repetition of US government propaganda about the false accusations of mistreatment by the Chinese government of the Muslim Uighers”. Here he all upset at US plans to destroy the industrial base of Europe. I do think those views are remarkable enough to make one wonder about what drives him. They are certainly so far out in left field that refuting them by argument would take a few thousand pages – and be futile besides.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

He does have a point, we aren’t helping them, so it is propaganda, on that same thread I shared a link to un whistle blowers, lady trying to help them through the un, finds out the UN ARE SENDING THEM BACK TO CHINA. Lady tries to stop it, the un send police out to her house. Whatever you want to back the war against China on, you might want to question what the bloody hell the un and our officials are playing at first. Un walked out on Russia and refused to negotiate. The un have much to answer for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0018ljw/the-whistleblowers-inside-the-un

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It may be propaganda – but the accusations are true, not false.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The accusations are true. So what. If we are sending them back, we can’t on the other hand pretend to be their saviour or pretend we care can we? We can’t go and liberate people we’ve just sent back from whence they came that’s just entirely stupid. So Branagan is correct, it’s just msm propaganda. If anything they are just a pawn in the game between us and China. The us is now playing saviour of the Muslim communities? Pull the other one.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

It’s all nonsense. The only industrial base that is getting destroyed is Russia’s.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

exactly.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian
Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

exactly.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian
Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The accusations are true. So what. If we are sending them back, we can’t on the other hand pretend to be their saviour or pretend we care can we? We can’t go and liberate people we’ve just sent back from whence they came that’s just entirely stupid. So Branagan is correct, it’s just msm propaganda. If anything they are just a pawn in the game between us and China. The us is now playing saviour of the Muslim communities? Pull the other one.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

It’s all nonsense. The only industrial base that is getting destroyed is Russia’s.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

This is more than incoherent, it’s also absurd. The “UN” walked out on Russia”??? what does that even mean? And what does the UN have to do with a Western response to Ukraine, or Ukraine at all? Ridiculous, incoherent nonsense.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm
Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm
Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It may be propaganda – but the accusations are true, not false.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

This is more than incoherent, it’s also absurd. The “UN” walked out on Russia”??? what does that even mean? And what does the UN have to do with a Western response to Ukraine, or Ukraine at all? Ridiculous, incoherent nonsense.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

He does have a point, we aren’t helping them, so it is propaganda, on that same thread I shared a link to un whistle blowers, lady trying to help them through the un, finds out the UN ARE SENDING THEM BACK TO CHINA. Lady tries to stop it, the un send police out to her house. Whatever you want to back the war against China on, you might want to question what the bloody hell the un and our officials are playing at first. Un walked out on Russia and refused to negotiate. The un have much to answer for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0018ljw/the-whistleblowers-inside-the-un

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

It was more constructive than the garbage it was responding to.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Ahhhh we are being targeted by over zealous Americans are we? Excellent I love a ruck.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Ahhhh we are being targeted by over zealous Americans are we? Excellent I love a ruck.

JJ JJ
JJ JJ
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

Yes Sarolta – agree, I was then on the other side tempted to ask if the Mr. Fogh is working for his father…
Put that aside – Mersheimer said it clearly that we live in a environment in the west, where rationale and argument doesn’t count – only the collective west hegemonic “rules based rule” can be considered. Else you are a person non grata…
Have we seen that before??

Last edited 1 year ago by JJ JJ
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

Well, last time I came across Mr P Branagan, he was absolutely horrified at “MSM’s constant repetition of US government propaganda about the false accusations of mistreatment by the Chinese government of the Muslim Uighers”. Here he all upset at US plans to destroy the industrial base of Europe. I do think those views are remarkable enough to make one wonder about what drives him. They are certainly so far out in left field that refuting them by argument would take a few thousand pages – and be futile besides.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Sarolta Rónai

It was more constructive than the garbage it was responding to.

Sarolta Rónai
Sarolta Rónai
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

What a truly original and constructive comment…

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Yes, the US is close to a practical maximum of what can be squeezed from the whole Ukrainian affair. There is no reason to spend more money on it. It might sound terrible for the EU on its way to -15% of GDP in a few years, but at least hot hostilities will end soon. Peace talks (Zelenski “forced” to sign the treaty by the greatest peace broker, the US). Collecting debt from Europe, Ukraine. Replenishing EU weapon arsenals for a good price. Selling LNG (for a great price). Selling chips to Russia. Importing a chunk of German industry in the US. Sucking brains. Done. Thanks, Ursula, great service.
I think there must be soon a number of books about all this with a subtitle “US f***s EU, version 3.0”

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

I would buy that book especially if you write it like that comment 🙂 brilliant.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It might make an interesting piece of fiction, but hardly brilliant.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I’ve never seen a critique of a hypothetical book before. Thanks, but I’d still hypothetically buy it.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I’ve never seen a critique of a hypothetical book before. Thanks, but I’d still hypothetically buy it.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Idjit 1 likes idjit 2.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Bet that took ages to come up with.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Bet that took ages to come up with.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It might make an interesting piece of fiction, but hardly brilliant.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Idjit 1 likes idjit 2.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

Quite an involed fantasy you have there. There never was any economic profit in giving Ukraine weapons. It was all about military strategy to defeat Putin’s dreams of conquest of the West before he got past Ukraine.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

What the heck would he want in the West (EU) anyway? That’s a totally whacko supposition.
The people there are indoctrinated by the woke mind virus, which the average Russian is not fond of. The few Russians that were, already went to Europe with their mostly stolen money from Russia. Did them no good, as the fine Europeans were happy to confiscate their money and yachts…They wont be missed in Russia neither.
There are also no noteworthy resources there in EU (hence Europe will freeze this winter which will probably get much worse in the next winters, and governments tell people to shower less, German industrialists are sounding the alarms that their industrial base will break away….)
What would Russia need that to invade for? To finance it…? Thanks, but NO, thanks is what the average Russian thinks.
Your constant comparison of Russia/Putin to Hitler is so hilarious, that I am astonished that you nevertheless might find a few dummies to believe such low IQ propaganda.
Look on the maps people: Russia has plenty of territory and all resources. Unlike Hitlers Germany it has no need for Lebensraum or (nonexistent) resources of EU.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

If they have all the territory they want, why invade Ukraine? If they are not doing it for territory, why would the same reasons not apply to the Baltic states or Moldova, once they had digested Ukraine?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Russia’s move into the country formerly known as Ukraine was obviously enforced by the Nato encroachment to Russian borders. Simple as that. And if the areas that Russia is going to keep were not inhabited by Russians/russophile people, they would not keep it either, just like when they entered and left Georgia in a few days, after Sackashvilli went militarily into Ossetia.
In the end of the day. imho, Russia will take all of the area known as Novorossia, e.g. all the south incl. the russian founded city of Odessa. Most probably all areas east of the Dnepr as well.
In the very unlikely case the Ukrainians with the support of their US puppet masters manage to fight Russia back, than they would, imho, EARN to keep these territories by paying it with blood. Because these territories have been paid for with mostly russian blood some 300 years ago when Russia took them from the slave-hunting khans, and only were gifted by the filthy communist apparatchiks to ukraine in the last century, without ever asking the Russians living there…

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Russia’s move into the country formerly known as Ukraine was obviously enforced by the Nato encroachment to Russian borders. Simple as that. And if the areas that Russia is going to keep were not inhabited by Russians/russophile people, they would not keep it either, just like when they entered and left Georgia in a few days, after Sackashvilli went militarily into Ossetia.
In the end of the day. imho, Russia will take all of the area known as Novorossia, e.g. all the south incl. the russian founded city of Odessa. Most probably all areas east of the Dnepr as well.
In the very unlikely case the Ukrainians with the support of their US puppet masters manage to fight Russia back, than they would, imho, EARN to keep these territories by paying it with blood. Because these territories have been paid for with mostly russian blood some 300 years ago when Russia took them from the slave-hunting khans, and only were gifted by the filthy communist apparatchiks to ukraine in the last century, without ever asking the Russians living there…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Then why are millions of Russians – particularly those with an education, profession (options, power) leaving the country, for the EU if they can; why is Russian one of the only developing countries with a shrinking population? For narcissistic sociopaths such as Putin the EU is a useful boogeyman to scare his people into backing him, and to justify his insecurity – for what Europe is to him, really, is living proof, a constant reminder of the catastrophic, deep failures of the USSR. To someone with his monstrous ego and perverted psychology, this cannot stand – the ‘messenger’ and the source of the message must be shot. This is also why he is destroying Ukraine – this cradle of Russian civilisation was increasingly disavowing it’s child in the East, and embracing it’s own, real deep kin in the West.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Dude,…
Basically ALL of EU has a defacto badly lower fertility among their indigenous population, than Russia (since Putin) has.
It is only the mostly Islamic immigrants, which keep the fertility up in some states of EU. So Europe is destined to become a Islamic region, which might easily turn out be a change for the better, considering Europe’s colonial past.
Have you ever looked into e.g. a German Kindergarden, its mayority are Turkish kids.

And just to give you some educational info:
Russia has more than 50% academics among grown up people, far more than the percentage of an average EU country…
And those leaving are anyway only mostly oligarchs and small wannabe oligarchs, which stole their money in the turbulent 90`s. Also among them are the few woke mind virus infected Russians,… few of those people are going to be missed in Russia, esp. the oligarchs.

Peter Thomsen
Peter Thomsen
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Tnx for saying the really UNHEARD message – that no ones like to debate or think about -bc its too brutal for the average feminized western population.

Peter Thomsen
Peter Thomsen
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Tnx for saying the really UNHEARD message – that no ones like to debate or think about -bc its too brutal for the average feminized western population.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Dude,…
Basically ALL of EU has a defacto badly lower fertility among their indigenous population, than Russia (since Putin) has.
It is only the mostly Islamic immigrants, which keep the fertility up in some states of EU. So Europe is destined to become a Islamic region, which might easily turn out be a change for the better, considering Europe’s colonial past.
Have you ever looked into e.g. a German Kindergarden, its mayority are Turkish kids.

And just to give you some educational info:
Russia has more than 50% academics among grown up people, far more than the percentage of an average EU country…
And those leaving are anyway only mostly oligarchs and small wannabe oligarchs, which stole their money in the turbulent 90`s. Also among them are the few woke mind virus infected Russians,… few of those people are going to be missed in Russia, esp. the oligarchs.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin is not bent on race-based genocide like Hitler was. But other than that, he shares 2 important characteristics with Hitler. 1-He’s a ruthless political operator, willing to murder his political opponents; and 2-He has territorial ambitions (Greater/Imperial Russia) and is willing to go to war to achieve them, much like Adolf and lebensraum.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

This impression is only possible to have, if you live in a world, where your information is extremely biased and synchronized propaganda, nowadays in addition to big tech censorship.
Soviet Pravda and other news was an amateurish propaganda when looking at current western synchronized news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI
In fact Putin is getting a lot of heat in Russia, because he was as patient and indifferent, watching Nato building up the Ukraine’s military potential for 8 Years, after they lost against two relatively small breakaway oblasts in addition to a handful Russian mercenaries. Putin is considered naive by many in Russia, trusting the French and German will honor their part of the Minsk peace agreements to pressure Ukraine to adhere to it,… which never happened for 8 years.

Peter Thomsen
Peter Thomsen
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Thanks Vojin for spending your time explaining some comments sense…
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Peter Thomsen
Peter Thomsen
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Thanks Vojin for spending your time explaining some comments sense…
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

This impression is only possible to have, if you live in a world, where your information is extremely biased and synchronized propaganda, nowadays in addition to big tech censorship.
Soviet Pravda and other news was an amateurish propaganda when looking at current western synchronized news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI
In fact Putin is getting a lot of heat in Russia, because he was as patient and indifferent, watching Nato building up the Ukraine’s military potential for 8 Years, after they lost against two relatively small breakaway oblasts in addition to a handful Russian mercenaries. Putin is considered naive by many in Russia, trusting the French and German will honor their part of the Minsk peace agreements to pressure Ukraine to adhere to it,… which never happened for 8 years.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

If they have all the territory they want, why invade Ukraine? If they are not doing it for territory, why would the same reasons not apply to the Baltic states or Moldova, once they had digested Ukraine?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Then why are millions of Russians – particularly those with an education, profession (options, power) leaving the country, for the EU if they can; why is Russian one of the only developing countries with a shrinking population? For narcissistic sociopaths such as Putin the EU is a useful boogeyman to scare his people into backing him, and to justify his insecurity – for what Europe is to him, really, is living proof, a constant reminder of the catastrophic, deep failures of the USSR. To someone with his monstrous ego and perverted psychology, this cannot stand – the ‘messenger’ and the source of the message must be shot. This is also why he is destroying Ukraine – this cradle of Russian civilisation was increasingly disavowing it’s child in the East, and embracing it’s own, real deep kin in the West.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

Putin is not bent on race-based genocide like Hitler was. But other than that, he shares 2 important characteristics with Hitler. 1-He’s a ruthless political operator, willing to murder his political opponents; and 2-He has territorial ambitions (Greater/Imperial Russia) and is willing to go to war to achieve them, much like Adolf and lebensraum.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

What the heck would he want in the West (EU) anyway? That’s a totally whacko supposition.
The people there are indoctrinated by the woke mind virus, which the average Russian is not fond of. The few Russians that were, already went to Europe with their mostly stolen money from Russia. Did them no good, as the fine Europeans were happy to confiscate their money and yachts…They wont be missed in Russia neither.
There are also no noteworthy resources there in EU (hence Europe will freeze this winter which will probably get much worse in the next winters, and governments tell people to shower less, German industrialists are sounding the alarms that their industrial base will break away….)
What would Russia need that to invade for? To finance it…? Thanks, but NO, thanks is what the average Russian thinks.
Your constant comparison of Russia/Putin to Hitler is so hilarious, that I am astonished that you nevertheless might find a few dummies to believe such low IQ propaganda.
Look on the maps people: Russia has plenty of territory and all resources. Unlike Hitlers Germany it has no need for Lebensraum or (nonexistent) resources of EU.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

…and yet even in that cynical world that you paint, things are, would be infintely better than under Putin, Xi and their ilk.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

You can be cynical about Americas strategies just as you can about China and Russia, it doesn’t demonstrate support for China or Russia, just a cynical attitude. America will do what it has to do to retain hegemony, they will do that at whatever the cost to Europe, they will have little choice but to be ruthless, its a war. Russia and China exactly the same. I’ve had enough of all of them personally.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

US is obviously trying, but alas, it is very doubtful, that the crumbling (see the disgraceful way, the retreat from Afghanistan happened) US empire has the capacity and resources to retain its hegemony.
Balance between powers in a multi-polar world might quite likely turn out to be a less bloody affair, than the short lived experiment of US uni-polar hegemony.
It is only from perspective of a person from US or its vassal states, that the horrors of this hegemony have not been immediately apparent.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

I should have written better, yes totally get that, I’m a big advocate for unshackling the UK from the big old sinking US ship myself, like to remind them over Afghanistan frequently 🙂 I think US hegemony is a bloody disaster. Unfortunately I think we are to closely tied now, and already embroiled. Doomed. Liked your posts above, good comments.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

One would have thought that “the horrors” of U.S. “hegemony” would be most apparent to “Its vassals.” If not them, then who?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Why exactly should that be the case, if they get a cut of the cake (of the extricated resources of their victims), for their obedience and for being an accomplice?
Remember, vassals are not the ones exploited in the first place, just the ones obedient to the hegemon. However they get pushed agendas down their throat, as the woke mind virus or the mandatory part of the “vaxination”, including “green passes” etc…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Why exactly should that be the case, if they get a cut of the cake (of the extricated resources of their victims), for their obedience and for being an accomplice?
Remember, vassals are not the ones exploited in the first place, just the ones obedient to the hegemon. However they get pushed agendas down their throat, as the woke mind virus or the mandatory part of the “vaxination”, including “green passes” etc…

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

I should have written better, yes totally get that, I’m a big advocate for unshackling the UK from the big old sinking US ship myself, like to remind them over Afghanistan frequently 🙂 I think US hegemony is a bloody disaster. Unfortunately I think we are to closely tied now, and already embroiled. Doomed. Liked your posts above, good comments.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

One would have thought that “the horrors” of U.S. “hegemony” would be most apparent to “Its vassals.” If not them, then who?

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

US is obviously trying, but alas, it is very doubtful, that the crumbling (see the disgraceful way, the retreat from Afghanistan happened) US empire has the capacity and resources to retain its hegemony.
Balance between powers in a multi-polar world might quite likely turn out to be a less bloody affair, than the short lived experiment of US uni-polar hegemony.
It is only from perspective of a person from US or its vassal states, that the horrors of this hegemony have not been immediately apparent.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Oh, I really wish I can hope so..

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

You can be cynical about Americas strategies just as you can about China and Russia, it doesn’t demonstrate support for China or Russia, just a cynical attitude. America will do what it has to do to retain hegemony, they will do that at whatever the cost to Europe, they will have little choice but to be ruthless, its a war. Russia and China exactly the same. I’ve had enough of all of them personally.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Oh, I really wish I can hope so..

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

I would buy that book especially if you write it like that comment 🙂 brilliant.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

Quite an involed fantasy you have there. There never was any economic profit in giving Ukraine weapons. It was all about military strategy to defeat Putin’s dreams of conquest of the West before he got past Ukraine.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

…and yet even in that cynical world that you paint, things are, would be infintely better than under Putin, Xi and their ilk.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

“To be a friend of the US can be dangerous, to be a friend is fatal’
H. Kissenger.”
As the late Saddam ‘Insane’ found to his cost.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

This seems to be the full quote. Talk about quoting out of context…

“Nixon should be told that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu (South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu—ed.) before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

See https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Kissinger-once-say-To-be-an-enemy-of-the-US-is-dangerous-but-to-be-a-friend-is-fatal

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Thank you.
However the original still fits Saddam, particularly when one considers all the help he gave ‘us’ in dealing with the completely loony Ayatollahs!

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago

Funny thing that the Iranian people preferred the loony Ayatollahs over the Western puppet Shah…
Thats what you get, when you kill a democracy to steal the countries oil on the cheap.
You should have left Mossadegh, the legal prime minister alone.
From Wikipedia:
“Mohammad Mosaddegh… the 35th Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, … until his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état aided by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (MI6) and the United States (CIA).”
In the long run it neither worked out well then, nor will it now after your instigated Maidan coup…

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

“Funny thing that the Iranian people preferred the loony Ayatollahs over the Western puppet Shah…”

…and now it seems they’d have him back. All powers manipulate and influence where they can in their interests, of course. The greater the power, the greater the manipulation. It’s what people do Vojin. The Americans have plenty of losses on their scorecard, but they still look positively angelic, heroic, when compared with the USSR, CCP or British Empires, or most of the also rans.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

LOL…(Facepalm)

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

LOL…(Facepalm)

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

And now the Iranians can only wish they had the authoritarian Shah rather than the totalitarian Mullahs.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Probably a minority does very vehemently wish so.
But what about the democratic Mossadegh who was overthrown by US/UK to basically steal Iranian Oil, which led to the Iranians to gather around the Ayatollahs in the first place, just to throw the Western puppet out? Care to elaborate?
People seemingly dont like being ripped off, and support any domestic radical political group over quislings who sell the country out, just like the Venezuelans who choose the communists over US puppets, though communism has been shown by historical evidence to be the wrong path.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Probably a minority does very vehemently wish so.
But what about the democratic Mossadegh who was overthrown by US/UK to basically steal Iranian Oil, which led to the Iranians to gather around the Ayatollahs in the first place, just to throw the Western puppet out? Care to elaborate?
People seemingly dont like being ripped off, and support any domestic radical political group over quislings who sell the country out, just like the Venezuelans who choose the communists over US puppets, though communism has been shown by historical evidence to be the wrong path.

Last edited 1 year ago by Vojin Subasic
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

“Funny thing that the Iranian people preferred the loony Ayatollahs over the Western puppet Shah…”

…and now it seems they’d have him back. All powers manipulate and influence where they can in their interests, of course. The greater the power, the greater the manipulation. It’s what people do Vojin. The Americans have plenty of losses on their scorecard, but they still look positively angelic, heroic, when compared with the USSR, CCP or British Empires, or most of the also rans.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

And now the Iranians can only wish they had the authoritarian Shah rather than the totalitarian Mullahs.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago

Funny thing that the Iranian people preferred the loony Ayatollahs over the Western puppet Shah…
Thats what you get, when you kill a democracy to steal the countries oil on the cheap.
You should have left Mossadegh, the legal prime minister alone.
From Wikipedia:
“Mohammad Mosaddegh… the 35th Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, … until his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état aided by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (MI6) and the United States (CIA).”
In the long run it neither worked out well then, nor will it now after your instigated Maidan coup…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Thank you.
However the original still fits Saddam, particularly when one considers all the help he gave ‘us’ in dealing with the completely loony Ayatollahs!

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

As if Saddam was ever a friend of the U.S.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

This seems to be the full quote. Talk about quoting out of context…

“Nixon should be told that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu (South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu—ed.) before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

See https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Kissinger-once-say-To-be-an-enemy-of-the-US-is-dangerous-but-to-be-a-friend-is-fatal

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

As if Saddam was ever a friend of the U.S.

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Correction … “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous …”.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Europeans are acting on one of the very foundations of Real Politik: no single power dominates in Europe.
The idea that the US somehow “pulls the strings” in the EU, NATO or Ukraine is fatuous. When European interests are threatened, they can be as hard-nosed as any hegemon.
NATO was almost a dead letter until the invasion. Putin is the only reason that everyone is acting in concert now.
And when this is over, they will all go back to the normal feuding.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I am truly astonished at your (touching) naivety.
The EU was simply pathetic over recent Yugoslav Wars, its abject failure was an excruciating embarrassment. Hegemon indeed!

NATO in case you haven’t noticed, is virtually another branch of the US military. True there are other ‘pygmy’ members such as our good selves, but the firepower lies with the US. The rest is just a rather fatuous charade. No wonder Trump considered ending it.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Trump’s only reason for trying to weaken NATO was to please his benefactor, Putin.Without Russian mafia patronage, Trump would have lost his shirt.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

There are still people believing the Russia hoax?
In earnest? You don’t instantly ridicule yourself with such a reference???
Wowser!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

And there you go. You blow the credibility of everything you say from here on.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

There are still people believing the Russia hoax?
In earnest? You don’t instantly ridicule yourself with such a reference???
Wowser!

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

And there you go. You blow the credibility of everything you say from here on.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago

Well that is a bit too harsh a statement. Regardless if there definitely are several “sunshine” members of the club, which would jump ship if the going gets tough, NATO still has value to US for its intended goals. (Keep US in Europe, the Russians out and most importantly: the Germans down.)
It basically is a self financing foreign legion to push trough US interests.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Trump’s only reason for trying to weaken NATO was to please his benefactor, Putin.Without Russian mafia patronage, Trump would have lost his shirt.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago

Well that is a bit too harsh a statement. Regardless if there definitely are several “sunshine” members of the club, which would jump ship if the going gets tough, NATO still has value to US for its intended goals. (Keep US in Europe, the Russians out and most importantly: the Germans down.)
It basically is a self financing foreign legion to push trough US interests.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Undoubtedly. People always unite against a common enemy. Putin has done a fantastic job of revitalizing NATO.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I am truly astonished at your (touching) naivety.
The EU was simply pathetic over recent Yugoslav Wars, its abject failure was an excruciating embarrassment. Hegemon indeed!

NATO in case you haven’t noticed, is virtually another branch of the US military. True there are other ‘pygmy’ members such as our good selves, but the firepower lies with the US. The rest is just a rather fatuous charade. No wonder Trump considered ending it.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Undoubtedly. People always unite against a common enemy. Putin has done a fantastic job of revitalizing NATO.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Why make up this nonsense? Do you really think anyone will believe that they should ally with Russia instead? lol

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Tell that to Singapore, South Korea and many, many other countries who’ve thrived as US allies and friends. The US is far from perfect, but the alternatives are all worse.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

what a load of rubbish. “Europe WILL learn”????? Europe has been learning since 1945, and what it’s learned is the opposite of what you are claiming. The U.S. helped Europe get back on its feet after WWII (Marshalll Plan) and then defended Europe from the Soviets until the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Oh, and if Victoria Nuland said it, it must be true of the U.S. government and military.
Another Putin bootlicker. (I know people are downvoting me for repeatedly saying that, but in each case it happens to be true, if inelegant.)

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Aha, so are you working for Moscow rather than Beijing? Or just generally anti-west?

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Yes, the US is close to a practical maximum of what can be squeezed from the whole Ukrainian affair. There is no reason to spend more money on it. It might sound terrible for the EU on its way to -15% of GDP in a few years, but at least hot hostilities will end soon. Peace talks (Zelenski “forced” to sign the treaty by the greatest peace broker, the US). Collecting debt from Europe, Ukraine. Replenishing EU weapon arsenals for a good price. Selling LNG (for a great price). Selling chips to Russia. Importing a chunk of German industry in the US. Sucking brains. Done. Thanks, Ursula, great service.
I think there must be soon a number of books about all this with a subtitle “US f***s EU, version 3.0”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

“To be a friend of the US can be dangerous, to be a friend is fatal’
H. Kissenger.”
As the late Saddam ‘Insane’ found to his cost.

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Correction … “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous …”.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Europeans are acting on one of the very foundations of Real Politik: no single power dominates in Europe.
The idea that the US somehow “pulls the strings” in the EU, NATO or Ukraine is fatuous. When European interests are threatened, they can be as hard-nosed as any hegemon.
NATO was almost a dead letter until the invasion. Putin is the only reason that everyone is acting in concert now.
And when this is over, they will all go back to the normal feuding.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Why make up this nonsense? Do you really think anyone will believe that they should ally with Russia instead? lol

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Tell that to Singapore, South Korea and many, many other countries who’ve thrived as US allies and friends. The US is far from perfect, but the alternatives are all worse.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

what a load of rubbish. “Europe WILL learn”????? Europe has been learning since 1945, and what it’s learned is the opposite of what you are claiming. The U.S. helped Europe get back on its feet after WWII (Marshalll Plan) and then defended Europe from the Soviets until the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Oh, and if Victoria Nuland said it, it must be true of the U.S. government and military.
Another Putin bootlicker. (I know people are downvoting me for repeatedly saying that, but in each case it happens to be true, if inelegant.)

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago

‘To be a friend of the US can be dangerous, to be a friend is fatal’
H. Kissenger.
Oh boy will Europe learn how true that statement was, is and forever will be.
Even the deluded and bewildered are slowly beginning to realise that the US, in order to sustain it’s hegemony, wants to completely destroy the industrial base of Europe (think Nordstream!) and turn it into a cheap theme park for visiting Americans.
But failing that they’d settle to see it turned into a radioactive pile of rubble – anything to preserve the hegemony.

As another gracious and wise American – no less a person than Victoria Nuland – so pithely put it: ‘f**k the EU’.

(Sincere apologises to the more sensitive readers of Unherd for the crude language – it’s a word that would never pass my lips!)

Larry Stevens
Larry Stevens
1 year ago

RU is now a gas station and a wheat farm with nukes. It is undergoing a rapid demographic implosion with no way out (nobody will immigrate there). It is becoming a vassal to CN with no way out of that either.
The only nuclear scenario is for Putin (or his replacement) to go mad. Not impossible, but vanishingly small likelihood. What would it gain? UKR would fight on. NATO would annihilate RU’s forces in UKR with conventional force from the air. CN, IN, etc., would abandon RU, cutting off its financial lifeline.
As long as the missiles, etc., keep coming from NATO, RU has no way to win. The only other variables are how much death, destruction, and time are part of that.

Larry Stevens
Larry Stevens
1 year ago

RU is now a gas station and a wheat farm with nukes. It is undergoing a rapid demographic implosion with no way out (nobody will immigrate there). It is becoming a vassal to CN with no way out of that either.
The only nuclear scenario is for Putin (or his replacement) to go mad. Not impossible, but vanishingly small likelihood. What would it gain? UKR would fight on. NATO would annihilate RU’s forces in UKR with conventional force from the air. CN, IN, etc., would abandon RU, cutting off its financial lifeline.
As long as the missiles, etc., keep coming from NATO, RU has no way to win. The only other variables are how much death, destruction, and time are part of that.

renemartin121
renemartin121
1 year ago

If it wasn’t for the fact that many experts have been warning for decades that moving US/NATO armies right onto Russia’s borders would lead to conflict, one would almost believe the US narrative that this was an ‘unprovoked’ attack.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  renemartin121

It was Russia that moved its armies across Ukraine’s borders. Now Putin really will have NATO on his borders, because every other unaligned country is rushing to join NATO to keep him out. Don’t you have any understanding of reality? If Putin had planned to strengthen NATO on purpose, he couldn’t have done a better job.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  renemartin121

I think we’re in danger of conflating motive with opportunity here. Russia clearly always had the motivation. Western actions may have provided a convenient opportunity – but the Russians would have found one sooner or later regardless.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  renemartin121

It was Russia that moved its armies across Ukraine’s borders. Now Putin really will have NATO on his borders, because every other unaligned country is rushing to join NATO to keep him out. Don’t you have any understanding of reality? If Putin had planned to strengthen NATO on purpose, he couldn’t have done a better job.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  renemartin121

I think we’re in danger of conflating motive with opportunity here. Russia clearly always had the motivation. Western actions may have provided a convenient opportunity – but the Russians would have found one sooner or later regardless.

renemartin121
renemartin121
1 year ago

If it wasn’t for the fact that many experts have been warning for decades that moving US/NATO armies right onto Russia’s borders would lead to conflict, one would almost believe the US narrative that this was an ‘unprovoked’ attack.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

Extremely interesting! But the Professor is out-of-date with the UK position regarding Ukraine. Boris Johnston aggressively backed the US but the present PM said nothing at the last PMQs about Ukraine (and was not pressed to do so by the MPs) and the week before he said that we were sending humanitarian and social aid and three helicopters..
Besides this cooling off by the UK, President Biden now favours a peace settlement but won’t force Ukraine to agree to this.
The large EU countries are silent but are they still sending military hardware? No word about that in the media and without weapons arriving regularly from the West, Ukraine cannot continue with the war.
A peace settlement is inevitable.
.
..

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

Extremely interesting! But the Professor is out-of-date with the UK position regarding Ukraine. Boris Johnston aggressively backed the US but the present PM said nothing at the last PMQs about Ukraine (and was not pressed to do so by the MPs) and the week before he said that we were sending humanitarian and social aid and three helicopters..
Besides this cooling off by the UK, President Biden now favours a peace settlement but won’t force Ukraine to agree to this.
The large EU countries are silent but are they still sending military hardware? No word about that in the media and without weapons arriving regularly from the West, Ukraine cannot continue with the war.
A peace settlement is inevitable.
.
..

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

One thing to highlight here, as has been pointed out before in Unherd, is that this war is as much about Germany as it’s about Russia. Much like the Iraq war was more about China than anything Iraq did. That was a typical American op. Brilliant on the battlefield, clueless once the guns stop firing. That’s how China unwittingly ended up winning that one pushing them into the peer status today. We’ll see how this war unfolds.
Having said that I’m also wondering whether the Woke establishment in US is finding it easier to feel a closer kinship with China than Russia. China is an expert led, socially controlled society ruled by a party of enlightened elites who have an intellectual heritage that’s rooted in social justice ideas. Basically China is not all that far away from the kind of system the Woke would create if pesky conservatives and (classical) liberals wouldn’t keep getting in their way. The American elite may therefore be finding it easier to imagine an accommodation with China than an alliance with Russia.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

One thing to highlight here, as has been pointed out before in Unherd, is that this war is as much about Germany as it’s about Russia. Much like the Iraq war was more about China than anything Iraq did. That was a typical American op. Brilliant on the battlefield, clueless once the guns stop firing. That’s how China unwittingly ended up winning that one pushing them into the peer status today. We’ll see how this war unfolds.
Having said that I’m also wondering whether the Woke establishment in US is finding it easier to feel a closer kinship with China than Russia. China is an expert led, socially controlled society ruled by a party of enlightened elites who have an intellectual heritage that’s rooted in social justice ideas. Basically China is not all that far away from the kind of system the Woke would create if pesky conservatives and (classical) liberals wouldn’t keep getting in their way. The American elite may therefore be finding it easier to imagine an accommodation with China than an alliance with Russia.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

Faulting NATO expansion (and trampling Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990’s by vilifying only the Serbs in a war in which all sides committed atrocities, and fomenting “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments, even legitimately elected ones) for Russian revanchism is sound historical analysis, even as faulting the treatment of Germany at Versailles for the German revanchism that crystalized in the Nazis coming to power is sound historical analysis.
Unfortunately by 2022 (1939) this was irrelevant, the West still has (had) to defeat Putin (Hitler).

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

They do now. Hitler didn’t stop with Austria, and Putin won’t stop with Ukraine in the unlikely event that he has a chance to be victorious there under present circumstances.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

All correct, except the last sentence.
The last sentence is valid only, if the West (=US) wants to keep its Hegemony as uni-polar superpower over the world.
I doubt very much, however, that it would succeed in keeping it for long, even in a extremely unlikely case, that it indeed could subdue Russia now.
US is a crumbling superpower, regardless of the situation with regards to Russia. It did not last long, compared to earlier hegemons, but its light burnt quite intensely as long as it lasted.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The USA is far from finished. The crumbled superpower is Russia. Chinese economic and demographic power relative to the US has probably peaked now. I’m as prone to rooting for the underdog and disliking the top dog as much as anyone, but we need to be realistic.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

US is definitively not yet finished, but as I said it is very obviously crumbling as a superpower (see the disgraceful way they exited Afghanistan), with massive internal problems and a EXTREMELY polarized population, which are quite intolerant to each other. So even a new US civil war is not very unlikely with a possible separation of some states from the Union.
Not a good outlook for US hegemony, a C- maybe at best

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

US is definitively not yet finished, but as I said it is very obviously crumbling as a superpower (see the disgraceful way they exited Afghanistan), with massive internal problems and a EXTREMELY polarized population, which are quite intolerant to each other. So even a new US civil war is not very unlikely with a possible separation of some states from the Union.
Not a good outlook for US hegemony, a C- maybe at best

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Vojin Subasic

The USA is far from finished. The crumbled superpower is Russia. Chinese economic and demographic power relative to the US has probably peaked now. I’m as prone to rooting for the underdog and disliking the top dog as much as anyone, but we need to be realistic.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

They do now. Hitler didn’t stop with Austria, and Putin won’t stop with Ukraine in the unlikely event that he has a chance to be victorious there under present circumstances.

Vojin Subasic
Vojin Subasic
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

All correct, except the last sentence.
The last sentence is valid only, if the West (=US) wants to keep its Hegemony as uni-polar superpower over the world.
I doubt very much, however, that it would succeed in keeping it for long, even in a extremely unlikely case, that it indeed could subdue Russia now.
US is a crumbling superpower, regardless of the situation with regards to Russia. It did not last long, compared to earlier hegemons, but its light burnt quite intensely as long as it lasted.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

Faulting NATO expansion (and trampling Russian interests in the Balkans in the 1990’s by vilifying only the Serbs in a war in which all sides committed atrocities, and fomenting “color revolutions” to overthrow pro-Russian governments, even legitimately elected ones) for Russian revanchism is sound historical analysis, even as faulting the treatment of Germany at Versailles for the German revanchism that crystalized in the Nazis coming to power is sound historical analysis.
Unfortunately by 2022 (1939) this was irrelevant, the West still has (had) to defeat Putin (Hitler).

John Dewhirst
John Dewhirst
1 year ago

It’s pretty difficult to disagree with the assessment. Similar sentiment is being expressed by former US general, Douglas Macgregor on YouTube and all of it points the same way that the west is stuffed and that ultimately Russia will ‘prevail’. Even if the west can avoid nuclear confrontation the likelihood is that western standards of living are going to take one heck of a jolt and in turn that has big implications for political stability. MacGregor is arguing that Russian is going to go on the counter offensive this winter with its forces boosted by mobilisation. Things could start moving pretty fast before we know it.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dewhirst

i like macgregor and what he says makes perfect sense however i don’t know if he’s accurate since he’s been assuming that russia will lower the boom since october.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dewhirst

i like macgregor and what he says makes perfect sense however i don’t know if he’s accurate since he’s been assuming that russia will lower the boom since october.

John Dewhirst
John Dewhirst
1 year ago

It’s pretty difficult to disagree with the assessment. Similar sentiment is being expressed by former US general, Douglas Macgregor on YouTube and all of it points the same way that the west is stuffed and that ultimately Russia will ‘prevail’. Even if the west can avoid nuclear confrontation the likelihood is that western standards of living are going to take one heck of a jolt and in turn that has big implications for political stability. MacGregor is arguing that Russian is going to go on the counter offensive this winter with its forces boosted by mobilisation. Things could start moving pretty fast before we know it.

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago

A CURE FOR “SUNDAY SCHOOL ACTIVISTS”
Would Ukrainian membership in NATO be a threat to Russia? Yes, in the following ways:
1)     If there is no invasion into Russia planned today, how can you exclude, say a 10 percent risk, in 10 or 20 years?
2)     Even if you disregard point 1, international power is not only about invasion. “A Western Bulwark on Russia’s border” would to some extent weaken Russia in almost every international context you can think of: new sailing regulations in the Arctic, searching for oil in eastern parts of the European subcontinent, disputes with Japan over pacific islands, disputes with Norway over sea and sea bottom resources, disputes in space and in cyberspace – wherever. When state leaders and representatives meet, their military power is always on their badge.
3)     It would not be wise to disregard both 1 and 2. But even if you would, there is the danger of “cultural attack”. Why do we see Hollywood films? Is that because they are good, or because we rely on American nuclear deterrence? Hard to say, when films and deterrence protection have come from the same direction all your life. Russian leaders probably fear any colour revolution in their neighbourhood and perhaps in Russia itself, but they will not use that as an argument. We should, however, acknowledge that as an argument and have some respect for it.
Or would you rather take point 3 as a reason FOR defending Ukraine and perhaps hoping for a wider proliferation of colours and Western liberalism? Or are you not quite sure of Disney’s cultural superiority and try to get rid of the uncertainty by disliking Russia? Or worse: Do you fear that Western liberalism is emptier of real values than blossoming with it – and have accidentally redirected the fear to Russia?
If you should happen to be a zealous promotor of liberalism and at the same time deeply in doubt, deeply empty of real values, and therefore also deeply careless, please try to sort it out. Don’t drag me and everybody else into a “non-trivial” risk of nuclear extinction.
If you are not, perhaps you know of leaders & followers who are. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Arild Brock
Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Arild Brock

I agree with your analysis but I can surely make it much more condensed:
— and this also answers many gents here saying “NATO is not a threat to Russia” things. —
I does not matter what we think. What the West thinks. What NATO thinks about it. If Russians think they are threatened by NATO this is it. No words can sway that, no arguments. Justified by our means or not. No F. Matter.
If I think my neighbor is going to kill my family, and even I am totally wrong about it or crazy and absolutely lunatic.. my actions will be lined accordingly to my view on that (until the police arrives at least).

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

Thank you for your answer. Like Mearsheimer you say that it does not matter what we think. For the Russians it only matters what the Russians think. You push this point almost to extremes by your comparison with someone who is “totally wrong … or crazy and absolutely lunatic”.
I don’t know if Mearsheimer focus on this point for purely “pedagogical” reasons, hoping that at least this can bring the West to more self-restraint. But on my part, I will contend that it is better to go a step further, in the following way:
It does matter what we think – firstly about ourselves. Of course, the Russians read Western media. If we think we are simply the good guys, Russia will notice.
It does matter what we think – secondly about Russia. If we think Russia simply are the bad guys, Russia will notice.
Moreover, if the Russians see that Mearsheimer is the only person in the West who now pays attention to the Monroe Doctrine, the Russians will notice. If the Russians see that the statement given by the US Secretary of State ca. 1990 – about stopping NATO growing Eastwards after including EAST GERMANY (by reuniting Germany) – is completely forgotten in the West, the Russians will notice.
You could go on like this. My point, however, can be shortened to the following: There is an objective reality, including history, and both parties should pay some respect to that. But if the Russians see, that the West has gone completely postmodern and accept no objective reality, at least the military remains objective. Is that the only language we understand? We have closed down Russian media in the West.
“It does not matter what we think” is an emergency approach. It basically sees the other party as a thing – crazy or not, it does not matter. However, anything in the direction of peace requires that both parties see each other as a responsible subject, at least to some degree. We must try to understand and respect Russia, as a “bonus” thereby also understanding and respecting ourselves more. 

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy E

Thank you for your answer. Like Mearsheimer you say that it does not matter what we think. For the Russians it only matters what the Russians think. You push this point almost to extremes by your comparison with someone who is “totally wrong … or crazy and absolutely lunatic”.
I don’t know if Mearsheimer focus on this point for purely “pedagogical” reasons, hoping that at least this can bring the West to more self-restraint. But on my part, I will contend that it is better to go a step further, in the following way:
It does matter what we think – firstly about ourselves. Of course, the Russians read Western media. If we think we are simply the good guys, Russia will notice.
It does matter what we think – secondly about Russia. If we think Russia simply are the bad guys, Russia will notice.
Moreover, if the Russians see that Mearsheimer is the only person in the West who now pays attention to the Monroe Doctrine, the Russians will notice. If the Russians see that the statement given by the US Secretary of State ca. 1990 – about stopping NATO growing Eastwards after including EAST GERMANY (by reuniting Germany) – is completely forgotten in the West, the Russians will notice.
You could go on like this. My point, however, can be shortened to the following: There is an objective reality, including history, and both parties should pay some respect to that. But if the Russians see, that the West has gone completely postmodern and accept no objective reality, at least the military remains objective. Is that the only language we understand? We have closed down Russian media in the West.
“It does not matter what we think” is an emergency approach. It basically sees the other party as a thing – crazy or not, it does not matter. However, anything in the direction of peace requires that both parties see each other as a responsible subject, at least to some degree. We must try to understand and respect Russia, as a “bonus” thereby also understanding and respecting ourselves more. 

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  Arild Brock

I agree with your analysis but I can surely make it much more condensed:
— and this also answers many gents here saying “NATO is not a threat to Russia” things. —
I does not matter what we think. What the West thinks. What NATO thinks about it. If Russians think they are threatened by NATO this is it. No words can sway that, no arguments. Justified by our means or not. No F. Matter.
If I think my neighbor is going to kill my family, and even I am totally wrong about it or crazy and absolutely lunatic.. my actions will be lined accordingly to my view on that (until the police arrives at least).

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago

A CURE FOR “SUNDAY SCHOOL ACTIVISTS”
Would Ukrainian membership in NATO be a threat to Russia? Yes, in the following ways:
1)     If there is no invasion into Russia planned today, how can you exclude, say a 10 percent risk, in 10 or 20 years?
2)     Even if you disregard point 1, international power is not only about invasion. “A Western Bulwark on Russia’s border” would to some extent weaken Russia in almost every international context you can think of: new sailing regulations in the Arctic, searching for oil in eastern parts of the European subcontinent, disputes with Japan over pacific islands, disputes with Norway over sea and sea bottom resources, disputes in space and in cyberspace – wherever. When state leaders and representatives meet, their military power is always on their badge.
3)     It would not be wise to disregard both 1 and 2. But even if you would, there is the danger of “cultural attack”. Why do we see Hollywood films? Is that because they are good, or because we rely on American nuclear deterrence? Hard to say, when films and deterrence protection have come from the same direction all your life. Russian leaders probably fear any colour revolution in their neighbourhood and perhaps in Russia itself, but they will not use that as an argument. We should, however, acknowledge that as an argument and have some respect for it.
Or would you rather take point 3 as a reason FOR defending Ukraine and perhaps hoping for a wider proliferation of colours and Western liberalism? Or are you not quite sure of Disney’s cultural superiority and try to get rid of the uncertainty by disliking Russia? Or worse: Do you fear that Western liberalism is emptier of real values than blossoming with it – and have accidentally redirected the fear to Russia?
If you should happen to be a zealous promotor of liberalism and at the same time deeply in doubt, deeply empty of real values, and therefore also deeply careless, please try to sort it out. Don’t drag me and everybody else into a “non-trivial” risk of nuclear extinction.
If you are not, perhaps you know of leaders & followers who are. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Arild Brock
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

It’s a thought-provoking article for sure, but I simply don’t buy the notion that Russia “wasn’t really” aiming to take Kiev in the early stages of the war. There seems to be a surprising amount of goodwill to towards Russia by Western commentators in the extent to which they are prepared to help Russia save face on this.

I’ve read both sides of the debate on this and my view is that Russia decided it would be easy to take the whole of Ukraine but failed come even close to it, through colossal errors of strategic judgement. That is what it looked like at the time, and nothing has emerged since to change my mind on it.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

“colossal errors of strategic judgement” ?
We do not know how close the Ukrainian government was to taking a different direction, though. Maersheimer says that Boris Johnson was actively involved via the embassy in Instanbul, and I guess he relies on open sources in this question.
This war seems to be a new combination of “proxy” and “local”. “Help” is no longer just help when it exceeds a certain level.
30 % of the Ukrainian poulation has fled. Do schools operate? Are the teachers at home or in Polen? And the pupils?
It seems an extremely weird situation. The land is turned into a battlefield. Was that a “collossal error of strategic judgment” too? Or did Zelensky, Johnson and Biden take that into acount?
Any war will bring the partcipants to think in black and white. If one party wins clearly, one of the two black-and-white versons will prevail.
But why do everyone in the West, except Maersheimer, also see the conflict in black and white? Why is Maersheimer the only one who rememeber the Cuba crises and the Monroe Doctrine? Proably because it is our war.
The developers of weaponry always soght beeing able to hit the enemy from a comfortable distance. The 30 NATO member countries have now found the perfect solution.
Unless another colossal error of strategic judgement should surface …

Arild Brock
Arild Brock
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

“colossal errors of strategic judgement” ?
We do not know how close the Ukrainian government was to taking a different direction, though. Maersheimer says that Boris Johnson was actively involved via the embassy in Instanbul, and I guess he relies on open sources in this question.
This war seems to be a new combination of “proxy” and “local”. “Help” is no longer just help when it exceeds a certain level.
30 % of the Ukrainian poulation has fled. Do schools operate? Are the teachers at home or in Polen? And the pupils?
It seems an extremely weird situation. The land is turned into a battlefield. Was that a “collossal error of strategic judgment” too? Or did Zelensky, Johnson and Biden take that into acount?
Any war will bring the partcipants to think in black and white. If one party wins clearly, one of the two black-and-white versons will prevail.
But why do everyone in the West, except Maersheimer, also see the conflict in black and white? Why is Maersheimer the only one who rememeber the Cuba crises and the Monroe Doctrine? Proably because it is our war.
The developers of weaponry always soght beeing able to hit the enemy from a comfortable distance. The 30 NATO member countries have now found the perfect solution.
Unless another colossal error of strategic judgement should surface …

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

It’s a thought-provoking article for sure, but I simply don’t buy the notion that Russia “wasn’t really” aiming to take Kiev in the early stages of the war. There seems to be a surprising amount of goodwill to towards Russia by Western commentators in the extent to which they are prepared to help Russia save face on this.

I’ve read both sides of the debate on this and my view is that Russia decided it would be easy to take the whole of Ukraine but failed come even close to it, through colossal errors of strategic judgement. That is what it looked like at the time, and nothing has emerged since to change my mind on it.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Steve Cobb
Steve Cobb
1 year ago

Questions for John Mearsheimer: Was there something that Russia could have done differently? For example, could Russia have made itself an attractive model, so that young Ukrainians aspired to be closer to Russia than to Europe? Could Russia have made its neighbors less fearful and keen to join NATO? Or is Russia’s agency limited to responding to NATO?

Steve Cobb
Steve Cobb
1 year ago

Questions for John Mearsheimer: Was there something that Russia could have done differently? For example, could Russia have made itself an attractive model, so that young Ukrainians aspired to be closer to Russia than to Europe? Could Russia have made its neighbors less fearful and keen to join NATO? Or is Russia’s agency limited to responding to NATO?

El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

I’m fine with Mearsheimer. For him, 40 million Ukrainians are just pawns on a chessboard.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

Pawns that fight like lions. Sure.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

And this is one of his major weaknesses. It’s all theoretical for him (as he says, he’s an academic). He doesn’t seem to account for people and human factors. Whether Putin can be trusted doesn’t even seem to be a relevant question for him.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

he certainly doesn’t give an iota for the democratic wishes of the populations in the countries he’s happy to throw under the Russian bus.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

he certainly doesn’t give an iota for the democratic wishes of the populations in the countries he’s happy to throw under the Russian bus.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

Pawns that fight like lions. Sure.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

And this is one of his major weaknesses. It’s all theoretical for him (as he says, he’s an academic). He doesn’t seem to account for people and human factors. Whether Putin can be trusted doesn’t even seem to be a relevant question for him.

El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

I’m fine with Mearsheimer. For him, 40 million Ukrainians are just pawns on a chessboard.

Maria Armstrong
Maria Armstrong
1 year ago

Lots of waffle … but, like Russia or hate Russia, the fact is that outside of NATO/Europe most of the world´s countries support Russia. The west is in rapid economic, social and morale decline and will be left to rot as the BRICS and others develop their futures free from fear of Western sanctions and NATO attack – and with plentiful supplies of Russian energy resources. Looks increasingly like a cold, hungry winter that Europe has joyfully, virtue signaled for its self.

Maria Armstrong
Maria Armstrong
1 year ago

Lots of waffle … but, like Russia or hate Russia, the fact is that outside of NATO/Europe most of the world´s countries support Russia. The west is in rapid economic, social and morale decline and will be left to rot as the BRICS and others develop their futures free from fear of Western sanctions and NATO attack – and with plentiful supplies of Russian energy resources. Looks increasingly like a cold, hungry winter that Europe has joyfully, virtue signaled for its self.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
1 year ago

The key problem in all of our relations with Russia since 1991 was the unstated intention among the key US policy-makers to pursue numerous basic Cold War aims to their endpoint unilaterally, as happened. And the fact that a fully integrated Europe would have spelled the end of the US’s global geopolitical position. That is, losing the Cold War. Hence NATO was kept alive, as tge Cato Institute has maintained, as a ‘Dangerous Dinosaur.’ But here we are, seeking to pin it on one “mad Kaiser.” As in the discredited WWI wartime propaganda account. The second major “Avoidable War.”

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

Good interview.
By the rationale discussed, what happens if the US is staring at a defeat in Ukraine? Will the US use nuclear weapons to stave off defeat? The threshold for the US to use nukes far away from its borders is far lower than for Russia to use it on or near territory it considers its own.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

Given Russia’s wholesale destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, I can’t see Putin holding back on nuclear weapons just because he wants Ukraine in his orbit. He wants Ukraine, functioning society or smouldering wreck.is immaterial.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

The thing holding Putin back is fear of retaliation. Also fear of the radiation blowing back into Russia and killing millions in Moscow, which isn’t very far away. If he wants a worthless, smoldering wreck, that’s his insanity.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

The thing holding Putin back is fear of retaliation. Also fear of the radiation blowing back into Russia and killing millions in Moscow, which isn’t very far away. If he wants a worthless, smoldering wreck, that’s his insanity.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

The U.S. is not at war in Ukraine. It is just giving weapons to Ukraine’s soldiers, who are fighting their own battles. 2. Ukraine is winning and Putin is losing. 3. Putin knows damn well that Ukraine doesn’t belong to him. Why invade a place you own?

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I agree with much you say, but I think it is fair to regard the Ukraine conflict as in some way a proxy war between Russia and the US/West. Ukraine would not have survived without US/Western support. I’d rather be honest about it. And support the US/West position in principle here (if not always in practice).

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Putin is fighting a war against his paranoid chekist vision of ‘The West’.
Ukraine would never have been invaded if they had not been persuaded, by both sides, to give up their nukes. This is why Mearsheimer spoke out in support of them keeping them. The Russians promised not to invade, and the West promised to support Ukraine against invasion.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Putin is fighting a war against his paranoid chekist vision of ‘The West’.
Ukraine would never have been invaded if they had not been persuaded, by both sides, to give up their nukes. This is why Mearsheimer spoke out in support of them keeping them. The Russians promised not to invade, and the West promised to support Ukraine against invasion.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I agree with much you say, but I think it is fair to regard the Ukraine conflict as in some way a proxy war between Russia and the US/West. Ukraine would not have survived without US/Western support. I’d rather be honest about it. And support the US/West position in principle here (if not always in practice).

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

the thing is that western media lies or distorts so many stories it is difficult to know what is actually going on however, one can surmise that every week for the last 6 months we’ve heard how russia is just on the verge of losing everything, how their men are running away and how unpopular he is among the populace. by this reporting it could be assumed that ukraine, with billions of US taxpayers money in their pockets should have won this war 7 times over. not a negative peep regarding how corrupt ukraine was before the conflict how their men also are running away or how zelensky attempted to goad us into nuking russia after the unfortunate accident with the poles. our govt in collusion with social media and media in general censors everything we read unless it comports with the official narrative-this of course includes fox news who still have a large contingent of neocons on staff, so they are of no help here.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Agree. Not sure why the down votes.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Agree. Not sure why the down votes.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

It’s not US nukes you should be worrying about.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

Given Russia’s wholesale destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, I can’t see Putin holding back on nuclear weapons just because he wants Ukraine in his orbit. He wants Ukraine, functioning society or smouldering wreck.is immaterial.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

The U.S. is not at war in Ukraine. It is just giving weapons to Ukraine’s soldiers, who are fighting their own battles. 2. Ukraine is winning and Putin is losing. 3. Putin knows damn well that Ukraine doesn’t belong to him. Why invade a place you own?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

the thing is that western media lies or distorts so many stories it is difficult to know what is actually going on however, one can surmise that every week for the last 6 months we’ve heard how russia is just on the verge of losing everything, how their men are running away and how unpopular he is among the populace. by this reporting it could be assumed that ukraine, with billions of US taxpayers money in their pockets should have won this war 7 times over. not a negative peep regarding how corrupt ukraine was before the conflict how their men also are running away or how zelensky attempted to goad us into nuking russia after the unfortunate accident with the poles. our govt in collusion with social media and media in general censors everything we read unless it comports with the official narrative-this of course includes fox news who still have a large contingent of neocons on staff, so they are of no help here.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Jürg Gassmann

It’s not US nukes you should be worrying about.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago

Good interview.
By the rationale discussed, what happens if the US is staring at a defeat in Ukraine? Will the US use nuclear weapons to stave off defeat? The threshold for the US to use nukes far away from its borders is far lower than for Russia to use it on or near territory it considers its own.

Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago

The fundamental error of foreign policy of the last 50 years was not abolilishing NATO in 1990, once NATO had won, and replacing it with a four power mutual defence pact between US, Russia, UK and France and its client EU.
This is still the way out.
If the West offered Russia the abolition of NATO and a mutual defence pact, including Russia, on condition that Russia left the Ukraine at once, then we could guarantee military peace in Europe for the rest of the century and allow a united West to pivot and turn on China. As a sop to wounded Liberal amour propre, Putin should agree to stand down at the next Presidential election and retire to his dacha and Cayman Islands bank account with all Western sanctions dropped.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan Munday
harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

oh yeah, and all that is sure gonna happen, esp. the part about Putin retiring to his dacha.

Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Biden said yesterday he was ready to sit down with Putin after Russia had withdrawn. That’s going to happen even more.
The West cannot afford to continue the war much longer for many reasons, including war ennui. In any case, it is running out of armaments to give to the Ukraine and without those the Russian line moves forward again quite quickly.
Putin is reportedly very ill, possibly chemo- hence the long table, and an old man in a hurry. Oligarchs behind him want to get their money back.
Russia has shown itself not to be a great power these days but a middling power still has nuclear weapons. It has the same defence budget as the UK but has to defend on three fronts – against the West the muslim south and against China. A mutual defence treaty gives Russia everything it needs to be quiet and allows a peaceful united West to turn on its real 21st century enemy, China.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago

> Putin is reportedly very ill
Hello to Daily Mirror devoted readers. Stay entertained! 🙂

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago

> Putin is reportedly very ill
Hello to Daily Mirror devoted readers. Stay entertained! 🙂

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

be afraid of Putin retiring. The next guy will be much harsher.

Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Biden said yesterday he was ready to sit down with Putin after Russia had withdrawn. That’s going to happen even more.
The West cannot afford to continue the war much longer for many reasons, including war ennui. In any case, it is running out of armaments to give to the Ukraine and without those the Russian line moves forward again quite quickly.
Putin is reportedly very ill, possibly chemo- hence the long table, and an old man in a hurry. Oligarchs behind him want to get their money back.
Russia has shown itself not to be a great power these days but a middling power still has nuclear weapons. It has the same defence budget as the UK but has to defend on three fronts – against the West the muslim south and against China. A mutual defence treaty gives Russia everything it needs to be quiet and allows a peaceful united West to turn on its real 21st century enemy, China.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

be afraid of Putin retiring. The next guy will be much harsher.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

oh yeah, and all that is sure gonna happen, esp. the part about Putin retiring to his dacha.

Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago

The fundamental error of foreign policy of the last 50 years was not abolilishing NATO in 1990, once NATO had won, and replacing it with a four power mutual defence pact between US, Russia, UK and France and its client EU.
This is still the way out.
If the West offered Russia the abolition of NATO and a mutual defence pact, including Russia, on condition that Russia left the Ukraine at once, then we could guarantee military peace in Europe for the rest of the century and allow a united West to pivot and turn on China. As a sop to wounded Liberal amour propre, Putin should agree to stand down at the next Presidential election and retire to his dacha and Cayman Islands bank account with all Western sanctions dropped.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan Munday
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Having previously made two catastrophic blunders by going to War in August 1914 and September 1939, would it not be ironic if the gung-ho UK precipitated the next (and probably the last) thermonuclear war?
“Three strikes and you’re out”, as they say.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
1 year ago

We were right in 1914 and in 1939, so I conclude that we are right now as well.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Being right wouldn’t mean much, though.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Don’t you mean “third time lucky?”

Steven Somsen
Steven Somsen
1 year ago

Yes, I prefer it written on my tombstone: he was right

Steven Somsen
Steven Somsen
1 year ago

Yes, I prefer it written on my tombstone: he was right

Jim Denham
Jim Denham
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

The UK going to war in September 1939 was “a catastrophic blunder”????? So what should the UK have done? Made peace with Nazi Germany?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Denham

Ignore the provocation and let the ‘big boys’, the USA & USSR deal with Adolph, as off course they ultimately did.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

A cartoonish view of the US at the time.
Even Roosevelt would never have dreamed of going to war with Germany. Indeed, without Hitler’s declaration of war, it’s uncertain Just how the US wuld ahve become invovled in Europe.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Would the American Jews have stood by and done nothing? They were fairly vociferous from 1934 onwards, and later ‘surrounded,’ Roosevelt did they not?

Secondly he could have fought the war by proxy, using/supplying the USSR until they became exhausted, and only interviewing if they were on the point of collapse. ( rather like 1917 in fact).

El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

So we got to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. I thought it would happen a little later

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

What?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Anti-semitic fantasy documents.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Anti-semitic fantasy documents.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  El Uro

What?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

If you think American Jews had sway over the Roosevelt administration you’re living in an alternative universe. They couldn’t even get him to allow Jewish refugees into the U.S.

El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

So we got to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. I thought it would happen a little later

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

If you think American Jews had sway over the Roosevelt administration you’re living in an alternative universe. They couldn’t even get him to allow Jewish refugees into the U.S.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Would the American Jews have stood by and done nothing? They were fairly vociferous from 1934 onwards, and later ‘surrounded,’ Roosevelt did they not?

Secondly he could have fought the war by proxy, using/supplying the USSR until they became exhausted, and only interviewing if they were on the point of collapse. ( rather like 1917 in fact).

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

A cartoonish view of the US at the time.
Even Roosevelt would never have dreamed of going to war with Germany. Indeed, without Hitler’s declaration of war, it’s uncertain Just how the US wuld ahve become invovled in Europe.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Denham

Ignore the provocation and let the ‘big boys’, the USA & USSR deal with Adolph, as off course they ultimately did.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

I think we must be suicidal. But that’s just me. Hoping for third time lucky.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Being right wouldn’t mean much, though.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

Don’t you mean “third time lucky?”

Jim Denham
Jim Denham
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

The UK going to war in September 1939 was “a catastrophic blunder”????? So what should the UK have done? Made peace with Nazi Germany?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

I think we must be suicidal. But that’s just me. Hoping for third time lucky.

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago

We don’t need a war to destroy the country, the political class are perfectly capable and seem determined based on the evidence of of doing that in any event.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Will

Rather like the end of the Roman Empire*.

(*only the Western bit it must be said.)

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Do you think we are past the point of rescuing from collapse or are we already there and we’re just living the last downward spiral before we implode ourselves and have to start again?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The ‘omens’ aren’t good, but one has to remain optimistic!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Thanks, I will!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You have a young daughter as I recall.
I have a small army of grandchildren which is a perfect distraction!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

That’s right! In lockdown we built vegetable planters and a chicken coop, I think we might need more in the future 🙂 we actually had a lovely time, we shall keep busy!

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Total idiocy to think you could survive for long on food from a small chicken coop and a few vegetable planters. You need a real farm to have a chance of growing all your own food, but you still would need more outside supplies like medicine, nails, etc.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Yes darling I was talking about keeping busy and enjoying little ones though, not surviving nuclear apocalypse, I do live on a farm. It’s not mine but my land lady won’t begrudge me a bigger allotment in the event of such a situation.
I have a 400 egg incubator too do you think that would be enough chickens?
Also lol at ‘nails’ you should see our workshop……

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Yes darling I was talking about keeping busy and enjoying little ones though, not surviving nuclear apocalypse, I do live on a farm. It’s not mine but my land lady won’t begrudge me a bigger allotment in the event of such a situation.
I have a 400 egg incubator too do you think that would be enough chickens?
Also lol at ‘nails’ you should see our workshop……

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Well done and you have obviously irritated Ms Lillian below! Bravo!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Who’d have thought growing vegetables would illicit such a reaction? My little ones off poorly at the moment, conked out with a virus bless her, giving me more time than usual to enjoy spouting on here though 🙂 how many grandchildren have you in your army?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Who’d have thought growing vegetables would illicit such a reaction? My little ones off poorly at the moment, conked out with a virus bless her, giving me more time than usual to enjoy spouting on here though 🙂 how many grandchildren have you in your army?

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Total idiocy to think you could survive for long on food from a small chicken coop and a few vegetable planters. You need a real farm to have a chance of growing all your own food, but you still would need more outside supplies like medicine, nails, etc.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Well done and you have obviously irritated Ms Lillian below! Bravo!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

That’s right! In lockdown we built vegetable planters and a chicken coop, I think we might need more in the future 🙂 we actually had a lovely time, we shall keep busy!

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You have a young daughter as I recall.
I have a small army of grandchildren which is a perfect distraction!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Thanks, I will!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

The ‘omens’ aren’t good, but one has to remain optimistic!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Do you think we are past the point of rescuing from collapse or are we already there and we’re just living the last downward spiral before we implode ourselves and have to start again?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Will

Rather like the end of the Roman Empire*.

(*only the Western bit it must be said.)

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Don’t you know any history? WWI began with the murder of Archduke Ferdinand. WWII was started by Hitler invading Poland.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Are you an American?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

What is your problem?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Do you have nothing else to offer apart from one line insults?

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

That person has got a labeling tool with a few standard stamps. just ignore.

Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

That person has got a labeling tool with a few standard stamps. just ignore.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Do you have nothing else to offer apart from one line insults?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

What is your problem?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Are you an American?

Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
1 year ago

We were right in 1914 and in 1939, so I conclude that we are right now as well.

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago

We don’t need a war to destroy the country, the political class are perfectly capable and seem determined based on the evidence of of doing that in any event.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Don’t you know any history? WWI began with the murder of Archduke Ferdinand. WWII was started by Hitler invading Poland.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Having previously made two catastrophic blunders by going to War in August 1914 and September 1939, would it not be ironic if the gung-ho UK precipitated the next (and probably the last) thermonuclear war?
“Three strikes and you’re out”, as they say.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE