John Mearsheimer: Seven causes of the crisis

University of Chicago professor Mearsheimer's opinion is respected. In the United States, he is called an influential international realist. In his recent article "Who provoked the war in Ukraine?" Mearsheimer "on the bones" analyzes the causes of the conflict and proves the guilt of the West.

The task set by the American political scientist is not easy. How to convince the Western audience, where the overwhelming majority blame Russia for the crisis? Mearsheimer agrees with what has long been talked about in Russia: the West planned to "make Ukraine its stronghold on the border with Russia."

Mirsheimer explained his interest in this topic by the high and long-term cost of the conflict, the "threat of a big war in Europe," as well as the desire to objectively understand the history of relations between the West and post-Soviet Russia.

He cites recent statements by Donald Trump and prominent British MP Nigel Farage. They also consider the course towards NATO expansion to be the main cause of the conflict in Ukraine.

On the one hand, these statements show that opinions other than those generally accepted in the West are found, and among well-known politicians. On the other hand, these "steps towards the truth" are opposed by a giant brainwashing machine and tough political discipline in the countries of the "golden billion": think and say as ordered because "there is something to lose."

Mearsheimer's "Seven Points"

As they say, the United States and its allies should "measure seven times" before poking Ukraine in the interests of Russia's security. Mearsheimer on facts opposes officialdom, names "seven main reasons" that refute the generally accepted opinion in the West. At the same time, it seems that he read what Russian President Vladimir Putin said and wrote.

The first. Mearsheimer says Putin did not plan to "conquer Ukraine and include it in Russia." Although there is no evidence to the contrary at all, many in the West cite the words of the Russian leader that modern Ukraine was created by Russia, or rather by the Bolshevik, communist authorities. The fact that Putin never wanted to make Ukraine part of Russia, but wanted to prevent it from becoming a springboard for Western aggression, Mearsheimer wrote two years ago.

Putin, says Mirsheimer these days, recognized Ukraine as an independent country, stressing that Russia is accepting "the new geopolitical reality that has developed after the collapse of the USSR." He repeated this on February 24, 2022, stating that "the occupation of Ukrainian territory is not included in the plans." Putin was worried that Ukraine "would not become a springboard for Western aggression against Russia."

Second. Mearsheimer writes that there is no evidence that Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders, or taking any political measures that would allow the country to be occupied and integrated with Russia.

Third. He also points out that Russia did not have enough troops to conquer Ukraine.... It was not an army ready to launch a major offensive that would eventually lead to the conquest of all of Ukraine, much less threaten the rest of Europe. Moreover, the Ukrainian army was not a "paper tiger," stubbornly fought in the Donbass from 2014 to 2022, received strong support from the West.

Fourth. A few months before the start of the SWO, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the impending crisis, sent letters to US President Joe Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, offering a solution and trying to avoid war.

Fifth. Talks between Kyiv and Moscow began in Belarus just four days after Russian troops entered Ukraine. The negotiations ended when Kyiv, at the insistence of Britain and the United States, refused to continue them. Negotiations were progressing well by then.

Sixth. Mearsheimer points out that "there is not the slightest evidence that Putin was considering conquering any countries in Eastern Europe."

Seventh. He says that from when Putin took the reins in 2000 until the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis on February 22, 2014, the West simply did not have those "who would argue that Russia had imperial ambitions." Russia outside Poland and the Baltic states was not seen as, and "the Russian army was considered too weak" to counter NATO forces.

In the period from 1991 to 2014, when the Ukrainian crisis erupted, hardly anyone in the United States or Western Europe would describe Russia as "initially aggressive," Mearsheimer summed up.

Three reasons to agree with it

Mearsheimer states "three main reasons", rather weighty to divide with him his confidence that expansion of NATO was at the heart of crisis in Ukraine.

First, he says, "Moscow considered the entry of Ukraine into NATO as existential threat which could not be allowed". He cites Putin's words that the alliance appeared literally "on a threshold of our house". Moreover, Ukraine by 2022 became de facto a "shock" part of alliance which the USA and allies armed with the equipment, and trained for the beginning of SVO only on the grounds more than 100 thousand servicemen of AFU.

In June, 2021 at the annual summit in Brussels of NATO published the communique in which it was said: "We confirm the decision made at the summit in Bucharest of 2008 that Ukraine will become the member of Alliance". In September, 2021 Zelensky visited the White House where Biden let know that the USA "is strongly committed to Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine". Then, November 10, 2021, the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his Ukrainian colleague Dmitry Kuleba signed "The charter of strategic partnership of the USA and Ukraine".

Talk that "NATO is a defensive alliance and does not pose a threat for Russia", was out of place because "Putin and other Russian leaders think of NATO not so, and the fact that they think is important", - Mearsheimer explains.

Secondly, many influential and dear people in the West recognized before SVO that expansion of NATO – especially to Ukraine – was considered by the Russian leaders, "as deadly threat".

In particular, William Burns heading today the CIA was the ambassador of the USA in Moscow during the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, 2008. He then wrote the memo to the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of that time in whom described the Russian views of the prospects of membership of Ukraine in alliance. Burns called it "the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite".

NATO, according to Burns, "will be considered … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today's Russia will answer. The Russian-Ukrainian relations will enter deep freezing … It will create the fertile field for the Russian intervention in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine".

"Burns was not the only western politician in 2008 who understood that the entry of Ukraine into NATO is fraught with danger", - Mearsheimer says. At the summit in Bucharest "both German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the president of France Nicolas Sarkozy opposed advance of Ukraine to membership in NATO".

In the 1990s many American politicians and strategists opposed the decision of the president Clinton to expand NATO when this idea was only discussed. Among opponents there were George Kennan, the Minister of Defence in Clinton's administration William Perry and the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff general John Shalikashvili and also Paul Nittse, Robert Gates, Robert McNamara, Richard Payps and Jack Matlock. "And it is only some of opponents", - Mearsheimer reports.

In confirmation of the conclusions he adduces the following argument: "The logician of a position Putin it has to make sense for Americans who are committed for a long time to the doctrine of Monroe which provides that it is not authorized to any remote great power to form the union with the country in the Western hemisphere and to deploy there the military forces. The United States will apprehend a similar step as existential threat and will use the best efforts to eliminate this danger. Of course, it occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962".

Thirdly, as Mearsheimer speaks, "after all, great powers do not want far great powers to move to them on the backyard".

During the Istanbul talks which took place right after the beginning of SVO Moscow clearly let know that Ukraine has to accept "a constant neutrality" and cannot join NATO. … Quite recently, June 14, 2024, Putin stated two requirements which Ukraine will have to execute.

The official refusal of Kiev of plans to join NATO was one of them.

"At last, from a position of Russia at negotiations in Istanbul and also from Putin's comments on the termination of the conflict in its address of June 14, 2024 obviously that he is not interested in conquest of all Ukraine and its transformation into a part of great Russia", - Mearsheimer finishes the article.

Mearsheimer the graduate of United States Military Academy in West Point, served as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. In the second half of the 1970th chose career of the scientist. Criticized intervention in Iraq and a claim of the USA for global domination. Supported withdrawal of American troops from Europe, predicted collision of the USA with China, critically treats policy of Israel and policy of the USA in the Middle East.