John Mearsheimer on the conflict in Ukraine: diplomacy won't help

 

John J. Mearsheimer

John J. Mearsheimer, a well-known international relations theorist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago, views the current conflict in Ukraine with harsh realism, devoid of illusions about an early diplomatic resolution. His analysis, often available on his Substack platform ( substack.com/@mearsheimer ), paints a picture of a protracted confrontation, the outcome of which, in his opinion, will be decided not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. Mearsheimer argues that a diplomatic solution is currently unattainable. He stresses Russia's intransigence on its key demands, a position from which, in his assessment, Moscow will not back down. On the other hand, neither Ukraine nor its European allies are ready to accept these conditions. This fundamental impasse, according to Mearsheimer, makes negotiations futile at this stage.

In this context, the figure of Donald Trump seems to Mearsheimer to be a potential, albeit peculiar, catalyst for change. He admits that Trump, unlike the current European and Ukrainian leadership, could make concessions to Russia or, more likely in his analysis, end American military and intelligence support for Ukraine. Such a step, according to Mearsheimer, would radically change the dynamics of the conflict. He believes that even with the current level of American aid, Russia is already gaining the upper hand on the battlefield. Cutting off the supply of weapons and intelligence from the United States would put Ukraine in an even more desperate situation. Mearsheimer points out that Russia is actively building up and training its armed forces, equipping them with modern weapons and accumulating valuable combat experience. He refers to statements by high-ranking military officials, such as General Cavoli, confirming that the Russian army is much more powerful today than at the beginning of the conflict in 2022.

Analyzing Vladimir Putin's recent statements, Mearsheimer sees confirmation of his point of view. He interprets the Russian leader's words about expanding and modernizing the military-industrial complex, adapting tactics and weapons based on combat experience as a clear signal: Russia is preparing for a long war, not diplomacy. Putin, in his opinion, demonstrates confidence in Russia's ability not only to continue the war, but also to stay "one step ahead" by studying global military trends and adapting its army to future conflicts. Mearsheimer contrasts this Russian focus on military reality with what he perceives as unfounded optimism in the West and in Ukraine about Kiev's chances of victory.

He believes that Europeans and Ukrainians, as well as a significant part of the American national security establishment, continue to believe in the possibility of a turning point on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine – a belief that Mearsheimer himself considers illusory. According to him, only Trump and a narrow circle of his associates are ready to recognize the harsh reality and look for ways to end the conflict, even if this means concessions to Russia. This gap in perception and strategy, according to Mearsheimer, condemns the war to continue. He predicts that without American support, the balance of power will finally shift in favor of Russia, which will lead to the seizure of new territories and, ultimately, the collapse of the Ukrainian army. In such a situation, he believes, Ukraine will be forced to seek peace on terms dictated by Moscow.

Mearsheimer also expresses skepticism about Europe's ability to act effectively without strong American leadership, pointing to potential problems of collective action and disagreements between key European powers – Germany, France and Britain. Moreover, he extends his criticism to the American national security apparatus itself, including the military, whose analytical work and performance since the first Gulf War he considers unconvincing. In his opinion, there is a deep systemic problem in the West's approach to assessing military realities and developing a strategy.                 

Thus, Mearsheimer's analysis is a sober, albeit gloomy, assessment of the situation, where the outcome of the conflict is seen as a predetermined balance of military forces and the determination of the parties to continue the struggle, rather than diplomatic efforts or hopes for a turning point. He expects a further Russian offensive and believes that Ukraine's ability to resist, especially if American aid is cut off, is extremely limited.