I would do the same as Putin – talking to prof. John Mearsheimer

Mr. Mearsheimer, have you always met Vladimir Putin?

– No, I've never met him..

Nevertheless, you are convinced that Putin is simply a rational politician. Why?

– It is rather apparent that Putin is simply a first-class strategist and acts rationally. This does not mean that we should agree with or approve. Since April 2008, erstwhile NATO announced its intention to welcome Ukraine into the Alliance, Putin made it very clear that he and the Russian elite consider Ukraine's membership of NATO to be an existential threat to Russia. Since then, he has acted in harmony with that belief. Among another things, erstwhile deciding to start war in Ukraine in February 2022. From the point of view of Russia's interests, it was strategically correct.

Every war has a complex prehistory. However, you seem to be utilizing the classical method of shifting work to the victim. Putin started the fighting.

– There is no uncertainty that Russia started an armed conflict in Ukraine, but the main question is, why did Putin do it? The reason was that he saw NATO's expansion to Ukraine as an existential threat to Russia. It's a classical prevention war. He wanted to prevent NATO military bases from forming in Ukraine. It was unacceptable to the Russians. Just as it was unacceptable for the United States to deploy russian missiles in Cuba. John F. Kennedy made it clear to the russian Union during the Cold War that the United States would usage military force unless the missiles were withdrawn. Putin made it clear that he would usage military force if we did not halt NATO's expansion to Ukraine. These 2 situations are amazingly similar.

It should be noted that the United States has not agreed to Ukraine's accession to NATO, and so far the country is not a associate of the alliance. Does that mean Putin lives in his own reality?

– His point of view is correct. And I think that if you were at the head of Russia in February 2022, you would besides impose a conflict on Ukraine. I'd most likely do the same thing as Putin. I would have started the war even sooner. The problem is that most people in the West do not see NATO's expansion in Ukraine as an existential threat, but it is easy to talk about it while sitting in Switzerland. However, for Russia, which has West aggression on its account, this is simply a origin for concern and fear. And that's what happened.

In support of his thesis that the West has provoked war, you quote Putin himself. Indirectly, he pointed to the extension of NATO to the east as the origin of the conflict and said that the red line had been crossed. Why do you believe Putin's words?

– He spoke very clearly. He made it clear that Ukraine cannot become a NATO member. And he said he'd alternatively destruct Ukraine than let it. Europeans and Americans did not believe him, and Ukrainians did not believe him. We provoked Putin and the war began. The end consequence of specified a policy will be the demolition of Ukraine. We should take Putin seriously. He wasn't lying. In February 2022 Ukraine became a de facto NATO associate and that is why the armed conflict began at this point.

In 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, Putin said he did not intend to attack the full Ukraine. In another words, you can't believe him.

– In February 2014, erstwhile the crisis broke out, Ukraine was not yet importantly integrated with NATO. But by February 2022 the situation had changed significantly. After February 2014, Americans and Europeans armed and trained Ukrainians. The reason the Ukrainians have fought so well since the beginning of the conflict is due to the fact that they were well armed and trained. And that's what provoked Putin. He understood what was going on. The Russians tried to negociate before the conflict, but we refused to negotiate.

Putin has repeatedly made imperialist statements, e.g. in the essay "About the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians" from 2021, in which he negates the sovereignty of Ukraine. Why do you consider Putin's imperialistic motives a myth?

– There's no evidence of that. This opinion was invented by Europeans to blame Putin. Europeans do not want to admit that they, along with the United States, are liable for this disaster. So they made up a communicative that he was an imperialist and that he allegedly wanted to take over the full Ukraine, followed by territories in east Europe, and yet endanger Western Europe. So he became a villain in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the population of Europe and the United States. But if we follow my logic, the West is on the incorrect side. And, of course, the United States and Europe do not want to hear about it.

Europeans want to guarantee their defence capacity by 2030. According to media reports, the peculiar services of Germany and Lithuania believe that Russia plans to extend the armed conflict to Europe. Do you think Europeans are paranoid?

– Yes, that is the strategical stupidity we see in the behaviour of Europeans and Americans. Had Ukraine not been attempted to join NATO in April 2008 or later, Ukraine would stay within the limits of 2014. Crimea would be part of Ukraine today.

Suppose you are right, and Putin does not act for imperialistic reasons: why did he not agree with Trump about the peace agreement?

– The problem is that there is no reasonable peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Russia's demands are unacceptable to the Ukrainians. And, of course, Russia's demands are unacceptable to Europeans who support Ukrainians. but Trump and respective another members of his administration, everyone in the United States is besides on the side of Ukrainians. How do we get out of this deadlock?

Then tell me.

– The answer is no. And that's why Trump failed to scope an agreement. To this end, he would gotta agree to Russia's demands. And he can't do that.

What are Russia's main demands?

- There are three. Firstly, Ukraine must stay neutral. This means that it should not join NATO, and the West should not give it any safety guarantees. Secondly, Ukraine must admit that it has lost Crimea and 4 east regions which are now mostly controlled by Russia. In another words, Ukraine and the West must recognise that this territory is now and forever Russian. Thirdly, Russia insists on a crucial simplification of the Ukrainian army so that Ukraine does not pose a threat to Russia. Even if there is an agreement on these issues between Russia and the United States, there will be no agreement with Ukraine and the Europeans.

Do you truly think Trump should meet these demands from Russia?

– It's the only way to end the fight, and rightly so. Europeans want the conflict to continue, which will lead to the death of even more Ukrainians and the failure of even greater territory by Ukraine. If we agree with my point of view, the conflict will be broken. In the future, little Ukrainians will die and little territory will be lost.

Peace without safety guarantees is totally unacceptable for Ukraine.

– I realize that this is unacceptable and I want to emphasise that. However, it is simply a request that the Russians insist on. This is due to the fact that Ukraine, having received safety guarantees, will de facto become a associate of NATO. Let us presume that the United States and their NATO allies supply safety guarantees to Ukraine, in fact they supply guarantees to Ukraine under Article 5. That's what Putin thinks, and he's right. And he's right.

If Putin does not plan to re-start the war in Ukraine, then safety guarantees should not worry him. So you believe that a peaceful solution to this conflict is impossible?

– I hope I am wrong, but I believe that a coherent peace agreement is almost impossible. I believe that the result of this conflict will settle on the battlefield and yet stay frozen.

The U.S. negotiating strategy on Russia from the beginning looks questionable: maximum force on Kiev, while Moscow is coquetted. The Emissary Trump Witkoff even emphasizes his relationship with Putin.

– What should he do? Whitkoff's occupation is to talk to the Russians, and abroad Minister Rubio and president Trump are liable for negotiating with both parties. There's nothing incorrect with Whitkoff only talking to the Russians, and there's nothing incorrect with keeping friendly with Putin. The key question is whether Whitkoff will be able to scope an agreement with Putin, which he will then present to Trump, who will in turn pass these arrangements on to the Ukrainians, leading to a peaceful solution.

Then we most likely agree on 1 thing: it seems to be a large friendship, but not very fruitful.

– There's no decision. At a very general level, the Trump administration understands the causes of the armed conflict in Ukraine and what needs to be done to end it. But Trump isn't the only 1 negotiating.

In March, there was a sharp skirmish between Zelenski and Trump in the Oval Office. Then, during the ceremony of the Pope in the Vatican, they were reconciled in St Peter's Basilica. How do you interpret that?

– I don't think there's been any change in Trump's policy. The Western media are exaggerating the importance of this meeting. The view that the 15-minute conversation between Zelenski and Trump will fundamentally change their relationship, does not withstand criticism. The fact is Trump is not curious in Ukraine. Yes, he wants Europe out of his business zone. Trump despises Europeans. He wants the United States to focus on Asia. Trump's anger towards Europeans will only grow over time. European aversion to Trump will besides grow. The relation between the US and Europe will deteriorate until the end of his presidency.

Why, then, did the Trump administration not explicitly declare that it intended to retreat American troops from Europe?

– They mentioned it. They made it clear that they would retreat a large part of the US troops from Europe and importantly reduce expenditure on European support in the future. This became clear after Vance's February 14 speech at the Munich safety Conference. The U.S. government will not announce a complete withdrawal from Europe and the abrupt disintegration of NATO. Instead, we will see the gradual simplification of the US presence in Europe and the weakening of the warrant under Article 5.

You believe that, if needed, NATO's commitment to providing assistance will shortly cease to be of any importance. Are there inactive transatlantic relations – or what we call the West?

– Transatlantic relations inactive exist, and talking about the West inactive makes sense. But the West is experiencing a severe split.

What exactly?

– If 1 day the AfD wins elections in Germany or another right-wing parties come to power in Europe, then these countries will most likely be much more favoured by Russia. The fact is that Trump, whether he withdraws all American troops from Europe or not, has no interest in ensuring Europe's safety. He wants to leave European safety at the mercy of Europeans.

What are the consequences for Europe?

– Centrifugal forces will increase and fresh conflicts will appear between European countries. As shortly as the Americans cease to be a dominant force in European safety policy, Europeans will face serious problems in creating a common position.

China is the main precedence of American abroad policy. Will Trump effort to push Europeans more actively towards anti-Chinese politics in the future?

– There's no uncertainty about that. The United States rightly considers China the top threat. It is so logical that the United States withdraws from Europe and directs its eyes on Asia to halt China. To implement this policy, the United States wants Europeans to aid them as much as possible. They will request that Europeans do not supply China with advanced technologies that could aid Beijing produce high-tech products.

This, in turn, goes against the interests of Europeans who want to proceed to trade freely with China. How can Trump put force on them?

– The fact is that the United States does not have much leverage. Divergent interests towards China will proceed to complicate relations between the United States and Europe. 1 lever for the US could be to tell Europeans that they will keep troops in Europe and stay NATO members if Europeans refuse to trade advanced technologies with China. Trade is not a threat at all. The real danger is that Europeans are selling technology that allows China to outrun the United States in the arms race.

Do you think it is possible that the United States will usage this lever?

Probably not.

How likely do you think China will attack Taiwan in the close future?

– It is unlikely, primarily due to the fact that it would be highly hard for the Chinese from a military standpoint. I believe the Chinese realize that the Americans, the nipponese and the Australians will stand up for Taiwan.

Do you read European media?

Yeah, I read a lot. I have a good sense of what Europeans think.

What is your impression of the debate on abroad policy in Europe?

"Most Europeans deficiency strategical understanding. The European view of today's conflict in Ukraine is simply wrong. He's strategically unreasonable. Europeans are only making Ukraine worse.

What is the consequence of this deficiency of strategical intuition?

– erstwhile the cold war came to an end, most Europeans and Americans felt that a force policy or a realpolitik had been thrown into the dump of history. The thought of maintaining a balance of power is already in the past. People believed that we were surviving in a liberal planet where economical integration, global institutions and the spread of democracy would foster peace. It was a mistake. The thought of NATO's expansion to the east was unacceptable to Russia. Most Europeans did not realize this due to the fact that they did not think in terms of force policy. They looked at global policy from a liberal point of view, and this is the key to major problems.

In an essay published in 2022, you outlined 3 scenarios for Russia's usage of atomic weapons. How can you be certain Putin decides to launch a atomic attack so quickly?

– I did not say that Russia would decide to take specified a step so quickly. However, if the Russians are on the verge of defeat in the Ukrainian conflict, they will seriously consider the anticipation of atomic weapons and most likely usage them. The usage of atomic weapons in Ukraine is all the more likely that it is incapable to respond to this call. And the United States, of course, will not carry out a atomic attack in response. Thus, in a sense, the Russians can usage atomic weapons without fear of retaliation in the same form.

How should tiny countries like Switzerland deal with large powers?

Switzerland has nothing to worry about. Due to its geographical location, it is safe. If we are talking about Ukraine, Lithuania or Finland, it is absolutely essential to monitor closely the strategical interests of the large neighbour. After all, if something goes incorrect with Russia's interests, the Russians will do anything to destruct you. Ukraine's problem is that it is not peculiarly careful in this regard.

What do you think of the abroad policy of the Baltic States? Are they careful enough?

- No, I don't. They're happy to provoke the Russians. There are six possible conflict zones that coincide with the armed conflict in Ukraine. Firstly, the Arctic, secondly, the Baltic Sea, thirdly, Kaliningrad, fourthly, Belarus, fifthly, Moldova and sixthly the Black Sea. It is easy to imagine that in the future conflicts may erupt at these hot points. As a consequence of the war in Ukraine, a toxic political situation developed in Europe. It won't vanish anytime soon. In particular, relations between Russia and Europe will stay very tense for a long time. At best, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia will decision to the brink of freezing, but at any minute it could erupt again.

On your website is exposed Niccolo Machiavelli. Is this consistent with your perception of yourself, or is it ironic?

– I am a realist – a realistic theorist of global relations. There is simply a full tribe of realistic thinkers, from Tukidydes to Machiavelle, Thomas Hobbes, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. I consider myself part of this realistic tradition. erstwhile I taught classes at the University of Pennsylvania a fewer years ago, students drew my image of Machiavelle's outfit. I think this photograph is interesting and witty, so I posted it on my website, making it clear that I'm a realist.

Za: Neue Zurcher Zeitung

photo. mearsheimer.com