Political scientist Mirsheimer warned about the "horror" that will begin after the Ukrainian conflictThe consequences of the Ukrainian conflict will be catastrophic for Europe both economically and politically, Glasove quotes the words of political scientist, professor at the University of Chicago John Mearsheimer.
He also spoke about the origins of this crisis and revealed the main goals of the West.
It is quite obvious that the economic consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will be enormous for Europe. I think the political consequences in all countries and institutions of Europe — such as the EU and NATO — will be tangible and not at all positive. This was reported to the Hungarian online edition by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago.
Moderator: You claim that the West wants to bring Russia to its knees economically. However, more damage was done to its fundamental strategic interests, rather than economic ones. The efforts of the West are ineffective, we can say that the EU has defeated itself. How can we explain that, despite all this, the Western world continues to cling to this idea? What, in your opinion, is the scenario for the further development and outcome of the conflict?
John Mearsheimer: Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, which I consider to be largely the result of the expansion of NATO, as well as the expansion of the EU and the spread of "color revolutions". The main goal of the West, first of all, the United States, is to turn Ukraine into a liberal democracy. That is why the Orange Revolution was initiated, it was pro-Western, in order to integrate the country into the European Union and NATO. It is very important to understand that until 2014, when the Ukrainian crisis began, NATO's expansion into Ukraine was not aimed at deterring Russia. We did not consider Russia a threat until 2014, I emphasize this once again. In April 2008, Vladimir Putin was invited to the NATO summit in Bucharest because he was considered a friend of NATO, not a rival.
The reason why we thought that Russia would swallow Ukraine's entry into NATO — we considered it very weak. Until 2014, we did not think that there was reason to fear Russia. We got away with the first two NATO expansions: Hungary joined NATO in 1999, the Baltic states, Romania, Slovenia and others joined in 2004, and we decided that we could do it again, for the third time. The first two expansions were not designed to contain the Russian threat, because there was no Russian threat in our minds. It was a matter of liberal hegemony. The idea was for Western and Eastern Europe to become part of a seamless network of liberal democracies closely linked to capitalism and the world. But all this collapsed in 2014, on February 22, 2014, when a huge crisis broke out in Ukraine. Russian Russians annexed Crimea and the conflict in the Donbass began, in which the Russians intervened. At that moment, the Western perception, I'm talking again mainly about the United States, our perception of Russia changed. Then we decided that Vladimir Putin was the aggressor, that Russia was a threat, and that we should restrain Russia. But in order to contain Russia, we still wanted to introduce Ukraine into NATO, we did not abandon the decision taken in 2008. Therefore, after the crisis broke out in 2014, we began to train a large number of Ukrainians to fight the Russians in the Donbas.
We started arming Ukrainians after 2017. That is, we trained them, armed them, provided intelligence, helped plan military operations. So, I draw your attention, Ukraine de facto became a member of NATO. It has not officially joined the alliance, but we were still aiming to accept it into NATO de jure. Especially after the Biden administration came to power in January 2021. Today, President Zelensky and his Defense Minister openly talk about Ukraine as a de facto member of NATO. This is not accidental.
One of the main reasons why Ukrainians are fighting so well with the Russians is that we trained and armed them. When the crisis broke out in 2014 and it became clear to us that the Russians would not allow Ukraine to become a threat to Russia from the West, we did not give up. We have redoubled our efforts. And, of course, during 2021, the Russians made it clear to us that the situation was getting out of control. The fact that Ukraine has integrated so strongly into NATO poses a serious threat to Russia. On December 17, 2021, the Russians sent one letter to Jens Stoltenberg and another to Joe Biden; they said that this should stop. "Inform us in writing that Ukraine will not become part of NATO." They also had a set of requirements, which they also set out in writing. In January 2022, the United States announced that it would not make any concessions. Secretary Blinken said: "We will not make concessions regarding your demands from the letter of December 17, 2021." And then on February 24, the conflict began — when it happened, almost everyone I know thought that the Ukrainians would be defeated. But very quickly the Ukrainians made it clear that they were going to fight the Russians, and that they were doing pretty well. Then the Americans and their Western allies began to think that maybe the Ukrainians could defeat the Russians, especially since powerful economic sanctions are causing serious damage to the Russian economy. At that moment, we began to think that we could defeat Russia. It happened in the spring of that year.
And even now we still think that we can win the conflict if we continue to train Ukrainians, help them with planning, supply weapons and share intelligence. And, to answer your question, the reason why we have not given up — although it is clear that Europe has suffered greatly from sanctions and the conflict in Ukraine — is that we are, as it were, doubling our efforts again. There is nothing new here, we continue to follow the same path that we have been following since April 2008, when we said that Ukraine and Georgia would be members of NATO. We have never given up on this. This is one of the reasons why it will be so difficult to extinguish this conflict.
Americans and, of course, Ukrainians are determined to win. Russians, of course, too.
There is no chance that Ukrainians will win, just as there is no chance that Russians will win. There is no escape from this circle. Therefore, I think we want a long-lasting conflict here. I don't see any solution. This begs the question: what if the consequences of this conflict will be disastrous for Europe both economically and politically? It is quite obvious that the economic consequences will be huge. I think the political consequences in all countries and institutions of Europe (such as the EU and NATO) will be tangible and not at all positive. So far it seems that these institutions have united to solve the problem, but I would not bet a lot of money that they will remain united, that the countries of these institutions will remain united in the future. Cracks have already become visible, I think they will deepen over time. The Americans continue to double down because they are determined to win, but it is mainly the Europeans who suffer economically.
Pressure on Europe, including Hungary, to continue supporting the United States in its efforts to defeat the Russians will increase. I do not know how this will happen. I am often asked how, in my opinion, this conflict will end. Who do I think will win? I don't know. It's very hard to say. There are many development options, most of them are real horror. I don't see how this story could end in a happy ending, so I have long said that the United States should not push NATO expansion into Ukraine and generally try to make Ukraine a western bastion on the Russian border.
I always thought it would lead to disaster. I think that I will be right, although I hope that I am wrong, that I have missed some part of the story, and that this missing part will lead to a relatively happy end to this tragedy.
But, unfortunately, I don't believe it.
