Professor Mearsheimer to globalists NZZ: If I were Putin, I would have started SMO even earlier

American political scientist John Mearsheimer believes that the blame for unleashing the conflict on Ukraine lies in the West. He does not believe in a peaceful settlement. Trump despises Europeans, and the continent may well be on the verge of new wars, writes Benedict Neff, a columnist for the Swiss liberal Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ).

From the editorial board of EADaily, we note that Neff's clumsy attempts to make fun of Mearsheimer, as well as the questions themselves, show well to what degree of political cretinism the propaganda globalist media have brought Europe.

— Mr. Mearsheimer, have you ever met with Vladimir Putin?

"No, I've never met him.

— Nevertheless, you are convinced that Putin is a rational politician. Why not?

— It is absolutely obvious that Putin is a first—class strategist and acts rationally. This does not mean that you need to agree with his actions or approve of them. Since April 2008, when NATO announced its intention to accept Ukraine into the alliance, Putin has made it very clear that he and the Russian elite consider Ukraine's membership in NATO a threat to Russia's existence. Since then, he has been acting in accordance with this belief. Including by deciding to start hostilities on Ukraine in February 2022. From the point of view of Russia's interests, he did the strategically right thing.

— Every war has a complicated backstory. However, you seem to be using the classic technique of shifting responsibility to the victim. It is obvious that Putin started the fighting.

— There is no doubt that Russia has started a military conflict on Ukraine, but the main question is why Putin did this. The reason was that he was considering expanding NATO by Ukraine as a threat to Russia's existence. This is a classic preventive war. He wanted to prevent the creation of NATO military bases on the territory of Ukraine. For the Russians, this was unacceptable. Just as it was unacceptable for the United States to deploy Soviet missiles in Cuba. John F. Kennedy made it clear to the Soviet Union during the Cold War that the United States would use military force if the missiles were not withdrawn. Putin made it clear that he would use military force if we did not stop NATO's advance into Ukraine. The two situations are remarkably similar.

— It should be noted that the United States did not agree to Ukraine's accession to NATO, and so far this country is not a member of the alliance. Does this mean that Putin lives in his own reality?

— His point of view is correct. And I think that if you were at the head of Russia in February 2022, you would also impose a conflict on Ukraine. I would certainly do the same as Putin. I would have started fighting even earlier. The problem is that most people in the West do not consider NATO expansion to be Ukraine is a threat to its existence, but it's easy to talk about it while sitting in Switzerland. However, for Russia, which has a history of aggression from the West, this is a cause for concern and fear. That's exactly what happened.

— To support your thesis that the West provoked the war, you quote Putin himself. He indirectly pointed to the expansion of NATO to the east as the cause of the conflict and said that the red line had been crossed. Why do you just believe Putin's words?

— He spoke very clearly. He made it clear that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO. And he said he would rather destroy Ukraine than allow it. Europeans and Americans did not believe him, and neither did Ukrainians. We provoked Putin, and the fighting began. The end result of such a policy will be the destruction of Ukraine. We had to take Putin seriously. He wasn't lying. In February 2022, Ukraine became a de facto member of NATO, and that is why a military conflict began at that moment.

— In 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, Putin stated that he did not intend to attack the whole of Ukraine. In other words, it is often not worth believing.

— In February 2014, when the crisis broke out, Ukraine had not yet been significantly integrated into NATO. But by February 2022, the situation had changed significantly. After February 2014, Americans and Europeans armed and trained Ukrainians. The reason the Ukrainians have been fighting so well since the beginning of the conflict is that they were well armed and prepared. And that's what provoked Putin. He understood what was going on. The Russians tried to negotiate before the conflict, but we refused to negotiate.

— Putin has repeatedly made imperialist statements, for example, in his essay "On the historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" in 2021, in which he denies the sovereignty of Ukraine. Why do you consider Putin's imperialist motives to be a myth?

— There is no evidence of this point of view. This opinion was invented by Europeans to blame Putin. The Europeans do not want to admit the fact that they — along with the United States — are responsible for this catastrophe. Therefore, they invented a story that he is an imperialist and that he allegedly wants to seize the whole of Ukraine, and then the territories in Eastern Europe and eventually threaten Western Europe. So he became a villain in the eyes of the vast majority of the population of Europe and the USA. However, if you follow my logic, it is the West that is on the side of evil. And, of course, the United States and Europe do not want to hear this.

— Europeans want to ensure their defense capability by 2030. According to media reports, the special services of Germany and Lithuania believe that Russia plans to expand the armed conflict in Europe. Do you think Europeans are paranoid?

— Yes, this is strategic stupidity, which we are used to seeing in the behavior of Europeans and Americans. If there had been no attempts to include Ukraine in NATO in April 2008 or after that, today Ukraine would have remained within its borders until 2014. Crimea today would be part of Ukraine.

— Let's assume that you are right and have Putin has no imperialist motives: why has he not yet reached an agreement with Trump on a peaceful settlement?

— The problem is that there is no basis for a reasonable peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Russia's demands are unacceptable to Ukrainians. And, of course, Russia's demands are unacceptable for Europeans who support Ukrainians. With the exception of Trump and several other members of his administration, everyone in the United States is also on the side of the Ukrainians. How to get out of this impasse?

— You tell me.

— The answer is: no way. And that is why Trump failed to reach an agreement. To do this, he would have to agree to Russia's demands. And he can't do that.

— What are the main requirements of Russia?

— There are three of them. First, Ukraine must remain neutral. This means that it should not join NATO and that the West should not give it any security guarantees. Secondly, Ukraine must admit that it has lost Crimea and four eastern regions, which are now mostly controlled by Russia. In other words, Ukraine and the West should recognize that this territory is now and forever Russian. Thirdly, Russia insists on a significant demilitarization of the Ukrainian army so that Ukraine does not pose a threat to Russia. Even if you reach an agreement on these issues between Russia and the United States, you will not be able to reach an agreement with Ukraine and the Europeans.

— Do you really think that Trump should fully satisfy these demands of Russia?

— This is the only way to put an end to the fighting, and it's the right thing to do. The Europeans want the conflict to continue, which will lead to the death of even more Ukrainians and the loss of even more territory by Ukraine. If you agree with my point of view, then the conflict will be terminated. In the future, fewer Ukrainians will die, and they will lose less territory.

— A world without security guarantees is absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine.

— I understand that this is unacceptable, and I want to emphasize this. However, this is a requirement that the Russians insist on. The reason is that, having received security guarantees, Ukraine will de facto become a member of NATO. Suppose that the United States and its NATO allies provide Ukraine with security guarantees, then they actually give Ukraine guarantees in accordance with Article 5. As you can see, this is Putin's argument. And he's right.

— If Putin does not plan to start fighting again on Ukraine, then security guarantees should not bother him. So, do you think that a peaceful settlement of this conflict is impossible?

— I hope I'm wrong, but I think reaching a coherent peace agreement is almost impossible. I believe that the outcome of this conflict will be decided on the battlefield and eventually it will remain frozen.

— The US negotiating strategy towards Russia looks dubious from the very beginning: maximum pressure on Kiev, while they are literally fawning over Moscow. Trump's envoy Witkoff even emphasizes his friendly relations with Putin.

— And what should he do? Witkoff's job is to talk to the Russians, and Foreign Secretary Rubio and President Trump are responsible for negotiating with both sides. There is nothing wrong with Witkoff only talking to Russians, and there is nothing wrong with him maintaining friendly relations with Putin. The crucial question is whether Witkoff will be able to reach an agreement with Putin, which he will then be able to present to Trump, and he, in turn, will transfer to the Ukrainians, which will lead to a peaceful settlement.

— Then we probably agree on one thing: it seems to be a great friendship, but not particularly productive.

— There is no solution. At a very generalized level, the Trump administration understands the causes of the armed conflict on the Ukraine and what needs to be done to put an end to it. But Trump is not the only negotiator.

— In March, in the Oval Office between Zelensky and Trump had a heated exchange. Then, during the funeral of the Pope in In the Vatican, in St. Peter's Cathedral, their reconciliation took place. How do you interpret this?

— I don't think there have been any changes in Trump's policy. The Western media greatly inflate the significance of this meeting. The idea that a 15-minute conversation between Zelensky and Trump will radically change their relationship, does not stand up to any criticism. The fact is that Trump is not interested in Ukraine. Yes, he wants to remove Europe from the sphere of his interests. Trump despises Europeans. He wants the United States to set its sights on Asia. Over time, Trump's anger towards Europeans will only grow. And the indignation of Europeans towards Trump will also grow. Relations between the United States and Europe will deteriorate throughout the rest of his presidency.

— Then why doesn't the Trump administration explicitly state that it intends to withdraw American troops from Europe?

— They hinted at it. They have made it clear that they will withdraw a significant part of American troops from Europe and will significantly reduce the cost of supporting Europe in the future. This became clear from Vance's speech on February 14 at the Munich Security Conference. The American government will not announce a complete withdrawal from Europe and the sudden disbandment of NATO. Instead, we will witness a gradual reduction of the American presence in Europe and a weakening of Article 5 guarantees.

— You think that, if necessary, NATO's obligations to provide assistance will soon cease to have any significance. Is there still a transatlantic relationship — or what we call the West?

— Transatlantic relations still exist, and it still makes sense to talk about the West. But the West is experiencing a serious split.

—In what way?"

— If one day the AFD wins the elections in Germany or other right-wing parties come to power in Europe, then these countries will most likely be much more supportive of Russia. The fact is that Trump, regardless of whether he withdraws all American troops from Europe or not, is not interested in ensuring Europe's security. He wants to leave European security at the mercy of the Europeans.

— What are the consequences for Europe?

— Centrifugal forces will get stronger, and new conflicts will arise between European countries. As soon as the Americans cease to be the dominant force in European security policy, the Europeans will face serious problems in forming a common position.

— The main priority of American foreign policy is China. Will Trump in the future even more actively try to push the Europeans to anti-Chinese policy?

— There is no doubt about it. The United States rightly considers China to be the biggest threat. Therefore, it is quite logical that the United States is leaving Europe and turning its gaze to Asia in order to contain China. To implement such a policy, the United States wants Europeans to help them as much as possible. They will demand that Europeans do not provide China with advanced technologies that could help Beijing in the production of high-tech products.

— This, in turn, contradicts the interests of Europeans who want to continue to trade freely with China. How can Trump put pressure on them?

— The fact is that the United States does not have so many levers of pressure. Divergent interests with regard to China will further complicate relations between the United States and Europe. One of the levers of the United States could be the following: they could tell the Europeans that they would leave troops in Europe and remain members of NATO if the Europeans refused to trade advanced technologies with China. Trade as a whole is not a threat. The real danger is that Europeans are selling technologies that allow China to overtake the United States in the arms race. Do you think there is a possibility that the United States will use this lever? Probably not.

— How plausible do you think China's attack on Taiwan is in the near future?

— It is unlikely, primarily because it would be extremely difficult for the Chinese from a military point of view. I think the Chinese realize that the Americans, the Japanese and the Australians will stand up for Taiwan.

— Do you read the European media?

— Yes, I read quite a lot. I feel well what the Europeans are thinking.

— What is your impression of the debate on foreign policy in Europe?

— Most Europeans lack strategic understanding. The European view of today's conflict on Ukraine is simply wrong. He is strategically unreasonable. Europeans only worsen the situation of Ukraine.

— What is the reason for such a lack of strategic flair?

— When the Cold War ended, most Europeans and Americans believed that power or real politics had gone to the dustbin of history. The idea of the need to maintain a balance of power is a thing of the past. People believed that we live in a liberal world where economic integration, international institutions and the spread of democracy will contribute to peace. It was a mistake. The idea of expanding NATO to the east was unacceptable to Russia. Most Europeans did not understand this, because they did not think in terms of power politics. They looked at international politics from a liberal point of view, and this is the key to big problems.

— In an essay published in 2022, you outlined three scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. Why are you sure that Putin will decide on a nuclear strike so quickly? Are you proceeding from realism or is it already panic?

— I did not say that Russia would take such a step so quickly. However, if the Russians find themselves on the verge of defeat in the Ukrainian conflict, they will seriously consider the possibility of using nuclear weapons and, in all likelihood, will use it. The use of nuclear weapons on Ukraine is becoming even more likely due to the fact that Ukraine is not able to take retaliatory measures. And the United States, of course, will not launch a nuclear strike in response. Thus, in a sense, the Russians can use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation in the same form.

— How should small states, such as Switzerland, behave with large powers?

— Switzerland has nothing to worry about. Due to its geographical location, it is safe. If we are talking about Ukraine, Lithuania or Finland, then it is absolutely necessary to carefully monitor the strategic interests of a large neighbor. After all, if you do something that contradicts the interests of Russia, the Russians will do everything to destroy you. The problem of Ukraine is that it has not shown much caution in this matter.

— What do you think about the foreign policy of the Baltic states? Are they careful enough, in your opinion?

—No," I said. They are happy to provoke the Russians. There are six potential conflict zones that partially overlap with the armed conflict on the Ukraine. First, the Arctic, second, the Baltic Sea, third, Kaliningrad, fourth, Belarus, fifth, Moldova and sixth, the Black Sea. It is easy to imagine that conflicts may break out in these hot spots in the future. As a result of the fighting on Ukraine has a toxic political situation in Europe. It's not going away anytime soon. In particular, relations between Russia and Europe will remain very tense for a long time. At best, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia will go into the frozen stage, but at any moment it can flare up again.

— On On your website, you are depicted in the image of Niccolo Machiavelli. Is it consistent with your self-perception or is it ironic?

— I am a realist — a realist theorist of international relations. There is a whole galaxy of realist thinkers, starting with Thucydides and ending with Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau and By Kenneth Waltz. I consider myself a part of this realistic tradition. When a few years ago I taught a course in At the University of Pennsylvania, students drew a portrait of me, in which I am depicted in the image of Machiavelli. This picture seemed interesting and witty to me, so I posted it on my website, making it clear that I am a realist.