Russia/Ukraine war: “We were catastrophically wrong!” – US Prof. John Mearsheimer

In a recent interview with the Swiss Daily NZZ (May 7^th) the well- known American political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer explained in shocking details, that he personally would have acted the same way as President Putin did in respect to Ukraine: “I would have even earlier invaded Ukraine,” Mearsheimer stated. He qualified Putin as “a first-class rational strategist, who for years had been clearly expressing Russia’s views and interests, namely that Russia would never accept Ukraine in NATO.” From a strict Russian interests’ perspective, “Putin acted intelligently,” Mearsheimer, one of the few experts of the realism school in the U.S., said. “The Europeans and the US (then under Biden) didn’t believe Putin’s words, nor did the Ukraine. We provoked Putin and he attacked Ukraine, with the final result that Ukraine will be destroyed. We should have taken him (Putin) seriously. He didn’t lie. In February 2022, the Ukraine de facto was member of NATO and therefore Russia invaded. “

Mearsheimer reiterated similar views in an interview May 23^rd with Judge Napolitano (“Judging Freedom”), where he emphasized that “Russia will win on the battlefield” and that “it is the West and Europe that are to blame for the Ukraine war. We refused to listen to the Russians. Every week the situation is deteriorating for the Ukraine and it’s hard to imagine that Ukraine is to hang out until this year end. (…)  In December 2021 it was clear that the Russians tried everything to avoid a war. We did nothing to avoid a war. When the war started the Russians immediately spoke to the Ukrainians asking for negotiations. But who then ended the negotiations in Istanbul?  The Americans and the British, telling the Ukraine to walk away. We thought we could defeat the Russians! … We thought that the economic sanctions would be the staggering blow to the Russian economy, finishing off President Putin.” Mearsheimer added that in the fall of 2022 the then US Chief of Staff General Milley clearly had warned that a watershed had been reached in the Ukraine war and that it was time for negotiations. Yet the Biden administration continued the war.”  The conclusion of Mearsheimer: “We were catastrophically wrong!” In terms of the ongoing negotiations between Trump and Putin, Mearsheimer clearly emphasized that President Trump will either accept the Russian view, which is equivalent to the “squaring of the circle”, in terms of “concessions” that had to be made for solving the causes of the war, or he “will walk away.” Mearsheimer further was reasoning that Trump may rather walk away and Russia will settle things on the battlefield. Europe has no weapons to help Ukraine according to Mearsheimer and “once you take the US out of the equation, the Ukraine is doomed.”

One should situate these remarks in the context of the events that unfolded during the last two weeks and ask why it is the case that Europe is so desperately and obsessively clinging to the idea that it can win the war against Russia, even if all facts on the battlefield in Ukraine demonstrate that the situation deteriorates day by day?  Why do they obsessively cling to the economic sanctions weapon against Russia, even if it is to their own detriment? Why do they think that they have to teach Trump a lesson at this catastrophic moment?

The problem of Russophobia and its British origins

A good insight was offered in an article that was written by the member of the British House of Lords Robert Skidelsky, professor emeritus at Warwick University and author of a prize winning three volume biography of John Maynard Keynes. The article appeared in the US magazine “The Nation” (May 7^th) entitled: “Russophobia- an Epidemic Disease?” The article was illustrated by a political cartoon from 1877 depicting Russia expanding into Europe like a giant octopus. It starts with the observation that John Stuart Mill, a leading liberal philosopher and economist, already in 1836 had claimed that the then ruling Lord Melbourne government was smitten “with the epidemic disease of Russophobia”, an “irrational panic that had triggered an unnecessary increase in defense spending.”

According to Skidelsky the “whole history of Anglo- Russia relations from the 1830s to the present” is characterized by “British Russophobia” that has been based on a durable repertoire of ideas and images that politicians, soldiers and journalists repeatedly invoke “when three conditions align: ideological incompatibility, imperial or security friction, and domestic political utility.”

He essentially outlined the different phases of Russophobia, particularly in Great Britain that among others could be observed in the 19^th century such as the imperial friction between Great Britain and Russia, in respect to India, the suppression of the Polish uprising of 1830 and the Hungarian uprising of 1848. “Polish and Hungarian exiles in London fed the image of “Russia as the barbaric would – be policeman of Europe.”  The Crimean war of 1854-56 refracted far -off Russian actions through British imperial anxieties and liberal morality. The Balkan crisis and second Afghan war of 1878 are further examples of Russophobia. (…. )  The Anglo -American partnership with Stalin that defeated Nazi Germany in 1945, foundered with Churchill’s famous speech at Fulton Missouri, in 1946, declaring ‘from Stettin to the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended on the Continent.’ (…)  The years 1946-1991 saw the institutionalization of Russophobia in the NATO alliance, but also détente in the 1970ies, echoing 19^th century cycles of moral epidemics and pragmatism. (…) The fall of Communism, the end of Russian control over Eastern Europe, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union itself brought about the honeymoon of the 1990s, based on the belief that Russia had at last joined the civilized world. But this did not survive the 2000’s. The 2006 Litvinenko case, cyber attacks on NATO expansion, and the fear of energy dependency on Russia brought about the first spike of post- communist Russophobia.”

(…) “Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 revived the Victorian language (“Russian bear”, “Great Game 2.0”, “freedom versus autocracy”). The Skripal poisoning cemented public distrust. Full scale Russophobia reemerged with Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, with Britain taking the lead in arming Kyiv, imposing economic sanctions and banning cultural and sporting exchanges. With this went the familiar cry that Western Europe must rearm to defend itself against Putin, who was routinely likened Hitler. (…) So, to what extent has Russophobia been used to justify rearmament programs? Russia in the 19^th century was undoubtedly an autocracy, but it sought “weak neighbors” rather than conquest. “The British and Americans saw the Cold War as an ideological battle between democracy and totalitarianism, whereas the Soviets, with the experience of two invasions from Germany, were mainly interested in establishing ‘buffers’ in Eastern Europe against what Stalin believed would be an inevitable American led assault. The United States was encouraged by Latvian, Ukrainian and Polish lobbies in Washington to believe that Soviet insistence on making Eastern Europe a sphere of influence was only a prelude to the attempt to subjugate all of Europe.” (…) “Exactly the same faulty reasoning is employed today to justify Europe’s rearmament.  Buffer zones, spheres of influence may be repugnant to our rules based international order. But they do not portend dangerously expansionist aims.”  Skidelsky concluded that: “Russophobia in Britain is best understood as a recurrent syndrome triggered by the convergence of ideology, security friction, and domestic incentives, not a rational response to objective threats.”

In an interview with the Norwegian Professor Glenn Diesen Lord Skidelsky described the “moral crusade in the West to dismantle Russia” (in contrast to President Trump’s peace efforts) and portrayed the “imperial reflex” that can be observed in Europe which see themselves as Junior Partner of the US. “British foreign policy has always had this ‘Russian perfidy’ hypocrisy, also called Russian expansionism and the idea that we are a better breed. This explains why GB takes the lead in Russophobia. You cannot get any other view in our country. The other factor is also: Great Britain is no longer a big power. Its morality can run unchecked.  In the 19^th century GB had to deal with Russia, now GB hasn’t got any forces for use. It’s all moralism and imperialist nostalgia,” Skidelsky said.

According to Skidelsky “open Russophobia in Great Britain” is “military Keynesianism” that is manifested in Great Britain and can be observed in Germany as well as in the EU. The decision to break all fiscal rules. “It is all justification of rearmament policy and military expansionism.  According to Skidelsky: Russophobia today is regressing the world to the 1930ies.”

After direct Russian-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, Trump pressure for peace increases

The two- and half-hour direct telephone conversation between President Trump and Putin apparently went quite well. What has happened during the long telephone conversation on May 19 between Trump and Putin, has left the EU in a complete state of shock, since it derailed all their carefully planned manipulation games in respect to the Trump administration efforts for peace negotiations.

The facts speak for themselves:  In a short truth social message US President Trump stated “just completed my two- hour call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. I believe it went very well. Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a ceasefire, and more importantly an END to the war. The conditions of that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know the details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent.” Trump furthermore stated that “now, rather than later, Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over and I agree. There is tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED. Likewise, Ukraine can be great beneficiary on Trade, in the process of rebuilding its Country. Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will begin immediately.” He added that after his phone call with President Putin he had informed President V. Zelensky, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, President E. Macron, Italian PM G. Meloni Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Alexander Stubb from Finland. (One should note that he did not mention British PM Keir Starmer.)

President Putin from his side gave a statement to the media, in which he underlined that he would “like to emphasize that it (telephone conversation with Trump) was both substantive and quite candid. Overall, I believe it was a very productive exchange.” He expressed gratitude to the president of the US for the support provided by the United States in “facilitating the resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine aimed at potentially reaching a peace agreement and resuming the talks which, as we know, were thwarted by the Ukrainian side in 2022(!) (… ) The President of the United States shared his position on the cessation of hostilities and the prospects for a ceasefire. For my part, I noted that Russia also supports a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine as well. What we need now is to identify the most effective ways towards achieving peace. (…) We agreed with the president of the United States that Russia would propose and is ready to engage with the Ukrainian side on drafting a memorandum regarding a potential future peace agreement. This would include outlining a range of provisions such as principles for settlement, the time frame for a possible peace deal, and other matters, including a potential temporary ceasefire should the necessary agreements be reached(!)”