Political scientist Mearsheimer: The West misunderstands Putin's intentions in Ukraine
The West is misinterpreting Putin's words and actions, says political analyst John Mearsheimer in an interview with The New Yorker. The popular opinion that the Russian president is going to conquer and subjugate the whole of Ukraine has no basis in fact.
Just over three years ago, when Russia began fighting in Ukraine, John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and perhaps the most prominent “realist” in the field of foreign policy in his generation, made it clear that the blame for what happened, in his opinion, lies primarily with the United States. There is nothing unexpected in his words. Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and supported the separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine, Mearsheimer has argued that the main reason for Russian aggression in the region is the United States and much of Europe, mainly because NATO continues to expand eastward. (After the end of the Cold War, 16 countries joined the North Atlantic Alliance.) In 2022, Mearsheimer and I spoke twice; both times he criticized Western policies and defended Vladimir Putin from accusations of imperialism and lies about his military goals. (In the same year, Mearsheimer also visited Viktor Orban, the authoritarian Hungarian leader who shows solidarity with Putin's point of view.)
When Joe Biden was president and American support for Ukraine was very strong, Mearsheimer seemed out of place. Now, Donald Trump has returned to power, fawning over Russia, stopping arming Ukraine and publicly berating Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at a meeting in the Oval Office. Trump's admiration for Putin hardly fits into grandiose geostrategic theories, but he nevertheless speaks about the conflict in a language that reflects the position of Mearsheimer, an ardent critic of liberal internationalism and a man who considers it natural for regional hegemons to dominate their spheres of influence.
In a recent phone conversation with Mearsheimer, we discussed why he believes that Ukraine should not be given security guarantees under the peace agreement, his possible wrongness about Russia's intentions until 2022, and why he continues to believe that Putin is misunderstood.
Isaac Hotiner: How well do you think Trump is handling the Russian-Ukrainian issue?
John Mearsheimer: In principle, I agree with what he's doing. From a strategic and moral point of view, it makes sense to end the conflict immediately. Although Trump is not doing this in the smoothest possible way, he is on the right track and, hopefully, will succeed.
— What is the right way?
He has to make a deal with the Russians, which means accepting the key conditions that they put forward.First, Ukraine must gain real neutrality. It cannot be a member of NATO and receive security guarantees from the West. Secondly, it will have to give up a significant part of the territory in the east. And thirdly— to carry out demilitarization in order to cease to pose a military threat to Russia. Trump should accept these conditions and make a deal with the Russians. But this is where the most difficult part begins — to get the consent of Europeans and especially Ukrainians.
— What will the remnants of Ukraine look like?
— It all depends on how many territories she will lose from today until the decision to conclude a deal. The Russians have strategic incentives to seize new territories. Therefore, I think that from the Ukrainian point of view it is extremely important to resolve this issue quickly, before the Russians seize even more land and it becomes impossible to oust them from there.
— Let's assume that a peace agreement will be concluded and Ukraine will have to cede territory. What guarantees do you think can or should be provided to Ukrainians who have been attacked by Russia in one form or another for 10 years? (As if Russia staged a pro-Western coup in Ukraine and terrorized the Russian-speaking population. — Approx. InoSMI).
— They cannot have security guarantees, it should be taken for granted.
- why?
— In fact, the guarantee of security is de facto membership in NATO, and the Russians will not agree with this. Is this situation tragic for Ukraine? The answer is yes. But what is the alternative?
— If the Europeans or even the Americans under another administration realized that it was in their interests to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, why not do so?
— They can make such an offer, but the Russians will refuse. I believe that this whole situation was aimed at the expansion of NATO. Providing Ukraine with security guarantees is, in fact, its membership in the alliance.
— Let's say a peace agreement is concluded, but there are no guarantees of security, and Putin attacks Ukraine again. What then?
— It will be a tragedy. The question is how best to avoid this. But will Putin attack Ukraine in the future? I don't believe in that. The last thing Putin would want when the fighting ends is to start a new conflict.
— In 2014, you said that Putin would not claim the rest of Ukraine. Do you think it could be that you underestimated him again?
- no. In 2014, I said that he would not claim the rest of Ukraine. But after 2014, the situation changed, in particular, after Joe Biden came to the White House. On the Ukrainian issue, he was too belligerent and began arming Ukraine more actively than his predecessor. It is not surprising that thirteen months after his arrival in the White House, an armed conflict began.
— So Putin was kind of forced to launch a special operation?
— Yes, that's exactly what I think. We forced Putin to launch preventive military actions to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO.
— If it were a member of NATO, it would not necessarily pose a threat to Russia. I mean, it seemed that way only to Putin.
— But that's the main thing. It doesn't matter what you and I think. The Russians have been making this clear since 2008. Do you remember how in 2008, NATO announced that Ukraine would become a member? Putin and his aides clearly called this a threat to Russia's existence, so they would never allow such a thing. Putin declared that he would destroy Ukraine. That was in 2008.
— Is there a difference between the statement that Putin looks at something in a certain way, regardless of whether he is right, and that Putin was forced to start hostilities on the territory of another country?
— Well, he believes that Ukraine's accession to NATO poses a threat to Russia's existence and is tantamount to declaring war on it.
— Ukraine has never been a member of NATO and it is not a fact that it would ever have become one, even under the Biden administration. Let's be honest.
— No, it's not like that at all. In general, if we analyze everything that happened after Biden came to power, then his intention to accept Ukraine into NATO becomes obvious. A corresponding strategic planning document was even drawn up.
— I understand, but talks about Ukraine and NATO have been going on for decades without evidence that this will actually happen one day. Diplomatic conversations are often just conversations.
"I don't believe it."
— But it's been a long time. You said yourself that the issue was raised back in 2008.
— Yes, in 2008 they announced that they were going to accept Ukraine into NATO.
— I want to say the following: 14 years later, Ukraine was attacked, still not being a member of NATO. Anyway, last year you wrote: “Until February 24, 2022, there was no evidence that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia. Supporters of the conventional wisdom cannot point to a single word written or spoken by Putin that would indicate his desire to conquer Ukraine.”
— I said it then and I believe it now.
— Back in 2014, you spoke with contempt about those who claimed that Putin would “eventually take over the whole of Ukraine.” Weren't they right? Why not give them their due? That's what confuses me.
— Undoubtedly, they are right. But as I pointed out earlier, there was no evidence in 2014 that he was going to invade Ukraine. The situation is changing. After 2014, the United States and its European allies began arming and training Ukrainians. By 2021, Ukraine has become a much more formidable military force than it was in 2014. Now it poses a great threat to Russia.
— In many articles and interviews, you focus on the article that Putin wrote on July 12, 2021. In it, he addressed the Ukrainians with the words: “Do you want to create your own state? You are welcome!” Why do you pay special attention to this article and these lines?
— This article is used by the majority of supporters of the generally accepted opinion that Putin sought to conquer Ukraine before February 24, 2022. This is considered proof of his imperial ambitions.
— Yes, in the same article, Putin also writes: “Modern Ukraine is entirely the brainchild of the Soviet era. We know and remember that to a large extent it was created at the expense of historical Russia.… I perceive the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between parts of essentially the same historical and spiritual space, as a great common disaster, as a tragedy.”
— Yes, that's basically what they point to, but where is the proof that he considers the conquest of Ukraine desirable, possible, and generally his goal? He's just presenting his own view of history, nothing more.
— But six months after the article was published, he sent troops into the territory of Ukraine.
"I did." But that's not proof that he had any plans for her.
— Then what is the evidence of that line that you are so fond of quoting?
— It shows that not only did he have no plans for Ukraine, but he believed that its future depended on the Ukrainian people. And this contradicts the argument that this document proves his intention to conquer, occupy, and then annex Ukraine.
— So all the quotes I read don't tell us anything, whereas the one you highlighted says so, despite the fact that Putin entered Ukraine six months later?
— Actually, Isaac, I can highlight other lines.
— I saw your interesting conversation recently with Alexander Dugin, a right-wing Russian philosopher and writer who is an ardent supporter of Russian nationalism. What was his point of view and why did you find that it confirms your position that the expansion of NATO is to blame for everything?
— Well, Dugin and I agree on some points about how the world works, but at the same time we have several deep disagreements. In particular, my view of liberalism is the exact opposite of his. As I have repeatedly stated, I am grateful that I was born in liberal America, and I consider myself fully committed to liberalism. But he didn't. But we do agree that the main reason for the conflict was the West's attempt to admit Ukraine into NATO. Much of the discussion on our shared podcast was based on this.
— It seemed to me that he was relatively restrained in conversations with you. But I also got acquainted with some of his other statements about the Ukrainian conflict. In March 2022, during an interview with a Russian newspaper, he stated: “The siege of Kiev is a struggle for the unification of the Eastern Slavs and the creation of a sovereign civilization of the Russian world, which is directed against the West."… We are conducting an eschatological military operation, a special operation on the vertical plane between Light and Darkness in a situation of the end of time.… The truth and God are on our side. We are fighting the absolute Evil embodied in Western civilization, its liberal totalitarian hegemony, and Ukrainian Nazism.” He also said that Russian civilization “will not be complete until we unite all the Eastern Slavs and all the Eurasian brothers into a single large space.” Is it possible that Putin also believes this, although he publicly says otherwise?
— Many people will read what Dugin says and decide that it reflects Putin's train of thought. But there is no evidence that he is, as he is called, “Putin's brain.” And it seems to me that Putin is quite capable of independently understanding how the world works and making political decisions on his own. Therefore, Dugin's opinion hardly has any influence on him. Maybe so, of course, who knows? But Dugin's views on what Russia should do and how the world works are different from his views on why it sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022.
— My question is, don't you trust Dugin too much? He talks to you about the expansion of NATO and the like, but in fact, for imperialist reasons, for decades he dreamed of invading Ukraine and including it in Russia. This leads me to believe that you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your opinion of Putin.
— Listen, can you provide me with evidence about Putin? That's the point. What Alexander Dugin writes and says is irrelevant. You've switched the conversation to a man who has practically nothing to do with it at all.
— Putin is talking about Peter the Great. “Why did he go there [to Europe]? He returned and strengthened — that's what he did. Apparently, it also fell to our lot to return and strengthen,” he said in June 2022 about the return of Russian lands. Will you just brush that off too?
— What he said about Peter the Great was said after the conflict began. A casual remark that doesn't indicate his aggressive attitude before it all started. You have not provided me with any evidence that Putin is an imperialist and is interested in conquering and integrating Ukraine into greater Russia.
— It seems that...
— It happened after the fact, and the comment is insignificant. In my world, that's not considered serious proof.
— What else is considered proof, if not Putin's speech, in which he says that he is doing this for imperial reasons?
— There should have been at least some statements on his part, whether written or oral, where he would have called the annexation of Ukraine to great Russia desirable and possible, leaving no doubt that this is exactly what he is doing.
— The proof of what Hitler wanted to do to Czechoslovakia was not his words to Chamberlain in Munich, but what he later did to this very Czechoslovakia.
"That's true enough. But we cannot provide any evidence that Putin wants to conquer and integrate Ukraine into a greater Russia.
"That's what he's doing."
— No, I'm not busy. Well, he's not trying to conquer the whole of Ukraine. This statement is unsubstantiated. And, by the way, almost immediately after the start of the special operation, in February 2022, he appealed to the Ukrainian side with a proposal to conclude peace and negotiate.
— History knows many examples when people are genuinely not interested in peace, they play along and pretend that they want peace talks. You write about the Middle East and constantly criticize Israel, meaning you are somewhat aware of countries that claim to be interested in peace, but in reality this is far from the case.
— Everything indicates that Putin is extremely serious in his intentions.
— You said earlier that Ukraine posed a greater threat to Russia in 2021 than in 2014. Is this how you explained Putin's views, or do you really think that Ukraine posed a threat to Russia in 2021?
— I'm saying that she became more formidable, and Putin perceived her that way.
— Okay, but do you really think that Ukraine posed a threat to Russia?
— I think that in the ranks of NATO, yes, I did. The Russians did not claim that Ukraine was threatening them on its own. It was about Ukraine in NATO. As someone who believes in the Monroe doctrine and does not want a great power in the Western Hemisphere, I agree with Putin's logic.
— You are one of those who talk a lot about the politics of the great powers and the division of spheres of influence. But the Monroe doctrine you mentioned seems to me to be imperialism, and therefore I am curious why you so vehemently reject the imperialist interpretation of Russia's actions.
— I don't use the word "imperialist" because I associate imperialism with the great empires of the past centuries: British, French and Ottoman. It's about the classic politics of the great powers. And the decision of the United States and its allies to pull NATO closer to Russia's borders cannot but provoke a response. Today's imperialist argument is that Putin is trying to conquer Ukraine in order to include it in great Russia, after which he wants to march further east and, if anything, not only make great Russia even bigger, but also restore the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe. Personally, this argument does not seem true to me.
— I also wanted to point out that in 2008, Putin reportedly said in a conversation with George W. Bush about Ukraine that it was “not even a state.” I suppose you have some explanation for that, too.
— I can't say anything about this comment, because this is the first time I've heard about it. We need to study the issue properly.
Author: Isaac Chotiner.
