Mearsheimer’s Incisive Analysis on the Causes of the Ukraine Imbroglio

John Mearsheimer’s You-Tube presentation today in late March 2022 =

 NATO’s expansion into Ukraine from 2006 seen as an existential threat to Russia  — in the Russian Perspective

This video contains only the highlights of John Mearsheimer’s Ukraine-Russia War 2022 Analysis.
Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. All credits go to John Mearsheimer. We thank him very much for giving such valuable insights in these difficult times!

John Mearsheimer did an in depth analysis on Ukraine in 2015. He basically predicted what was going to happen. Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer Part II – In 2022 he gave an update on the Ukraine-Russia situation Source (for full discussion multiple speakers): Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Salon | Ray McGovern, John Mearsheimer John Mearsheimer’s website John Mearsheimer’s main article Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault…



Filed under accountability, american imperialism, atrocities, authoritarian regimes, disparagement, economic processes, European history, governance, historical interpretation, landscape wondrous, life stories, military strategy, nationalism, politIcal discourse, power politics, Russian history, self-reflexivity, the imaginary and the real, truth as casualty of war, war crimes, war reportage, world events & processes

2 responses to “Mearsheimer’s Incisive Analysis on the Causes of the Ukraine Imbroglio

  1. Michael Patrick O'Leary

    I am tired of this ‘incisive Mearsheimer’ crap.

    Many years ago, I wrote monthly columns on Europe for the Sri Lankan business magazines Lanka Monthly Digest and Echelon. Most of my articles were highly critical of the EU and warned of the dangers of NATO mission creep. I was receptive then to Mearsheimer’s arguments.

    Things look much different today. When the war criminal (look at past record) Putin launched his brutal assault on Ukrainian homes and hospitals, Ukraine was not a member of NATO and there was no immediate prospect of Ukraine being accepted by NATO. If Ukraine had been a member of NATO would Putin have done this? Would he have done this if Ukraine had retained its nuclear arsenal?

    Mearsheimer said just before the invasion: “The only way this can be resolved is with the US and NATO saying that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. The Russians want it in writing. And I think this crisis will go away once this happens.”

    This rather ignores the wishes of the people of Ukraine. It is foolish in the extreme to say the invasion will go away. I repeat: Ukraine was not a member of NATO and was unlikely to be accepted. Putin’s actions have made membership more likely and also persuaded Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland to question their neutrality.

    Good plan Vlad!

    Our mutual friend Dayan Jayatilleka has been pushing the Mearsheimer line. This was my response to him, which you shared on your blog, Michael.

    ‘Jayatilleka seems to be saying Putin should not be blamed. “In short, the map does not show Russia moving towards the West but a hostile military alliance, NATO, moving towards Russia, even in periods where Russia had a policy and leaders soft on the West.” The Good Doctor seems to have a tin ear for mundane reality. What have Ukrainians done to bear the brunt of Putin’s anger? His article is about large amorphous entities like NATO and “The West”. The breakable, brittle individuals are invisible, beyond the Good Doctor’s capacity for human feeling. Everyone else is seeing those pensioners standing in front of tanks.’

    When were Russian leaders been “soft on the West”? Putin has been in power for 23 years and plans to stay until he is 84. He has consistently been paranoid about the west and engaged in hostile interference. He continues to be a vicious victim.

    Does the map show NATO or any NATO member launching weapons of mass destruction at Russian babies?

    Jayatilleka describes western “reckless adventurism”. There have been many western crimes but let us concentrate here on the reckless adventurism of Putin which will have consequences for Russia and the entire globe, not just Ukraine. There has been enough evidence about the danger posed by Putin but the west has continued to appease him and take his dirty money.

    Putin’s actions are grotesquely disproportionate to the purported offence. Those dead babies know nothing of geopolitics. Matthew Ancona writes: “Yet his bid to annex Ukraine is a perfectly logical response to decades of Western appeasement and half-measures in response to his atrocities. Time after time, he has watched us choose inaction or feeble slaps on the Russian wrist. Why wouldn’t he think he could get away with it, yet again?”

  2. Michael Patrick O'Leary

    “Drawing moral equivalence between the extension of Nato and the attempt by Russia to conquer a neighbouring country is misjudged. There is expansion and there is expansionism. In this case, the former is based on a democratic mandate, the latter on murderous military aggression. The notion that Vladimir Putin’s imperialist ambitions would have been nullified by the denial of collective security to those nations emerging from Soviet hegemony is wholly naive and misguided.”

    Excellent point in a letter to the New Statesman dated March 25 2022 from Brian Wilson, Glossop, Derbyshire

    I have been struggling for a long time to get that point across but Mr Wilson nails it succinctly.

Leave a Reply