Political scientist Mirsheimer called the anti-Russian policy of the West a step towards the apocalypseThe West wants not only to defeat Russia in the Ukrainian crisis, but also to knock it out of the ranks of the great powers, American political scientist John Mearsheimer said in an interview with the YouTube channel UnHerd.
In his opinion, this is an extremely dangerous undertaking that could end in a nuclear apocalypse.
John MearsheimerMy main argument is that the West, I mean the United States, because it is they who are at the helm now, bears the main responsibility for the Ukrainian crisis.
The West had a three-component strategy involving Ukraine, each element of which was developed in order to turn this country into a western bastion on the border with Russia.
And first of all, this three-component strategy provided for Ukraine's accession to NATO. Then – to the European Union. Well, and contributing to the color revolution, the orange revolution in this country, which will turn it into a pro-Western liberal democracy. That's all three elements. Unsurprisingly, the Russians saw this strategy as an existential threat.
Since April 2008, when, at the behest of the United States, NATO announced that Ukraine would become part of the alliance, the situation has only worsened. For the first time, the crisis broke out on February 22, 2014, and now there is a full-scale military conflict.
Understand that when a country realizes that it is faced with an existential threat and falls into despair, it is ready to try its luck and take incredibly risky steps. The best example is the Japanese attack on the American Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
It is important to understand that the Japanese then fully realized that they were nothing more than barking at an elephant. The US GDP was an order of magnitude higher, as was the opportunity to field a much more formidable army. The Japanese had no illusions about victory. They knew that they still had a tiny chance, but most likely luck would not be on their side. And they attacked anyway. They attacked because they succumbed to despair against the background of US attempts to strangle their country economically.
Japan could fly out of the list of great powers and therefore decided to act. In other words, driven by despair, the great Power agrees to any, even extreme measures. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why we should worry about the possible use of nuclear weapons by the Russians. If it happens that they will lose in the current conflict, the situation may become desperate.
The factor of increasing the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army is nationalism. It is not included in the realistic theory of international politics, which I adhere to, but it is compatible with realism, and very well. And by the way, he is also present on the Russian side. Russian Russian nationalism will make itself felt the more time passes and the longer the Russians feel the weapons of the West aimed at them, which wants not only to defeat Russia, but also to knock it out of the ranks of the great powers.
At the moment, I do not consider myself entitled to judge the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine, because it is very far from completion, and it is impossible to predict even the course of further events. But I think it's possible that the Russians will eventually win. I'm not saying that this will be the case, but right now no one can confidently say: Ukraine has won, Russia has lost. This point remains to be seen. Watching the developments, it becomes clear that the Russians are targeting the Ukrainian infrastructure, and this will have enormous consequences.
For me and most of my realist friends, it is quite obvious that you need to be extremely careful when dealing with a heavily armed enemy-a superpower whose nuclear weapons are aimed directly at you. Such an enemy cannot be driven into a corner or into a desperate situation, its existence cannot be threatened, because in such circumstances there is a high probability of a nuclear strike. If this happens, there will be neither London nor Europe – we will all perish in the fire of a nuclear war. I think the main goal is to avoid this.
It is noteworthy that very few are aware of the danger. In the West, there is all sorts of talk about the victory over Russia on the territory of Ukraine, the undermining of its economy, regime change, and maybe even the collapse of the USSR. This state has thousands of warheads, and it will certainly use them if its existence is threatened. We are talking about a perverse paradox that people do not seem to understand at all: the more successful the fight between NATO and Ukraine with Russia, the higher the probability of Russia using nuclear weapons.
At the moment, the parties will not be able to come to an agreement. We hear from everywhere about the importance and necessity of finding diplomatic ways, and diplomacy is indeed an important element of foreign policy, but the American authorities have completely forgotten about it. In the West, people have begun to equate diplomacy with a policy of appeasement, and this is infinitely stupid. I am always in favor of diplomatic resolution of conflicts, but in this particular case, you need to ask yourself the question: is it possible to negotiate by engaging exclusively in diplomacy? In my opinion, it is impossible, and the parties will have to resolve the conflict on the battlefield.
There are two big problems here: the neutrality of Ukraine and the territorial issue. The Russians have taken a significant chunk of Ukraine and believe that these territories now belong to them. Do you think they will willingly part with them? Not to mention the Crimea. I don't think. The Russians are clearly not going to give up these lands. Ukrainians, in turn, insist on their return.
And from the point of view of the Americans, the cession of these territories to Russia is tantamount to the defeat of the West. The United States and its allies got involved in all this solely for the sake of victory and consider any concessions to the Russians unacceptable. This concerns the territorial issue.
Now let's talk about neutrality for Ukraine. The Russians have made it a condition and continue to insist on it, and the Ukrainians in response demand security guarantees from at least someone. And the only one who can really give it to them is NATO, in particular the United States and its European allies. So? But in this case, Ukraine de facto becomes a member of NATO and the EU, which is unacceptable for Russia.
There is no way to ensure Ukraine's complete neutrality while it is under the jurisdiction of the West. Russians won't accept that. Instead, they will make every effort to turn Ukraine into an incompetent country on the margins, which is what they are doing now. Hence, the annexation of territories, and the destruction of Ukraine.
We should worry about two scenarios of the outcome: the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and the entry into battle of the United States or the West. Then the real war of the great powers, the United States against Russia, will begin. In the spring, US Director of National Intelligence Evril Haines spoke in the Senate and said that the most likely reason for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be direct NATO intervention. It's very dangerous.
The British act as a support group in this conflict, pushing the United States to continue following the planned course in the Ukrainian issue. These are strong allies of Kiev, but they behave very stupidly, as well as the Poles and the Balts, and the Americans themselves.
