December 9, 2024 - 5:30pm
US President-elect Donald Trump won’t end the Ukraine war because he has appointed “a bunch of hawks” who suffer from “Russophobia in the extreme”, international relations scholar John Mearsheimer has claimed.
In a new conversation with far-Right Russian political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, hosted by the Chinese state-affiliated China Academy, the University of Chicago professor said Russia would win an “ugly victory on the battlefield”.
Mearsheimer argued the West and Ukraine must — but won’t — accept two conditions for Russian President Vladimir Putin to enter negotiations. First, “that Ukraine will never be in Nato”. Second, “that Crimea and the four Oblasts that the Russians have now annexed are permanently lost”. He continued: “I find it hard to imagine the US, even Trump, accepting those two conditions.”
The international relations scholar also expressed doubt about Trump’s claim that he will end the war in Ukraine as soon as he becomes president. “One could argue Trump is a very special person and has views outside the mainstream,” he said, “but the problem is that he is surrounded by people who have Russophobia in the extreme and have been super hawkish on Ukraine for years.” Mearsheimer went on: “It’s not like Trump is bringing into office with him a good number of people who share his views about shutting down the Ukraine war.” Contrary to this, Trump’s advisors have publicly and privately agreed to the conditions Mearsheimer outlined.
Just weeks away from assuming office, Trump has appointed most of his cabinet, pending Senate confirmation. One of those those appointments is Fox News military analyst Pete Hegseth, who Trump selected for defense secretary. At the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Hegseth called Putin a “war criminal”, adding of the Russian President: “He doesn’t play by the rules of war […] He doesn’t feel any threat that he’ll be held accountable.”
More recently, though, the army veteran has become increasingly sceptical about the conflict. During a podcast appearance last month, he played down the idea that Russia would penetrate deeper into Europe in the event of victory in Ukraine. “I found it overinflated from the beginning, this idea that Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine was going to lead to nuclear war or war across the continent,” Hegseth said. “I’ve always felt like it was from the beginning […] Putin’s ‘give me my shit back’ war.”
Trump’s nomination for secretary of state is Marco Rubio, whose opinions on Ukraine have followed a similar arc to Hegseth’s. Rubio has been viewed as more of an interventionist and previously called Putin a “killer”. He was also critical of Trump for “abandoning” US military operations in Syria. More recently, though, he has suggested that the US is merely funding a stalemate in Ukraine and the conflict must end. “That doesn’t mean that we celebrate what Vladimir Putin did or are excited about it,” he qualified.
Former green beret Michael Waltz is to be appointed National Security Advisor. Although he expressed some support for Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use American long-range missiles in Russian territory, he has also said that “we need to bring this to a responsible end.” Last year, he gave a speech saying that Ukraine’s “blank cheque from Congress is over”.
While Mearsheimer has suggested that Trump’s national security picks are Russophobic, others are viewed as too sympathetic to Russia. Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee to lead the intelligence services, tweeted in February 2022: “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if [the Biden administration and] Nato had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of Nato.” She also endorsed a Russian justification for invading Ukraine regarding the protection against labs creating bioweapons. Vice President-elect JD Vance has also refused to call Moscow an enemy and said that negotiating with Putin is necessary to end the war.
Much of the European foreign policy establishment has argued that Trump’s presidency will have a negative effect for Ukraine, conceding too much land and power to Putin and thereby legitimising his aggression. Trump has even been accused of wanting to abandon European countries which don’t spend enough on defence. Mearsheimer claimed in the conversation with Dugin that there will be “bad relations between Russia and the West for as far as the eye can see”. He added: “This is a terrible situation but I don’t think that Trump is going to change things in any meaningful way.”
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.
SubscribeMearsheimer seems to have replaced Chomsky as the miserable face of the anti-western and (highly selectively) anti-war, ‘anti imperialist’ (haha) left. You can predict without having to listen to a word exactly the pro Russian talking points he’ll make, which would have sounded much the same in 1974 and 2004 as they do now in 2024.
It’s right that we continue to platform and tolerate these traitors, but the unholy alliance many loons on the right have made with them over the last decade is worrying to say the least.
No-one’s suggesting he should be de-platformed, but why anyone would think his views are any more relevant than the many other commentators – or even you and I – is another matter.
It very much looks like he’s just trying to stay in the spotlight by being controversial. That, in itself, means we can safely ignore him, and await to see what happens in the real world.
His views are relevant because he has been right. Ukraine has been led down the primrose path to destruction as he said. Usually one takes note of those whose views have been proven correct.
Of course that doesn’t mean his views of the future will be right, but they are more noteworthy than many others.
He has been neither right nor “realistic”. Look back over his catastrophist predictions about the Ukraine conflict.
He’s really just a rather tiresome old man who keeps repeating the same message again and again, without any modification. Which simply proves he’s a stuck idealogue who’s lost any ability he might once have had to learn.
Once again, you refuse to allow Ukraine any agency (choice) about its own future and assume it is merely a pawn for outside interests. Despite the obvious fact that Ukrainians have chosen to fight for their freedom and independence. Why is it that you don’t wish them to make their own choices ?
I truly want Ukraine to be independent and democratic.
However that ended when an elected President was overthrown in a classic CIA coup.
Translation: “Elected President” = “Russian puppet”. Don’t believe me? Where does he live now?
He was elected…that’s it.
After Putin rigged the election….
He fled, as did James II, you might recall..
What an absurd argument. He wanted to avoid the fate of Timoshenko, Poroshenko and even the poisoned Yushkevich. He and Putin were on very bad terms.
Eh? Yanukovych? Strange if he was on such bad terms with Putin that he decided to flee to Russia! Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Yeah, I was wondering that. “Putin hates me, so I’ll hide in Russia. He’ll never think of looking for me there”.
Even if your statement were true, that doesn’t prevent Ukraine being an independent and democratic country now (over 10 years later) or in the future. Having Russian troops occupying the country and/or Russians actively destabilising the country most certainly does.
I think 8 years of shelling the rebel provinces rather does. I suspect Zelensky would be glad to get rid of them. The population declined there by over 2 million , and 14500 civikians were killed.
Yes, but this violence was initiated by pro Russian incursions by the supposedly (but bogus) independent forces in the Donbass.
I’ve gone through the falsity of that comment many times before. The language is quite absurd. What happened in 2014 is that there was a standoff between the Ukrainian President Yanukovych and Parliament. Exactly the same thing had happened in Russia under Yeltsin, so to be consistent and in the logic of your view Putin should never have become President as Yeltsin’s hand picked successor! Of course the US preferred Ukraine that leaned more into European norms and perhaps became a member of the EU, rather than Russian satellite of autocratic and very undemocratic modern Russia. However they didn’t cause the 2014 events (and didn’t even cause the pro Chilean coup of 1973 – this is “the CIA controls the world” fantasy beloved of people on the far left and right, which apart from anything else deprives other nations and political forces within them of any agency).
They were protests in the Maidan square and many protesters were shot in cold blood by snipers. Eventually Yanukovych fled the country, leaving his enormous palace to be picked over by the protesters. By the way I notice that terms like “corruption” which there certainly is in Ukraine are often only ever used against Zelensky and pro Ukrainian patriots by some pro Russian people on the Right, but certainly not to any pro-Russian elements!
“….but certainly not to any pro-Russian elements!” I’m sure everyone knows that Russians are as honest as the day is long.
Mearsheimer let the mask slip when his “realist” views all of a sudden became whingeing about “human rights” and “genocide” when Israel was doing the attacking. he’s nothing bu an anti-Western stooge. In his mind, might makes right unless it’s the Jews with the might.The only question is he a paid stooge, or just really dumb.
It looks like the answer in both cases is “Yes!”, but “dumb” prevails.
Mearsheimer + Chomsky, as Doug Scott mentioned here + I would add Bernie Sanders.
This is a very common pathology, I very often observe it among educated non-religious Jews. Dafna Yoran, mentioned in the adjacent article, is a classic case that in the good old days could have been demonstrated in the dissection theater to medical students.
Chomsky and Sanders are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure Mearsheimer is not.
Nor are Chomsky and Sanders paid stooges or dumb. But I do agree that their worldviews have something to do with their Jewishness, for better and for worse. However here is not the place to analyze this.
Mearsheimer is just a plain antisemite.
I agree with you, thank you
Absolutely!. Extraordinary how he seems not to have been strongly taken to task for this, as far as I am aware.
I don’t understand why foreign relations has become so childish. It is perfectly reasonable to describe Putin as a war criminal and an authoritarian dictator, while acknowledging that the war needs to end, and that allowing Ukraine to join NATO is a red line for Russia. It seems to me that our political leaders have decided to abandon reality on so many different issues. There are bad people in the world. It is not the job of America to police these war criminals. While it’s righteous to support Ukraine, if it results in thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian casualties and the widespread destruction of its infrastructure, at some point the war becomes self defeating for Ukraine itself. It long ago became a proxy war for America – inflict maximum destruction on Russia on the backs of Ukrainian people. The Trump team IMO seems like a good blend of war hawks and isolationists. By debating each other, they might actually come up with reasonable policies.
‘There are bad people in the world. It is not the job of America to police these war criminals.’
This seems superficially ‘grown-up’, but if not the Americans, then who? Well, nobody, because the international organisations created to give some semblance of international justice are impotent. So if the Americans retreat, then the ‘bad people’ can act with impunity, and we’re back to a pre 19th century situation of constant warfare but this time with nuclear weapons, drones, ai, bio-terror etc. Sounds great? I don’t think so. Rather have the Americans playing whack a mole personally.
It’s utter hubris IMO to think you can impose democracy and human rights on nations that do not respect democracy and human rights. We should have learned this lesson in Afghanistan. The same thing is playing out in Syria today. The U.S. funded the insurgents for years – I don’t think they do now – which is made up of radical Islamists. Now that they have won, they are going to install another authoritarian dictatorship -certainly not democracy. Will they respect human rights? Maybe. I really doubt it though. You end up with the oppression, but someone else imposing it.
There’s an interesting article in the Free Press today suggesting Ukrainians are sick of the war. The initial euphoria and unity created by the success early on has virtually disappeared. There was a time Ukraine could have negotiated from a position of strength, but Britain and the U.S. didn’t want that.
IDK what the answer is. We all want people to live in nations that respect human rights. That’s just not the reality on the ground in many cases.
Nobody is talking about imposing “democracy and human rights” on Russia. Russians are always going to be barbarians and war criminals. However, if we are funding the destruction of the Russian army, and the evisceration of the Russian economy, that is surely good?
A few of your Russian barbarians: Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Mendeleev, Pavlov, Tsiolkovsky, Gorky, Nijinsky, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Stravinsky, Chagall, Baryshnikov, Sakharov, Politkovskaya, Navalny, Magnitsky, Bulgakov, Malevich, Lobachevsky, …
And BTW shame on you.
Twenty two people in 500 years of history. Yeah, a civilized people. No doubt about it.
How about we play this one: Great Russian Leader: 1) Gorbachev (for binning the abomination that was Communism). Ummmm….2) Catherine the Great (except that she was German, not Russian)……3) ….at a pinch, Peter the Great (unarguably a tyrant, but probably achieved a bit more than all the other tyrants that ruled Russia).
And Akhmatova, Nadezhda Nandelstam, Brodsky, Lomonosov, A long kist. Many rehabilitated after 1991 too.
List ( my edit function not working)
You forgot Trofim Lysenko, the greatest ever Russian scientist.
Syria – the US funded THE insurgents”(!)
There were (and are) numerous different forces in Syria supported by Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi, later Russia and others. The US were only ever bit players, mainly to oppose ISIS. But, and this is one of my points to the anti western critics, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”!
Back to a version of the Great Game maybe, but in the case of nuclear weapons, MAD still applies.
Drone technology is worrying, but the reason for that is that it’s almost impossible for state forces to effectively police.
Why is it the role of any nation to police such people? Have you taken stock of how many exist? I am not willing to underwrite your desire to have my tax dollars and countrymen be used to satisfy your moral virtue.
The problem is that Putin has quite a few red lines. Ukraine or Georgia getting close to the EU is clearly another one. Effectively Putin insists on full control of Ukraine, i.e. a situation where Ukraine is defenceless, can be invaded at will, and is governed by a pro-Russian group. The is what ‘demilitarization’; and ‘denazification’ means. The problem of NATO membership is not that it is a threat to Russia, but that it would give Ukraine guarantees agaisnt future invasion – which is exactly what Putin cannot accept. You can still acknowledge that the war needs to end, but you should at least be honest about what you are prepared to pay – or make the Ukrainans pay – to achieve that.
Has Putin actually said that about the EU? You nay be quite right but I hadnt seen it anywhere. It’s always NATO.
No, but look at the coincidences:
Ukraine was making a deal with the EU, in spite heavy pressure from Russian to go with the Russian near abroad instead. All of a sudden the President, who had campaigned for the EU deal, decided to not do it afer all. Then came the Maidan, toppling the President, and shortly afterwards the little green men went into the Crimea adnd the Donbass. Now Georgia is getting eady to do a deal with the EU, and, lo and behold, the President decides not to do it afterall and people come out in the streets. If Putin was willing to acept E membership for the ex-Soviet nations would all this really have happened?
Ok but ending wars is difficult once they have started! Many of the anti-western critics seem to think that it is entirely in the responsibility of the United States and the West to end the war, and presumably on terms that gives Putin what he wants and of course inevitably then “rewards” him for the invasion.
I do tend to think that “we” have neither gone fully in supporting Ukraine or encouraged it to reach a peace deal which might well be the worst of all worlds. But “the West” of course is not a homogeneous entity with one controlling mind, although to read some of the anti-western comments on here you, might think it was!
Most people I read – eg Philipps O’Brien – are fearful that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
You don’t understand Trump’s persona. He can’t be the toughest leader in the world if he lets Ukraine fall. He spent too much time bashing Biden for Afghanistan to allow a repeat on his watch. Especially now that the Russia-Iran axis seems to be crumbling.
However the USA is not “in” Ukraine, as it was in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, it is merely supporting it with weapons and expertise.
Also Ukraine will not “fall”. Russia cannot take all of it, even if it wanted to, let alone hold it. Ukraine has lost territory which it will not recover.
Trump can legitimately tell Ukraine to accept that loss or there will be no further support. In that situation he is putting America first, as he said he will.
He also considers Israel more important than Ukraine. His focus will be on weakening Iran.
“Russophobic” is it now?
This phobic nonsense is beyond ridiculous; the implication being that any concerns are the result of an irrational fear, a mental condition on the part of the “phobe”.
Make it stop.
Right. We don’t dislike Russia because of an irrational “phobia”. We dislike it because of everything it has said and everything it has done over the last 500 years.
Really only the last 100 years for me. Before that I don’t think they were causing more trouble than anyone else.
Not to foreigners, maybe (Crimean War aside).
Russia was conquered and occpied by the Tartars for 200 years. The Sweden tried to incorporate them into the Swedish Empire. No goodies and baddies here: it’s because northern Eurasia is flat: theee are few natural defenses such as stopped the expansion of France.
Including bailing the Allies out for three years against Herr H.?
Hardly “bailing out”. They fought him for their own reasons.
Four years? Have to exclude Ukraine though, with Bandera in charge under the Nazis for nearly three years.
If you call distrust of an autocratic regime, armed with the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons, that is trying to conquer a neighboring independent nation while daily committing war crimes, a “phobia”, i.e. an irrational fear – then perhaps your own worldview isn’t as rational as you would like us to believe, Dr. Mearsheimer.
If Mearsheimer’s right, it’ll be a first.
Russophobic hawks are my favourite kind.
Trump talked about a desire to stop the killing too often to want this disaster to continue. The war is going to end. Russia will get at least what it was willing to accept in the spring of 2022 when someone, we presumably, sent Boris Johnson to tell Zelensky to stand down on settling.
You make it sound as if Trump actually cares about other human beings.
Mearsheimer has been the ‘go to’ scholar for Putin apologists for years. He loses all credibility by continuing to blame the West for Putin invasion, conveniently forgetting Putin stated Ukraine not a real country and extolling the imperial reign of Peter the Great just prior to invading. He’s tarnished and desperately tries to retain some credibility by doubling down on his nonsense.
I read somewhere he’s never been to Ukraine. If true remarkable for someone presenting himself as an expert. What one suspects is he knows he’s a non-entity unless he adopts such views. It’s all a bit of a Grift.
As regards Trump likely Ukrainian policy – Mearsheimer also shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how much Trump driven by ego. He’s not going to be ‘rolled’ by Putin. He knows that’d confirm the Putin poodle prejudices and make him look weak. The Republican position has also become more hawkish and better appreciated the interconnectivity between this conflict, China, Iran and N Korea, and as we’ve seen last week, Syria. Trump may have nominated some bozos who won’t have the competency to do the jobs needed whilst embroiled in constant stories about their inadequacies, but that’s about him chucking ‘chum’ to the base and delighting in chaos. He’ll be making the key decisions.
Meersheimer is totally discredited by his completely incoherent positions. He (claims to) take an uber realist approach to the Russian Ukraine conflict. Of course anyone who considers invasion of a neighboring country might be something to be criticised, might find this quite ethically chilling. (There is also the issue about how we ascertain in the real world where power actually lies and who is likely to necessarily win a conflict, which isn’t, as we see from the Syria imbroglio exactly always obvious, and depends on your own decisions and actions). If the West actually had the political will it has far more economic power and Russia. Far from an all out support of Ukraine the “West” has hedged from the start, with heavy restrictions on the amount of aid and weapons provided. Certainly if you might compare this, for example, with the reaction to covid it’s a tiny fraction of the amount of the funding. Niall Ferguson makes a much more coherent critique of Western policy than Meersheimer.
But anyway, we might accept a certain cool detached amoral consistency about such a realpolitik dominated view of the world. But Meersheimer then goes on to adopt an entirely different approach to China and Taiwan where he seems to feel a war against the Chinese would be justified.
But most disgracefully, is attitudes to the Israel Palestine conflict simply parrots the worst denunciations of Islamists and progressives against Israel using such terms as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” etc, in a way he never does against Russian aggression. The lack of consistency is very revealing, and completely undermines Meersheimer claim to be some sort of neutral analyst of international geopolitics.