Nonsense! Ukraine not losing the war. Russia is losing the war.
Russia's economy is falling apart, Putin is anxious to negotiate. Biden/Harris just need to keep the pressure on the Russians y supplying Ukraine with more weapons.
If Ukraine lowers its recruitment age to 18, it will be able to beat Russia without a problem.
Even a symmetrical war, like First World War, is difficult to judge, even with hindsight. Only in 1917 it became clear Germany cannot win, and it took until 1918 for Germany to lose. Wise people knew that war was fought for wrong reasons and the level of strategic idiocy, i.e. risk taking that Germans demonstrated starting the war meant victory is impossible. Idiots do not win wars, unless when fighting even greater idiots.
This in Ukraine is a World War and yet still a proxy war, and significantly asymmetrical. Unless Russia crumbles from inside, under economic pressure, there is no way Ukraine can win on the battlefield. And there has never been.
Unless West gives up on supporting Ukraine, the war can drag on as long as Ukrainians can recruit, train and arm new soldiers, but each year means new hundreds thousands lives destroyed, and Ukraine has a finite number of potential soldiers, significantly lesser than Russia.
The West can hope, just like Germans did in 1917, US is still the strongest state on the planet, and if US took the war seriously....it could raise the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to be certain of Russian defeat.
As long as the war is proxy war, the only soldiers dying will be Ukrainians, and even creating a million strong NATO army of Ukrainians would only mean that Russia will create a two million strong army.
If this happens, if US for whatever reason decides to escalate, imagine just how bad it will be for Ukraine, US, NATO to lose the war against two million men strong Russian army. Two million strong Russian army would by necessity had to take Harkov, Odessa and Kiev, and all the land up to Dnieper, and Danube
Judging by the level if strategic idiocy guiding US and NATO decisions, and strange motivation underlying Ukrainian leadership’s decisions, defeat is guaranteed.
But US is a formidable opponent and it is understandable Putin is careful not to lose contact with those in the West who do understand the fundamentals of the current game.
If it was significant, war would have been nuclear. It obviously isn’t.
If it was somewhat significant there would have been US soldiers on the ground already. It obviously isn’t.
If it’s insignificant why is US getting dragged into risking a nuclear war with the only adversary on the planet that can significantly impair US ability to survive. Survive as a great power, survive as a state, survive at all. No US leave is willing to enter nuclear confrontation.
And there is no regulation on escalating nuclear war. And US has overstepped the lines of proxy war by starting attack into Russia. If Trump allows strikes into Russia, there will be an answer. And escalation will stop. Or we will have nuclear war.
The only way Putin can raise a two million men (or even one million men) army is to declare a general mobilization. He does not want to do that which is why he has imported North Koreans and mercenaries. Russia's economy is collapsing, and Putin will give the war in the next 6 months. Ukraine will get some of its land back (except Crimea) - that is basically a win for Ukraine. We can come back here in three months and see who is right!
Let’s look at the situation again in three months, three years.
Regarding missiles on border, easiest way to understand how Russia looks at the situation is Cuban missile crisis in reverse. US has been absolutely agains any offensive weapons in Cuba. Russia is absolutely against NATO in Ukraine.
Nonsense, it is nothing like Cuba. Cuba had missile silos. Nobody put any missiles in Ukraine before February 22. Obama even refused to give them javelins which are anti-tank defensive weapons. It was Trump who gave them javelins. Those are not offensive weapons.
Ukraine is collapsing even faster that Russian economy, but can survive if propped sufficiently for another year. Unfortunately that means mobilisation in 18-24 generation, and further depopulation. However, even the newly recruited will continue to die, get wounded, become deserters, be taken prisoners, and will still be facing the Russian army, in somewhat worse strategic position.
The West is unable to admit provoking war was a mistake, and keeps hoping Russia will collapse.
Russia will not collapse, Ukraine will not collapse but will be depleted of fighting men, and when borders of 4 oblast are reached through fighting, borders that if accepted today would mean peace for Ukraine, when these borders are reached in 3-6 months, a new offer will be made, somewhat worse.
If this offer is refused, Dnieper and Danube will be the new border, and still there would have to be a signed peace agreement.
The publication of a New Year's video in which Russian air defense shoots down Santa Claus, two days after the Russian air defense shot down an Azerbaijani Embraer 190, is downright post-irony in the spirit of modern Russian fascism. There are no brakes at all.
But I would like to draw attention to one more detail. The globe at the 7th second.
The fact that they depicted Russia and China in solid red - God bless them, they have had their own Axis there for a long time.
But they painted the rest of Asia red.
I wonder if Turkey, the entire Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, India, the entire ASEAN, Japan - do they already know that Russia dreams of absorbing them and merging with China?
You Are lying Mr Mearsheimer. Adolf Putin invaded in 2022 and he was hoping the Ukrainian army and people would not fight back. He was thinking he could take Kyiv and install his own puppet in Ukraine.
An intercepted call by the GUR reveals Russian losses: '56,000 unidentified bodies in Rostov. A hand found here, a leg there,' says a Belgorod resident discussing Russia's war casualties.
Add up the 80,000 confirmed killed Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It looks bad for Putin’s army.
How long can Russia sustain such losses of manpower?
A rational discussion about the irrational motivations of specifically Western countries? The money-laundering operation has a ways to go yet! We simply can’t stop now! It’s too dangerous. …Putin OTOH needs to get some advice about regime change-from the experts?
MiracleWorker's entourage general knowledge of reality much like the rest of Exceptional American equates to a pill of Shit. Shit hole Nations vote for and elect shithead leadership.
I agree with a lot of your analysis here and I appreciate your work. What I struggle to understand here and in other places where I've heard you is why you stick to your position that Putin was NOT trying to take control of Ukraine at the start.
How would you characterise the force sent from Belarus towards Kyiv at the outset? Remember the battle over Hostomel airport, which Russian troops tried and failed to secure, followed by that massive column getting stuck on the road to the capital. There was also a quick takeover of the area around Kharkiv which was less well defended. But none of this gets a mention. At this point, the Donbas was very much a second front.
Russian sources make clear that Kyiv was the goal. Clearly, this was planned as a short, sharp regime change operation, based on Putin's assumptions (fed by bad intelligence) that the capital would fall quickly. And so, rather than disproving this conclusion, what you call the 'small' 190,000 strong invasion force instead looks like further evidence that a quick takeover was the goal. The US/UK invaded Iraq with an even smaller force (yes, smaller country but still expecting it to be easy). Putin put out peace feelers at Istanbul as much because he was under pressure after the failure of the Kyiv assault. I agree that in hindsight it would have been better if the west had embraced that moment and genuinely pushed for a deal. And yet wasn't hindsight a justifiable issue then too? Putin's past actions in Ukraine, Minsk I and II, gave no reason to trust him. I've got a few other questions, but I'll leave it there as this is already long
I do understand that Americans find it hard to talk with anyone on the planet as equal. What could be the reason for not understanding that enlarging NATO is an existential threat to Russia?
Still hoping for an answer from John but this is an interesting response. Firstly I’m not American and secondly I acknowledge that Putin saw Ukraine’s move towards NATO as a threat, posing a ‘security dilemma’ as it has been called. But the issue I’m focusing on here is why John seems to think the initial invasion from Belarus towards Kyiv was insignificant and did not amount to an attempt to regime change ? There just seems to be some historical rewriting going on with the way that early stage of the war is recalled. The West miscalculated but so did Putin
To John, Why would Russia have entered the Ukraine special operation in a weak military position? I accept your premise on current state of the conflict completely, I’m just wondering why their capacity wasn’t stronger given the long road to what happened. Did the Russians underestimate the military build up after 2014? If so, why? It would be interesting to understand more details about the Ukrainian fortification. Also, how much did the US fund prior to Feb 2022? Thank you for the work.
Outstanding work, much gratitude for the continuing education.
When scholars like John retire, the field would be even more over-represented by establishment careerists and ideology-driven idiots
Lack of sincere thinkers has led US into strategic mess in Ukraine.
More specifically, it’s the lack of Russia experts in the West.
I guess as long as the war continues, you haven’t lost yet.
Nonsense! Ukraine not losing the war. Russia is losing the war.
Russia's economy is falling apart, Putin is anxious to negotiate. Biden/Harris just need to keep the pressure on the Russians y supplying Ukraine with more weapons.
If Ukraine lowers its recruitment age to 18, it will be able to beat Russia without a problem.
Even a symmetrical war, like First World War, is difficult to judge, even with hindsight. Only in 1917 it became clear Germany cannot win, and it took until 1918 for Germany to lose. Wise people knew that war was fought for wrong reasons and the level of strategic idiocy, i.e. risk taking that Germans demonstrated starting the war meant victory is impossible. Idiots do not win wars, unless when fighting even greater idiots.
This in Ukraine is a World War and yet still a proxy war, and significantly asymmetrical. Unless Russia crumbles from inside, under economic pressure, there is no way Ukraine can win on the battlefield. And there has never been.
Unless West gives up on supporting Ukraine, the war can drag on as long as Ukrainians can recruit, train and arm new soldiers, but each year means new hundreds thousands lives destroyed, and Ukraine has a finite number of potential soldiers, significantly lesser than Russia.
The West can hope, just like Germans did in 1917, US is still the strongest state on the planet, and if US took the war seriously....it could raise the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to be certain of Russian defeat.
As long as the war is proxy war, the only soldiers dying will be Ukrainians, and even creating a million strong NATO army of Ukrainians would only mean that Russia will create a two million strong army.
If this happens, if US for whatever reason decides to escalate, imagine just how bad it will be for Ukraine, US, NATO to lose the war against two million men strong Russian army. Two million strong Russian army would by necessity had to take Harkov, Odessa and Kiev, and all the land up to Dnieper, and Danube
Judging by the level if strategic idiocy guiding US and NATO decisions, and strange motivation underlying Ukrainian leadership’s decisions, defeat is guaranteed.
But US is a formidable opponent and it is understandable Putin is careful not to lose contact with those in the West who do understand the fundamentals of the current game.
If it was significant, war would have been nuclear. It obviously isn’t.
If it was somewhat significant there would have been US soldiers on the ground already. It obviously isn’t.
If it’s insignificant why is US getting dragged into risking a nuclear war with the only adversary on the planet that can significantly impair US ability to survive. Survive as a great power, survive as a state, survive at all. No US leave is willing to enter nuclear confrontation.
And there is no regulation on escalating nuclear war. And US has overstepped the lines of proxy war by starting attack into Russia. If Trump allows strikes into Russia, there will be an answer. And escalation will stop. Or we will have nuclear war.
It's either a nuclear war or accepting a defeat.
And US will accept the defeat in proxy war.
The only way Putin can raise a two million men (or even one million men) army is to declare a general mobilization. He does not want to do that which is why he has imported North Koreans and mercenaries. Russia's economy is collapsing, and Putin will give the war in the next 6 months. Ukraine will get some of its land back (except Crimea) - that is basically a win for Ukraine. We can come back here in three months and see who is right!
And all of this just for US to be able to place missiles on Russian border.
What missiles on Russian border? There were no missiles in Ukraine before Russia invaded. All they had were javelins which are strictly defensive.
Dev
Let’s look at the situation again in three months, three years.
Regarding missiles on border, easiest way to understand how Russia looks at the situation is Cuban missile crisis in reverse. US has been absolutely agains any offensive weapons in Cuba. Russia is absolutely against NATO in Ukraine.
Nonsense, it is nothing like Cuba. Cuba had missile silos. Nobody put any missiles in Ukraine before February 22. Obama even refused to give them javelins which are anti-tank defensive weapons. It was Trump who gave them javelins. Those are not offensive weapons.
Ukraine is collapsing even faster that Russian economy, but can survive if propped sufficiently for another year. Unfortunately that means mobilisation in 18-24 generation, and further depopulation. However, even the newly recruited will continue to die, get wounded, become deserters, be taken prisoners, and will still be facing the Russian army, in somewhat worse strategic position.
The West is unable to admit provoking war was a mistake, and keeps hoping Russia will collapse.
Russia will not collapse, Ukraine will not collapse but will be depleted of fighting men, and when borders of 4 oblast are reached through fighting, borders that if accepted today would mean peace for Ukraine, when these borders are reached in 3-6 months, a new offer will be made, somewhat worse.
If this offer is refused, Dnieper and Danube will be the new border, and still there would have to be a signed peace agreement.
Ukraine collapsing is anti-American wishful thinking.
Ukraine is running out of troops just like Russia.
Like I said, lets check back in 3 months and see who is collapsing.
You are delusional.
Delusional...
The publication of a New Year's video in which Russian air defense shoots down Santa Claus, two days after the Russian air defense shot down an Azerbaijani Embraer 190, is downright post-irony in the spirit of modern Russian fascism. There are no brakes at all.
But I would like to draw attention to one more detail. The globe at the 7th second.
The fact that they depicted Russia and China in solid red - God bless them, they have had their own Axis there for a long time.
But they painted the rest of Asia red.
I wonder if Turkey, the entire Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula, India, the entire ASEAN, Japan - do they already know that Russia dreams of absorbing them and merging with China?
Guys, you didnt predict the fall of Assads regime either. All the pro Russian you tubers said Iran and Russia would defeat the rebels in Syria
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russia/putins-children
You Are lying Mr Mearsheimer. Adolf Putin invaded in 2022 and he was hoping the Ukrainian army and people would not fight back. He was thinking he could take Kyiv and install his own puppet in Ukraine.
An intercepted call by the GUR reveals Russian losses: '56,000 unidentified bodies in Rostov. A hand found here, a leg there,' says a Belgorod resident discussing Russia's war casualties.
Add up the 80,000 confirmed killed Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It looks bad for Putin’s army.
How long can Russia sustain such losses of manpower?
TRUE
The Bible has already told us how this ends!
Nuke em, Vlad!
A rational discussion about the irrational motivations of specifically Western countries? The money-laundering operation has a ways to go yet! We simply can’t stop now! It’s too dangerous. …Putin OTOH needs to get some advice about regime change-from the experts?
MiracleWorker's entourage general knowledge of reality much like the rest of Exceptional American equates to a pill of Shit. Shit hole Nations vote for and elect shithead leadership.
I agree with a lot of your analysis here and I appreciate your work. What I struggle to understand here and in other places where I've heard you is why you stick to your position that Putin was NOT trying to take control of Ukraine at the start.
How would you characterise the force sent from Belarus towards Kyiv at the outset? Remember the battle over Hostomel airport, which Russian troops tried and failed to secure, followed by that massive column getting stuck on the road to the capital. There was also a quick takeover of the area around Kharkiv which was less well defended. But none of this gets a mention. At this point, the Donbas was very much a second front.
Russian sources make clear that Kyiv was the goal. Clearly, this was planned as a short, sharp regime change operation, based on Putin's assumptions (fed by bad intelligence) that the capital would fall quickly. And so, rather than disproving this conclusion, what you call the 'small' 190,000 strong invasion force instead looks like further evidence that a quick takeover was the goal. The US/UK invaded Iraq with an even smaller force (yes, smaller country but still expecting it to be easy). Putin put out peace feelers at Istanbul as much because he was under pressure after the failure of the Kyiv assault. I agree that in hindsight it would have been better if the west had embraced that moment and genuinely pushed for a deal. And yet wasn't hindsight a justifiable issue then too? Putin's past actions in Ukraine, Minsk I and II, gave no reason to trust him. I've got a few other questions, but I'll leave it there as this is already long
I do understand that Americans find it hard to talk with anyone on the planet as equal. What could be the reason for not understanding that enlarging NATO is an existential threat to Russia?
Still hoping for an answer from John but this is an interesting response. Firstly I’m not American and secondly I acknowledge that Putin saw Ukraine’s move towards NATO as a threat, posing a ‘security dilemma’ as it has been called. But the issue I’m focusing on here is why John seems to think the initial invasion from Belarus towards Kyiv was insignificant and did not amount to an attempt to regime change ? There just seems to be some historical rewriting going on with the way that early stage of the war is recalled. The West miscalculated but so did Putin
Russian military brought parade uniforms with them so they could stage a victory parade in Kyiv.
Andrew,
the point is simple.
All available evidence shows that Putin has been extremely patient,
Russians generally would say naive, but Putin reflected what majority in Russia sincerely felt for US, admiration, almost love
and as Putin is in power from 2000
there is long track record
Putin at the start of his relation with US discussed Russia joining NATO with Bill Clinton,
that was his and Russian position
(I am not Russian, just a European, and frankly it was an opportunity that US missed, too late now)
later he got more and more disillusioned
but still refused to really believe US is a mortal, existential enemy
So, your question, for intelligent, smart, sensitive people reveals
the truth
Yes, Mearsheimer is right, Putin definitely hoped for regime change, but in his heart of hearts, he hoped that somehow, he would get US on his side
by showing his resolve, determination
even if he doesn't succeed.
Only now has Putin grudgingly accepted that US is a mortal enemy and that yes, he may be in the position to order the nuclear strike on US
US was incredibly safe from Russian nuclear weapons, until the April 2022. Not so much any more.
So yes Putin did a Freudian mistake.
What I would like to know is why did the US miscalculated so badly, and refused to include Russia in the Western world.
To John, Why would Russia have entered the Ukraine special operation in a weak military position? I accept your premise on current state of the conflict completely, I’m just wondering why their capacity wasn’t stronger given the long road to what happened. Did the Russians underestimate the military build up after 2014? If so, why? It would be interesting to understand more details about the Ukrainian fortification. Also, how much did the US fund prior to Feb 2022? Thank you for the work.