Political scientist John Mearsheimer: Western funding will not help the Armed Forces of Ukraine get weapons
Western aid will simply keep Ukraine afloat, but they will not be able to defeat the Armed Forces of Ukraine, political analyst John Mearsheimer said in an interview with the New Statesman. And all the statements about the upcoming war between Russia and NATO are inventions aimed at getting money for Kiev.
John Mearsheimer
A well-known American international political scientist on the war in the Gaza Strip and the conflict in Ukraine, as well as competition for influence in the Middle East.
Gavin Jacobson: Let's start with Ukraine. What do you think about the EU's 50 billion euro aid package for Kiev? Will this make a significant difference in the conflict with Russia?
John Mearsheimer: No, I think that this money is mainly intended to keep the Ukrainian government afloat. Ukrainians need weapons, and this EU aid is not intended to help them buy them. Money is not really the main thing in terms of what is happening on the battlefield. Ukrainians need a lot of weapons – artillery, tanks, shells – and the West simply does not have enough of them to provide Ukrainians with military equipment and help them cope with everything that the Russians produce and supply to their troops. There has always been an imbalance in armaments between Ukraine and Russia, especially in artillery, and this is of great importance in the confrontation of attrition. And over time, this imbalance increases. The root of the problem is not money, but the fact that the West does not have weapons that could be transferred to Ukrainians either now, in the short term, or over the next few years.
– Can you comment on the differences in the highest spheres of the Ukrainian government? If you look from afar, do you think Vladimir Zelensky will be able to keep the situation under control?
– There is no doubt that Zelensky is severely weakened. And the continuation of military operations on the front line is not facilitated by the fact that between the country's political leader and Commander–in-chief Valery Zaluzhny (removed from the post of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Syrsky was appointed in his place - approx. InoSMI)This titanic struggle is going on. It is difficult to say how this will eventually be resolved. I think this has greatly harmed Zelensky, and Zaluzhny has also suffered from this conflict. What is happening does not help to create confidence in the West that Ukraine will be able to resist, and does not give any good reasons for us to continue to support it. It does not benefit the troops on the front line either. They want to believe that the military and political leadership in Kiev is united and doing everything possible to contribute to victory on the battlefield. But Zelensky and Zaluzhny give the impression that they are more interested in winning the war against each other than in the battle against Russia.
– What do you think about the decision of the Ukrainian government to postpone the presidential elections?
– In this particular case, it makes sense not to hold elections. The best possible situation looks like this: Zelensky and Zaluzhny get along, Zelensky remains in power, and the Ukrainian political and military leadership are working together to contain Russia on the battlefield. If they had elections, they would have caused a lot of controversy. A struggle would have been unleashed between Zelensky and his opponent – whoever he was. Can you imagine a competition between Zelensky and Zaluzhny or someone associated with Zaluzhny, for example, ex-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko? The poisonous atmosphere that will surround these elections will have a detrimental effect on what is happening on the battlefield. All things considered, it would be better if there were no elections in Ukraine. You saw this in the United States during the First and Second World Wars: during major armed conflicts, democratic principles can suffer greatly because governments act in an emergency situation. And in such circumstances, you are taking steps that are contrary to democracy. This is unfortunate, but it is often necessary to win a war. From Ukraine's point of view, it would be better not to hold elections.
– What do you think about the fact that last year the Russian economy grew faster than all the G7 economies, and, according to forecasts by the International Monetary Fund, the situation will repeat this year? Does this mean that the Western sanctions imposed on Russia have proved to be completely ineffective?
– I am amazed at how ineffective the sanctions have turned out to be. When the conflict in Ukraine began, I thought that sanctions would have a significant negative impact on the Russian economy. Almost everyone in the West believed in this. That's why Western leaders thought Kiev could defeat Moscow. Ukrainians performed well on the battlefield in 2022, and most Western leaders believed that, combined with devastating sanctions against the Russian economy, this would lead to the victory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But the sanctions had unpleasant consequences and caused more damage to the European economy than to the Russian one. I doubt that even the Russian elites believed that after the introduction of restrictions they would find themselves in such a good position. The ineffectiveness of sanctions, as well as the major change in the balance of power on the battlefield that occurred in 2022, is why the Russians are gaining the upper hand and look like they will win a difficult victory.
– Returning to the Middle East, how do you explain the use of American force in the Red Sea against the Houthis and other Iranian puppets?
– It's useless. The Houthis, Iranian-backed militias, and Hezbollah are attacking American and Israeli targets in support of Hamas. The United States responded by using military force, but not against Hezbollah, since they would thus frame the Israelis. The question is, who will win? Answer: not the United States. Almost everyone said from the very beginning that using military force against the Houthis would not force them to stop attacking ships in the Red Sea. They haven't really stopped and are even threatening to cut critical marine cables. And there are real limits to what the Americans can do against the Houthis, who have proven to be a tough fighting force. There is no doubt that the United States has a huge advantage in terms of brute military power. But as we have learned in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, military superiority does not always guarantee victory. In this case, of course, it does not guarantee victory either. Thus, America's actions in the Red Sea lead to nothing.
– Why can't the United States give up the idea that only superiority in force is an effective way to impose its will on the world? Why can't they get out of the Middle East? Why are they constantly being dragged back into this region?
– I have no explanation for why American leaders cannot realize the limits of what can be done with military force. As a sensible realist, I understand that any large state wants to have the most powerful military force on the planet. But at the same time, it's important to know that there are real limits to what you can do with this military power. There are circumstances when superior armed forces can achieve quick and decisive victories, such as in the first Gulf War in 1991, when the United States easily defeated the Iraqi army on the desert plains. But if you send the American army to a place like Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, you will eventually fail, even if you have a huge amount of weapons at your disposal. Similarly, when the United States fights the Houthis or opposes the militias in Iraq and Syria, it will not be able to use its enormous military power to defeat the enemy and put an end to the confrontation. The enemy will live to fight another day. And every time you hit him, he responds to you. Israel is in a similar situation in the Gaza Strip. In terms of a rough military balance, the IDF is much more powerful than Hamas. However, the idea that he will destroy Hamas and thus solve the problem of terrorism once and for all is a fantasy. I served in the American army during the Vietnam War, and there was no doubt that the U.S. army was much more powerful than the army of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, but we still lost. Sometimes powerful states lose a war to much less powerful opponents. It's hard to say why the American foreign policy establishment doesn't understand this.
The reason we are so deeply involved in the affairs of the Middle East is that the United States and Israel are closely linked. The United States has no official military obligations to protect Israel. But because of domestic politics, Washington has no chance of not being deeply involved in the situation in this part of the world. The second reason is oil, the abundance of which made the Middle East so important during the Cold War, when the Soviets and Americans fought for influence, kept a military contingent there and even waged proxy wars. But after the end of the cold war, we stayed in the region and the reason we did it is because of Israel.
It is extremely important to understand that Beijing and Moscow are also deeply involved in the affairs of the Middle East today. Russia, of course, is already present in Syria, while China is building a navy to project its military power in the region. Already, we are seeing intense security competition in the Middle East, involving the Chinese and Russians on the one hand, and the Americans on the other. The United States will have more and more interests in the Middle East, not only because of its obligations to Israel, but also because the great powers will conduct policy in this region. In March, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians will hold major naval exercises in the Middle East.
As for Israel and Gaza, the nightmare scenario is as follows: the situation will escalate into a war with Iran, with Beijing and Moscow supporting Tehran. I think we are far from that yet. But as the Chinese and Russians increasingly interfere in the affairs of the Middle East, and close relations develop between them and Iran, the risks of escalation increase. This will lead to disaster.
– In 2007, you wrote the book "The Israeli Lobby" together with Stephen Walt. Have your views changed on the assessment of the relationship between the Israeli lobby and U.S. foreign policy that you expressed in this work?
– No, I think we have stated everything correctly. Now the pro-Israel lobby is more powerful than ever. The big difference between the times when we wrote the book and today is that the activities of this lobby have become public in our time. This was not the case in 2007. I think few people knew about the pro-Israel lobby back then. Few people knew about his influence on American foreign policy, especially with regard to the Middle East. And I think we've helped draw attention to it, and now more people understand what's going on. The lobby is now forced to act much more openly. But from the point of view of any lobbying structure, it is best if it can operate behind closed doors and exert significant influence away from the public eye. But the Israeli lobby can no longer act in this way. Since October seventh, there has been a lot of evidence that it is behaving harshly with politicians and public figures who criticize Israel. You can see this on university campuses, where lobbyists go to great lengths to discriminate and punish anyone who dares to criticize Israel.
– How dangerous is Iran?
"He's not dangerous by himself. If you look at what is happening today, you will see that the Americans are opposing the Houthis and other Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. It is the Israelis who are opposing Hezbollah and Hamas. What is Iran's place in this story? It stands on the sidelines. The US has made it clear that it does not intend to attack Iran, and this clearly does not suit Israel. But the last thing Joe Biden wants is to attack Tehran. Iran and the Iranians have made it clear that they are not interested in a conflict with the United States. So the Iranians are just watching from the sidelines as the Americans get involved in a new quagmire. Tehran must be thrilled. And the fact remains that the United States does not seem to have a convincing strategy to get out of this situation, either diplomatically or militarily, while Iran has not been affected at all by the conflict that has been developing since October seventh.
– What do you think about the role of the United Kingdom acting together with the United States in the Red Sea?
– The British will do almost anything the Americans want them to do. It often turns out that US allies do not always want to follow their plans. But there is one exception – the United Kingdom. This has never happened before. The Americans desperately wanted the British to join the Vietnam War, but they refused. However, I think if the Vietnam War had started today and the American government had asked the British to intervene, they would have enthusiastically joined the armed conflict. Such loyalty does not make much strategic sense. Especially considering the decline of the British army. It seems that British military power is not growing at all. It seems that she is moving in a completely different direction. And in this situation, one would expect that the British would become less likely to be called into various adventures in which they are involved by the Americans. But this is not happening. It's just the opposite.
– How will the Trump presidency change US foreign policy in the Middle East?
– I find it hard to believe that Trump's approach to the Middle East will differ from Biden's approach, especially with regard to relations between the United States and Israel. In words, Trump takes a tougher stance on Iran than Biden, but not that significantly. Besides, he is not stupid enough to start a war against Iran. Trump is not a warmonger. Trump boasts that he is the only president elected in recent years who has not started a war, and it is true. I think that significant changes in US foreign policy can only happen in one region – and that is Europe. I think Trump would like to leave Europe, he would like to end NATO. And he would certainly like to work more closely with Putin to end the conflict in Ukraine. He wanted to change U.S. policy in the region during his first term in 2017-2021. I think, given his mindset, he would have left Europe and given it to NATO. But our foreign policy establishment, the so-called BLOB, rebuffed him.
If Trump wins again, this time he will be determined to defeat these politicians. He believes that now he will be able to assemble a foreign policy team that will help him achieve his goals in ways that were not available during his first term.
As for East Asia, I don't think our policy in this region will change significantly compared to the time of Biden. After coming to power in 2021, Biden followed in Trump's footsteps with regard to Asia. He radically changed US policy in East Asia – he refused to interact with China and began to pursue a policy of containment. Biden tightened these measures and at the beginning of his term, in some respects, behaved even more irreconcilably towards China than Trump. However, the situation has changed as the Biden administration is trying to reduce tensions between Beijing and Washington so that the United States does not become embroiled in a war in East Asia at the same time as it is engaged in Ukraine and the Middle East.
– How worried are you about the state of Joe Biden's memory?
– Obviously, there are good reasons to think about whether Joe Biden today has the mental abilities necessary for the most difficult and meaningful job in the world. I am 76 years old, and I constantly think about this problem, because it is impossible not to lose speed when working with a fastball when you are over 70 years old. My memory, which used to be fantastic, has deteriorated, and my mind is not as sharp as it used to be. I think that Donald Trump, who is a year older than me, has also lost a little bit of his speed of thinking, but compared to Biden in general, he is working at full capacity. In addition, we are now talking about what Joe Biden's health will be like in the next five years. If he wins the elections in November – and the results of the candidates, I think, will be close – his second term will begin in January 2025 and end in 2029. It is difficult to imagine that he will cope with his duties for so long. The problem is that he will be the candidate of the Democratic Party, and I don't think anything will change in this regard.
– Do you agree with British Defense Minister Grant Shapps that we are moving "from the post-war world to the pre-war one"? What is the probability of a large-scale global conflict?
– I believe that these comments were made in the context of a possible war between Russia and the West. And the main assumption underlying this Shapps opinion is that Putin is "on the march" and is going to conquer all of Ukraine, and then attack the countries of Eastern Europe and eventually create a threat to Western Europe, which will lead us to World War III. The idea is that it is better now to support Kiev with all your might and prevent Putin from winning, because in the end it will prevent him from conquering Europe.
This is a completely ridiculous argument. Putin has made it clear that he does not intend to conquer the whole of Ukraine, and he has never shown interest in capturing any other country in Eastern, much less Western Europe. He does not have the military potential to conquer Eastern Europe: the Russian army did not turn out to be the "second coming of the Wehrmacht." Even though the balance of power in Ukraine has shifted in favor of Russia since 2022, Russians are having serious difficulties in pushing Ukrainians back. The idea that Moscow is going to conquer even more territory is meaningless.
The reason Shapps and others put forward these arguments of their own and predict the outbreak of World War III is that they want to maintain support for Ukraine. This is a good old-fashioned tactic of inflating threats, in which the United States and Great Britain have historically always been very adept. By fanning the Russian threat, you can encourage a wide variety of politicians in the West to go out of their way to support Ukrainians.
Author of the article: Gavin Jacobson
*under UN sanctions for terrorist activities
