Click right to open menu, then click left 'open image in new tab'.
Don't underestmate the gallons of kool aid the French have been served (with general Yakovlev seemingly wanting a role n Dr Strangelove part deux...).
So on Le Figaro's website you have to scroll for dear life to find the article, which is immediately followed by:
'The editorial team recommends:
Garry Kasparov: "Putin's goal is the liquidation of NATO and the European Union"
With the new American security strategy, the Kremlin is rubbing its hands together in glee.'
Le Fgaro commenters are smilar to most msm, basing opinion on emotion and sentiment:
'That's completely false. Putin's dream is to annex all of Ukraine and install a puppet leader. Listening to this man shows a complete lack of understanding of 1,000 years of history. It astounds me that an academic would be willing to make such compromises.
JF8
12/21/2025 at 4:23 PM
Yes. In France, we only have anti-Russian programs and debates; it's tiresome and worrying.
nicole68
12/19/2025 at 12:21 PM
"Vladimir Putin never thought of conquering all of Ukraine!" This is a bad start: The column of Russian tanks stopped and destroyed on March 7, 2022, 30 km from Kyiv—what were they there for? Not to conquer, of course, but to install a "democratic" power obedient to the puppet master, Vladimir Putin. A subtle nuance that I find hard to accept.'
standard practice , us also have masters , funded by aipac while the eu is controled by neocon puppets . Who gives a fck to "democracy" in the age of donors big media and big tech is a VERY naive kid . Best example Romania - if someone indesirable really get close to be elected they will take care of the problem - so please spare us with the child talk
Congratulations with the article in Le Figaro, prof. Mearsheimer.
Good for the French that they can learn of your geopolitical wisdom in their own language. I hope for another interview in Dutch in a serious news-paper in The Netherlands - so that the Dutch can inform themselves about the geopolitical facts and truth in their own language too.
It takes people like you, prof. Jeffrey Sachs Max Blumenthal Aaron Maté and Chris Hedges to get people off their beaten tracks, start thinking for themselves and start helping to protest and stop the war, stop the genocide, stop the utter madness and destructiveness of USA and Europe.
The text is an analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war, suggesting the conflict is likely heading toward a "frozen conflict" with poor relations between Russia and Europe. The author argues that a war of attrition is currently taking place and that the West has "trapped" Ukraine twice. The analysis suggests that the only rational solution is an agreement largely dictated by Russian conditions.
• A frozen conflict with "execrable" Russia-Europe relations is likely.
• The author argues the central factor in the conflict is NATO expansion, not Russian imperialism.
• The U.S. and U.K. convinced Zelenskyy to stop negotiations in Istanbul.
• The only "rational" solution would be an agreement dictated by Russian terms.
AI Translation of the full text
We are heading towards a frozen conflict which will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe, which will fiercely oppose a Russian occupation. It would require at least 1.5 million soldiers on the ground, which it does not have. Their strategy is a war of attrition; what counts is not so much the speed at which you advance or the amount of territory you take, but the speed at which you wear down the adversary. It's Verdun in 1916. Ukraine needs around 100 billion dollars per year to continue the war. The United States now clearly says "This is no longer our problem, let the Europeans pay." But the Europeans do not have the means, hence the temptation to use the frozen Russian assets at Euroclear because they cannot finance the war themselves. The war has considerably reinforced Ukraine's pro-European fiber. Isn't this the opposite of its initial objective?
This is exactly why Putin has every interest in taking as much territory as possible, without going as far as the regions very largely populated by ethnic Ukrainians. Today, Russia controls 18% of Ukrainian territory; if it could, it thinks Putin seeks to go up to something like 40%, notably by taking Kharkiv and Odessa, and pushing to the Dnieper in the center and north, then crossing it in the south. The more Ukraine is weakened, the more limited the threat it will represent for Russia. It thinks that when it launched the invasion in 2022, its main goal was to force the Ukrainians to negotiate very quickly. Peace processes opened quickly in Istanbul. Negotiators from both sides claimed discussions were advancing, but the Ukrainians left the table. Why? Mainly because the United States and the United Kingdom convinced Zelenskyy; they were persuaded that one year of war financed by the West since 2014 and with massive economic sanctions they could defeat Russia. Donald Trump wants peace today, but it was him who authorized the sending of Javelin missiles in 2017. Trump actually wanted, as he said during his first campaign, to improve relations with Russia. But he was accused of being a Russianite and was suspected of being a puppet of Putin. Under the pressure of these accusations, he wanted to show that this was not the case, and that is why he accepted to arm Ukraine in 2017.
According to you, Ukraine has therefore been trapped twice by the West. Under these conditions, why do the Ukrainians remain so pro-European? Because the dominant narrative in the West, which the Ukrainians widely share, is the one that designates Putin as an imperialist driven by a project of reconstituting the Soviet empire, a man who first wants all of Ukraine, then other countries in Eastern Europe. The alternative narrative that I defend explains that the central factor is NATO expansion. For Moscow, seeing Ukraine integrate the Alliance is an existential threat. Putin was not seeking to reconquer the empire, he was seeking to prevent the installation of an anti-Russian Western bastion at its borders. The three non-negotiable demands from Moscow stem directly from this analysis. Your position is that of the American diplomats of the 1990s and 2000s.
Exactly. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, the Chief of Staff Shalikashvili, the Secretary of Defense William Perry, even Bill Burns, the American ambassador to Russia at the time and in this famous memo "Nyet means Nyet" (no means no) that he sent to Condoleezza Rice shortly before the Bucharest summit. The conclusion is formal: the idea of making Ukraine join NATO is for Russia, unacceptable.
Two major discussions dominate the debate in Europe today: cutting off the Russian gas tap by 2027 and the sale of Russian assets to finance Ukraine. You don't believe in it?
Even if they managed to finance the war with the frozen Russian assets, that changes nothing to the balance of power in men and arms. The Europeans should work with the Ukrainians to accept Russia's main demands. Is this a good thing for Ukraine? No. It's even terrible. But the central question is not: Does this solution please us? The real question is: What are the alternatives? And the alternative is to continue the war, to lose more territory, to see tens of thousands more Ukrainians die. I am convinced that the only solution, rational in the sense of the least bad, would be an agreement largely dictated by Russian conditions. But I don't believe for a second that this will happen. We are heading towards a frozen conflict which will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe.
"Poutine n'a jamais pensé prendre toute l'Ukraine, sachant qu'il s'embarquerait
dans un nouvel Ajghanistan Professeur émérite de relations internationales à l'université de Chicago, John Mearsheimer dénonce depuis toujours la part de responsabilité des Occidentaux dans la guerre Ukraine. Celui que ses détracteurs accusent d'être le pantin du Kremlin estime. que la seule issue possible du conflit passe par l'acceptatión des exigences de Poutinel
Propos recueillis par Vincent Jolly
D epuis l'annexion de la Criméel en 2014, qu'est-ce qui rous a le plus surpris dans cette guerre que vous aver été l'un des rares.
à voir venir ? Deux choses m'ontvraiment| surpris, voire choqué. Lal première, c'est l'invasion de la région de Koursk par les
ritoire russe, en 2024. Car il faut garder à l'esprit que ce n'est pas une simple « guerre. par procuration » : les Etats-Unis contrôlent, dans les faits, une grande partie de la stratégic ukrainienne. Pen- dant la guerre froide, l'idée que des forces alliées puissent envahir « La mère Russie » ctait tout simplement impen- sable. Dans nos scénarios d'époque, l'Otan n'aurait ja- mais pris le risque de pousser jusqu'au territoire soviéti-
que par peur d'une escalade nucléaire. La deuxièmo. posante aérienne de la triade nucléaire russe l
bardiers stratégiques
- les bom-
en juin dernier. Tout cela montre à quel point, en Occident, beaucoup de décideurs sem- blent avoir oublié que nous vivons dans un monde nu- cléaire. Des penseurs russes comme Serguci Karaganov, ou Dmitri Trenin expliquent que l'ère d'unipolarité que. nous avons connue jusqu'à la lin des années 2010 a fait perdre aux élites occidentales la conscience de la réalité l nucléaire. Ils disent en substance: «Les Occidentaux ont | oublié dans quel monde on vit, ils jouent avec le feu.» Karaganov va même jusqu'à soutenir - je paraphrase et l je résume - que la Russic pourrait envisager de frapper | une cible curopéenne avec une arme nucléaire pour « re- mettre les pendules à l'heure » en quelque sorte et rappe- crau monde le prx d unc escalade nuclcaire. Quand) a1
lu cela la première fois, j'ai trouvé l'argument délirant. Avec le temps, je comprends mieux ce qu'il cherche à ex-| primer: ce n'est pas un désir de guerre totale, c'est unc manière radicale de dire : « Vous avez oublié que ce jeul
a des conséquences existentielles. » Quel regard porțer-rous sur la dernière séquence de négocia- fions entre les États-Unis et la Russie?| loute cette sequence est. a mes yeux, une perte de temps.
colossale. Je ne suis absolument pas surpris par lc résultat. L'objectit de Trumpestle bon. Ilavait promis avant memel son retour à la Maison-Blanche, qu'il règlerait le problème rapidement. Il ne l'a pas fait. Mais, à mon sens, ce n'est pas sculement son échec personnel. En l'état, il n'y a pas del solution diplomatique possible à ce conflit. Cela se réglera ur le champ de bataille. Si l'on veut reellement compren- dre la situation, il faut se rappeler que les positions des Russes, des Ukrainiens et des Européens sont, à ce stade. irréconciliables. Moscou a trois exigences centrales, qu'elle
considère comme non négociables : pas d'Ukraine dans par |'Occident à Kiev; une reconnaissance de l'annexion par la Russic des quatre oblasts de l'Est ukrainien en plus de la Criméc; et unc démilitarisation de l'Ukrainc à un niveau tel que son armée ne puisse plus représenter und
menace séricuse pour la Russie. Avec sa nouvelle stratégie de sécurité actant l'abandon de l'Europe, l'Administration Trump r'est-elle pas en position.
de tordre le bras des Ukrainiens et des Européens ? Les Etats-Unis le pourraient. Mais ils ne le feront pas Plui précisément: l'Administration Trump ne le fera pas. I] existe un soutien massif, au sein du Parti républicain mais aussi dans le reste du pays, pour |'Ukraine et l'Europe.| Trump. I.D. Vance, Witkoff, Kushner sont prêts à faire des concessions considérables à la Russic, mais ces « colom- bes » se heurtent à unc opposition très forte. Marco Rubiol n'est pas le scul « faucon » atlantiste à vouloir défaire la
Russic. La marge de manœuvre de Trump est donc réduite. Sur le fond, tous savent que le conflit ne sera pas réglé autour d'une table. Il sera tranché sur le champ de bataille. fants » dans une querre qui est à nos portes. Mais il a l fallu aux Russes plus d'un an et demi pour s'emparer de
Pokrovsk et ses enrirons... Vladimir Poutine n'a jamais cu l'intention de conquérir.
toute l'Ukraine, cela reviendrait à s'embarquer dans un
I’ve written a script to expand this into a longer documentary, incorporating YouTube clips from the scholars and deep thinkers whose work has informed my theory and prescription. It could make for a good film…
As you’ve been saying all along, this war was avoidable. We’ve had very poor leadership in the US for a long time, and it shows. Unfortunately, it’s the poor soldiers who pay the heaviest price—and the children in places like Gaza.
Unfortunately, you’re largely correct. However, I think your assessment might be slightly skewed because not everyone involved in these flawed policies is motivated by pure greed. One would hope that the people making these decisions have at least some integrity rather than being driven solely by greed and hubris—because that would mean we’re dealing with pure evil rather than the more common garden variety. But I’m not in the room, so it’s hard to tell. At the end of the day, whether it results from pure evil or a mixture of evil and stupidity, the outcome amounts to the same thing: pure evil. You should watch my film and see if you think it points toward the antidote.
Framing the problem with a binary of evil and stupidity obscures the banality. Consider the mainstream media, the New York Times and the Washington Post, pump a narrative of Russophobia. Congresswomen and their voters are scammed into supporting billions of dollars for Ukraine. In return the congresswoman has her campaign coffers filled by benefactors of that vote. Hundreds of thousands die in the proxy war, but the voters and often the congresswomen have no sense of any responsibility. Thanks to the scam from the mainstream media they demonize Putin instead.
You haven’t said anything I disagree with. And that fact points to why I have yet to hear anything from John Mearsheimer that I disagree with. What’s interesting is that while Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism largely explains how the international power system works, I’m sure he would argue that the skillful use of diplomacy and soft power is the best way to avoid tragedies like the one unfolding in Ukraine. No matter how you slice or dice it, it’s a clown show and special interest groups the media funds the circus.
Largely agree, but given the death and destruction I'm reluctant to slice and dice as a clown show. The Neocons have a lot of blood on their hands which would have not been possible without mainstream media collusion.
I completely agree with you. What’s happened and what continues to happen is absolutely despicable. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing it to happen.
That is a desired comment, so to make amends , I asked Chat GPT to read and Translate the text. If you are familiar Mersheimer thoughts on Ukraine and world powers , this should not be new to you,
-------------
“We are heading toward a frozen conflict that will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe”
a new Afghanistan. It would be a strategic folly.
Western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who would fiercely resist a Russian occupation. It would require an army of at least 1.5 million soldiers on the ground, which Russia does not have. Their strategy is therefore attrition: what matters is not so much the speed at which you advance nor the amount of territory you take, but the speed at which you bleed the adversary. This is Verdun in 1916. Ukraine needs roughly 100 billion dollars per year to continue the war. The United States has already spent 114 billion euros and no longer has the means. Hence the temptation among European leaders to seize frozen Russian assets held in Europe, because they themselves cannot finance the war.
The war has considerably strengthened Ukraine’s pro-Ukrainian fiber. Isn’t that the opposite of its objective?
That is exactly why Putin has every interest in taking as much territory as possible, without going as far as regions that are overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Ukrainians. Today, Russia controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. If he has the means, I believe Putin will seek to reach something like 40 percent, notably by seizing Kharkiv and Odessa, pushing as far as the Dnieper in the center and the north, then advancing in the south. The more weakened Ukraine becomes, the more limited the threat it will pose to Russia. I think that when he launched the invasion in 2022, his main objective was to force Ukraine to negotiate very early on. Talks had already begun in Istanbul. Negotiators from both sides say that the discussions were progressing, but the Ukrainians left the table. Why? Principally because the United States and the United Kingdom convinced Zelensky that they believed that, with a Ukrainian army trained by the West since 2014 and massive sanctions, Moscow would end up being defeated.
Donald Trump is today where he has been before, but it was he who authorized the delivery of Javelin missiles as early as 2017…
Trump genuinely wanted, as he said during his first campaign, to improve relations with Russia. But he found himself trapped by his political enemies, both Democrats and Republicans, who accused him of being an agent of the Kremlin. Under the pressure of these accusations, he wanted to demonstrate that, as President of the United States, he was ready to stand up to Russia. That explains the delivery of the Javelins in 2017.
According to you, Ukraine was thus “trapped” between two fires, the West and Russia. Under these conditions, why do Ukrainians remain pro-European?
Because the dominant narrative in the West, which portrays Putin as an imperialist driven by a project to reconstruct the Soviet empire, presents him as a man who wants first all of Ukraine, then other countries of Eastern Europe. The alternative narrative that I defend explains that the central factor is NATO’s expansion. For Moscow, seeing Ukraine join the Alliance is an existential threat. Putin was not seeking to “reconquer” the empire; he was seeking to prevent the installation of a Western bastion on Russia’s borders. The three non-negotiable elements for Moscow flow directly from this analysis.
Your position is that of American diplomats of the 1990s and the 2000s…
Exactly. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense William Perry… even Bill Burns, the American ambassador to Russia, and his famous memo “Nyet Means Nyet”, and (this is little known) the one he sent to Condoleezza Rice ahead of the Bucharest summit. All of them state without hesitation that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable to Russia.
Two major debates dominate discussion in Europe today: cutting off Russian gas by 2027 and seizing Russian assets to finance Ukraine. You don’t believe in this?
Even if they managed to finance the war using frozen Russian assets, that would change nothing in the balance of forces in men and arms. Europeans should work with Ukrainians to bring them to accept Russia’s principal demands. Is that a good thing for Ukraine? No. It is even terrible. But the central question is not “Do we like this solution?” The real question is “What are the alternatives?” And the alternative is to continue the war, to lose more territory, to see tens of thousands more Ukrainians die. I am convinced that the only reasonable solution, in the sense of “the least bad”, would be an agreement largely dictated by Russian terms. But I do not believe for a moment that this will happen. We are heading toward a frozen conflict that will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe. A frozen conflict will be even more unstable than before, because the potential points of friction are multiple: the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldova, the Black Sea…
The last ten years have proven you right about the consequences, but your view of the causes has earned you being labeled a “mouthpiece of the Kremlin”…
I believe they are wrong, both morally and strategically. If one looks at what is happening on the ground, the price paid by Ukraine and the growing imbalance of forces, defending the continuation of this war is, to me, morally indefensible. It is an extremely unpopular position in the West. Yet I remain convinced that, morally as well as strategically, it is nevertheless the most responsible position.
des relations exécrables entre la Russie et l'Europe"
nouvel Afghanistan. Ce serait une folie stratégique! L'Ukraine occidentale est peuplée d'Ukrainiens ethniques qui résisteraient farouchement à une occupation russe. lui faudrait une armée d'au moins 1,5 million de soldats sur| le terrain, ce qu'elle n'a pas. Leur stratégie est une guerre d'attrition: ce qui compte n'est pas tant la vitesse à laquelle vous avancez ni la quantité de territoire que vous prenez,
mais la vitesse à laquelle vous saignez l'adversaire.
C'est Verdun en 1916. L'Ukraine a besoin d'environ 100 mil- liards de dollars par an pour continuer la guerre. Les Etats- Unis disent désormais clairement : « Ce n'est plus notre problème, que les Européens payent. » Or, les Européens n'ont pas les moyens. D'où la tentation des dirigeants curo- péens de saisir les avoirs russes gelés chez Euroclear: parce
qu'ils ne peuvent pas financer eux-mêmes la guerre La guerre a considérablement renforcé la fibre proeuro péenne de l'Ukraine. N'est-ce pas l'inverse de son objectif
initial ? C'est exactement pour cela que Poutine a tout intérêt à prendre le plus de territoire possible, sans aller jusqu'aux régions très majoritairement peuplées d'Ukrainiens eth- niques. Aujourd'hui, la Russie contrôle environ 20 % du territoire ukrainien. S'il en a les moyens, je pense que Pou- tine cherchera à monter à quelque chose comme 40 %, en s'emparant notamment de Kharkiv et d'Odessa, et en poussant jusqu'au Dniepr au centre et au nord, puis en le franchissant au sud. Plus I Ukraine sera atlaiblie, plus la menace qu'elle representera pour la Russie sera limitée. Jel pense que lorsqu'il lance l'invasion en 2022, son objectif|
principal est de forcer les Ukrainiens a negocier tres vite.
Des pourparlers s'ouvrent d'ailleurs rapidement à Istanbul. T
es négociateurs des deux camps attirment que les discussions avancent, mais les Ukrainiens quittent la. table. Pourquoi? Principalement parce que les Etats-Unis. et le Royaume-Uni ont convaincu Zelensky ; ils étaient persuades qu'avec une armée ukrainienne entrainée et armée par l'Occident depuis 2014 et avec des sanctions éco- nomiques massives, ils pourraient vaincre la Russie Donald Trump veut aujourd'hui la paix, mais c'est lui qui
autorise l'envoi des missiles Javelin dès 2017.... Trump voulait vraiment, comme il le disait lors de sa première campagne, améliorer les relations avec la Russie. Mais il s'est| retrouvé pris dans le « Russiagate » et a été accusé d'être une marionnette de Poutine. Sous la pression de ces accusations, il a voulu montrer que ce n'était pas le cas. Et c'est aussi pour|
cela qu'il a accepté d'armer l'Ukraine en 2017. Selon vous, l'Ukraine a donc été « piégée » deux fois par l'Occident. Dans ces conditions, pourquoi les Ukrainiens
restent-ils si procuropéens ?| Car le récit dominant en Occident, que les Ukrainiens partagent largement, est celui qui désigne Poutine comme un impérialiste animé par un projet de recons- truction de l'empire soviétique, un homme qui veut
d'abord toute l'Ukraine, puis d'autres pays d'Europe
38/ Le Figaro Magazine / 12 décembre 2025. de l'Est. Le récit alternatit que je défends explique que. le facteur central est l'expansion de l'Otan. Pour Mos- cou, voir l'Ukraine intégrer l'Alliance est une menace existentielle. Poutine ne cherchait pas à « reconquérir l'empire », il cherchait à empêcher l'installation d'un bastion occidental antirusse à ses frontières. Les trois. exigences non négociables de Moscou découlent direc-
tement de cette analyse. Votre position est celle des diplomates américains des
années 1990 et des années 2000... Exactement. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, le chef d'état-
major Shalikashvili, le secrétaire à la Défense William. Perry... même Bill Burns, l'ambassadeur américain en Russie et son célèbre mémo « Nyet means Nyet » (non. c'est non) qu'il envoie à Condoleezza Rice peu avant le sommet de Bucarest. lous attirment sans hésitation que l'idée de faire entrer l'Ukraine dans l'Otan est, pour lal
Russie, inacceptable. Deux grandes discussions dominent aujourd'hui le débat en Europe : couper le robinet du gaz russe d'ici à 2027 et| la saisie des avoirs russes pour financer l'Ukraine. Vous
n'y croyez pas ? Même s'ils parvenaient à financer la guerre avec les avours russes geles, cela ne change rien au rapport de force en hommes et en armes. Les Européens devraient| travailler avec les Ukrainiens pour faire en sorte d'ac- epter les exigences principales de la Kussie. Est-ce und onne chose pour l'Ukraine ? Non. C'est même terrible Mais la question centrale n'est pas : « Cette solution nous plaît-elle ? » La vraie question est : « Quelles sont| les alternatives ? » Et l'alternative, c'est de continuer la. guerre ; de perdre davantage de territoire ; de voir des. dizaines de milliers d'Ukrainiens supplémentaires mourir. Je suis convaincu que la seule solution raison- nable - au sens de « moins mauvaise » — serait un accord. largement dicté par les conditions russes. Mais je ne crois. pas une seconde que cela se produira. Nous allons vers. un conflit gelé qui entraînera des relations exécrables. entre la Russie et l'Europe. Un conflit gelé qui sera. encore plus instable qu'avant car les points de triction potentiels se sont multipliés : l'Arctique, la mer Baltique,
Kaliningrad, la Biélorussie, la Moldavie, la mer Noire... Les dix dernières années vous ont donné raison sur les conséquences, mais votre opinion sur les causes vous vaut
d'être taxé de « porte-voix du Kremlin »... Je pense qu'ils ont tort, à la fois moralement et stratégique- ment. Si l'on regarde ce qui se passe sur le terrain, le prix payé par l'Ukraine et le déséquilibre croissant des forces. défendre la poursuite de cette guerre est, pour moi, morale. ment bancal. C'est une position extrêmement impopulaire en Occident. Je reste pour l'instant persuadé que, sur le plan moral comme sur le plan stratégique, c'est pourtant lal
It doesn't matter how large the print becomes, my French just isn't good enough to translate this sort of political discussion. Is an English translation available?
Couldn’t open the article, the screen turns black, only photos remain visible.
Click right to open menu, then click left 'open image in new tab'.
Don't underestmate the gallons of kool aid the French have been served (with general Yakovlev seemingly wanting a role n Dr Strangelove part deux...).
So on Le Figaro's website you have to scroll for dear life to find the article, which is immediately followed by:
'The editorial team recommends:
Garry Kasparov: "Putin's goal is the liquidation of NATO and the European Union"
With the new American security strategy, the Kremlin is rubbing its hands together in glee.'
Le Fgaro commenters are smilar to most msm, basing opinion on emotion and sentiment:
'That's completely false. Putin's dream is to annex all of Ukraine and install a puppet leader. Listening to this man shows a complete lack of understanding of 1,000 years of history. It astounds me that an academic would be willing to make such compromises.
JF8
12/21/2025 at 4:23 PM
Yes. In France, we only have anti-Russian programs and debates; it's tiresome and worrying.
nicole68
12/19/2025 at 12:21 PM
"Vladimir Putin never thought of conquering all of Ukraine!" This is a bad start: The column of Russian tanks stopped and destroyed on March 7, 2022, 30 km from Kyiv—what were they there for? Not to conquer, of course, but to install a "democratic" power obedient to the puppet master, Vladimir Putin. A subtle nuance that I find hard to accept.'
standard practice , us also have masters , funded by aipac while the eu is controled by neocon puppets . Who gives a fck to "democracy" in the age of donors big media and big tech is a VERY naive kid . Best example Romania - if someone indesirable really get close to be elected they will take care of the problem - so please spare us with the child talk
PS ignore my tone , i was thinking i reply to that nicole :)
Ah, to gloat in french , magnifique!
Congratulations with the article in Le Figaro, prof. Mearsheimer.
Good for the French that they can learn of your geopolitical wisdom in their own language. I hope for another interview in Dutch in a serious news-paper in The Netherlands - so that the Dutch can inform themselves about the geopolitical facts and truth in their own language too.
It takes people like you, prof. Jeffrey Sachs Max Blumenthal Aaron Maté and Chris Hedges to get people off their beaten tracks, start thinking for themselves and start helping to protest and stop the war, stop the genocide, stop the utter madness and destructiveness of USA and Europe.
Thank you for your great work.
Yup - Exactly correct…
Mearsheimer Le Figaro Interview
AI Summary
The text is an analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war, suggesting the conflict is likely heading toward a "frozen conflict" with poor relations between Russia and Europe. The author argues that a war of attrition is currently taking place and that the West has "trapped" Ukraine twice. The analysis suggests that the only rational solution is an agreement largely dictated by Russian conditions.
• A frozen conflict with "execrable" Russia-Europe relations is likely.
• The author argues the central factor in the conflict is NATO expansion, not Russian imperialism.
• The U.S. and U.K. convinced Zelenskyy to stop negotiations in Istanbul.
• The only "rational" solution would be an agreement dictated by Russian terms.
AI Translation of the full text
We are heading towards a frozen conflict which will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe, which will fiercely oppose a Russian occupation. It would require at least 1.5 million soldiers on the ground, which it does not have. Their strategy is a war of attrition; what counts is not so much the speed at which you advance or the amount of territory you take, but the speed at which you wear down the adversary. It's Verdun in 1916. Ukraine needs around 100 billion dollars per year to continue the war. The United States now clearly says "This is no longer our problem, let the Europeans pay." But the Europeans do not have the means, hence the temptation to use the frozen Russian assets at Euroclear because they cannot finance the war themselves. The war has considerably reinforced Ukraine's pro-European fiber. Isn't this the opposite of its initial objective?
This is exactly why Putin has every interest in taking as much territory as possible, without going as far as the regions very largely populated by ethnic Ukrainians. Today, Russia controls 18% of Ukrainian territory; if it could, it thinks Putin seeks to go up to something like 40%, notably by taking Kharkiv and Odessa, and pushing to the Dnieper in the center and north, then crossing it in the south. The more Ukraine is weakened, the more limited the threat it will represent for Russia. It thinks that when it launched the invasion in 2022, its main goal was to force the Ukrainians to negotiate very quickly. Peace processes opened quickly in Istanbul. Negotiators from both sides claimed discussions were advancing, but the Ukrainians left the table. Why? Mainly because the United States and the United Kingdom convinced Zelenskyy; they were persuaded that one year of war financed by the West since 2014 and with massive economic sanctions they could defeat Russia. Donald Trump wants peace today, but it was him who authorized the sending of Javelin missiles in 2017. Trump actually wanted, as he said during his first campaign, to improve relations with Russia. But he was accused of being a Russianite and was suspected of being a puppet of Putin. Under the pressure of these accusations, he wanted to show that this was not the case, and that is why he accepted to arm Ukraine in 2017.
According to you, Ukraine has therefore been trapped twice by the West. Under these conditions, why do the Ukrainians remain so pro-European? Because the dominant narrative in the West, which the Ukrainians widely share, is the one that designates Putin as an imperialist driven by a project of reconstituting the Soviet empire, a man who first wants all of Ukraine, then other countries in Eastern Europe. The alternative narrative that I defend explains that the central factor is NATO expansion. For Moscow, seeing Ukraine integrate the Alliance is an existential threat. Putin was not seeking to reconquer the empire, he was seeking to prevent the installation of an anti-Russian Western bastion at its borders. The three non-negotiable demands from Moscow stem directly from this analysis. Your position is that of the American diplomats of the 1990s and 2000s.
Exactly. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, the Chief of Staff Shalikashvili, the Secretary of Defense William Perry, even Bill Burns, the American ambassador to Russia at the time and in this famous memo "Nyet means Nyet" (no means no) that he sent to Condoleezza Rice shortly before the Bucharest summit. The conclusion is formal: the idea of making Ukraine join NATO is for Russia, unacceptable.
Two major discussions dominate the debate in Europe today: cutting off the Russian gas tap by 2027 and the sale of Russian assets to finance Ukraine. You don't believe in it?
Even if they managed to finance the war with the frozen Russian assets, that changes nothing to the balance of power in men and arms. The Europeans should work with the Ukrainians to accept Russia's main demands. Is this a good thing for Ukraine? No. It's even terrible. But the central question is not: Does this solution please us? The real question is: What are the alternatives? And the alternative is to continue the war, to lose more territory, to see tens of thousands more Ukrainians die. I am convinced that the only solution, rational in the sense of the least bad, would be an agreement largely dictated by Russian conditions. But I don't believe for a second that this will happen. We are heading towards a frozen conflict which will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe.
AI responses may include mistakes.
Thanks
Well there is Sud Radio ir you want to desintoxicate
Not being able to read French, i still knew that was what he said :) Love the professors views on the topic but most interviews are the same
"Poutine n'a jamais pensé prendre toute l'Ukraine, sachant qu'il s'embarquerait
dans un nouvel Ajghanistan Professeur émérite de relations internationales à l'université de Chicago, John Mearsheimer dénonce depuis toujours la part de responsabilité des Occidentaux dans la guerre Ukraine. Celui que ses détracteurs accusent d'être le pantin du Kremlin estime. que la seule issue possible du conflit passe par l'acceptatión des exigences de Poutinel
Propos recueillis par Vincent Jolly
D epuis l'annexion de la Criméel en 2014, qu'est-ce qui rous a le plus surpris dans cette guerre que vous aver été l'un des rares.
à voir venir ? Deux choses m'ontvraiment| surpris, voire choqué. Lal première, c'est l'invasion de la région de Koursk par les
ritoire russe, en 2024. Car il faut garder à l'esprit que ce n'est pas une simple « guerre. par procuration » : les Etats-Unis contrôlent, dans les faits, une grande partie de la stratégic ukrainienne. Pen- dant la guerre froide, l'idée que des forces alliées puissent envahir « La mère Russie » ctait tout simplement impen- sable. Dans nos scénarios d'époque, l'Otan n'aurait ja- mais pris le risque de pousser jusqu'au territoire soviéti-
que par peur d'une escalade nucléaire. La deuxièmo. posante aérienne de la triade nucléaire russe l
bardiers stratégiques
- les bom-
en juin dernier. Tout cela montre à quel point, en Occident, beaucoup de décideurs sem- blent avoir oublié que nous vivons dans un monde nu- cléaire. Des penseurs russes comme Serguci Karaganov, ou Dmitri Trenin expliquent que l'ère d'unipolarité que. nous avons connue jusqu'à la lin des années 2010 a fait perdre aux élites occidentales la conscience de la réalité l nucléaire. Ils disent en substance: «Les Occidentaux ont | oublié dans quel monde on vit, ils jouent avec le feu.» Karaganov va même jusqu'à soutenir - je paraphrase et l je résume - que la Russic pourrait envisager de frapper | une cible curopéenne avec une arme nucléaire pour « re- mettre les pendules à l'heure » en quelque sorte et rappe- crau monde le prx d unc escalade nuclcaire. Quand) a1
lu cela la première fois, j'ai trouvé l'argument délirant. Avec le temps, je comprends mieux ce qu'il cherche à ex-| primer: ce n'est pas un désir de guerre totale, c'est unc manière radicale de dire : « Vous avez oublié que ce jeul
a des conséquences existentielles. » Quel regard porțer-rous sur la dernière séquence de négocia- fions entre les États-Unis et la Russie?| loute cette sequence est. a mes yeux, une perte de temps.
colossale. Je ne suis absolument pas surpris par lc résultat. L'objectit de Trumpestle bon. Ilavait promis avant memel son retour à la Maison-Blanche, qu'il règlerait le problème rapidement. Il ne l'a pas fait. Mais, à mon sens, ce n'est pas sculement son échec personnel. En l'état, il n'y a pas del solution diplomatique possible à ce conflit. Cela se réglera ur le champ de bataille. Si l'on veut reellement compren- dre la situation, il faut se rappeler que les positions des Russes, des Ukrainiens et des Européens sont, à ce stade. irréconciliables. Moscou a trois exigences centrales, qu'elle
considère comme non négociables : pas d'Ukraine dans par |'Occident à Kiev; une reconnaissance de l'annexion par la Russic des quatre oblasts de l'Est ukrainien en plus de la Criméc; et unc démilitarisation de l'Ukrainc à un niveau tel que son armée ne puisse plus représenter und
menace séricuse pour la Russie. Avec sa nouvelle stratégie de sécurité actant l'abandon de l'Europe, l'Administration Trump r'est-elle pas en position.
de tordre le bras des Ukrainiens et des Européens ? Les Etats-Unis le pourraient. Mais ils ne le feront pas Plui précisément: l'Administration Trump ne le fera pas. I] existe un soutien massif, au sein du Parti républicain mais aussi dans le reste du pays, pour |'Ukraine et l'Europe.| Trump. I.D. Vance, Witkoff, Kushner sont prêts à faire des concessions considérables à la Russic, mais ces « colom- bes » se heurtent à unc opposition très forte. Marco Rubiol n'est pas le scul « faucon » atlantiste à vouloir défaire la
Russic. La marge de manœuvre de Trump est donc réduite. Sur le fond, tous savent que le conflit ne sera pas réglé autour d'une table. Il sera tranché sur le champ de bataille. fants » dans une querre qui est à nos portes. Mais il a l fallu aux Russes plus d'un an et demi pour s'emparer de
Pokrovsk et ses enrirons... Vladimir Poutine n'a jamais cu l'intention de conquérir.
toute l'Ukraine, cela reviendrait à s'embarquer dans un
I’ve written a script to expand this into a longer documentary, incorporating YouTube clips from the scholars and deep thinkers whose work has informed my theory and prescription. It could make for a good film…
brilliant , trust it will be Black and White !
Excellent. I am french and happy to see you interviewed in a french newspaper. We need your voice to be spread
Well deserved recognition of Prof Mearsheimer's realist views.
Bravo John 👏
On éspère juste que les politciens et les politcienes en france le lisent !
Maybe if you have time you could take a look at the YouTube video I posted today. It isn’t perfect, but it’s good…
https://youtu.be/h1jV8hMZ3Zc?si=EQ4-nK4djh1nLYw2
As you’ve been saying all along, this war was avoidable. We’ve had very poor leadership in the US for a long time, and it shows. Unfortunately, it’s the poor soldiers who pay the heaviest price—and the children in places like Gaza.
Poor leadership? Unlikely. It is a fleecing of US taxpayers to serve the centralization of power in Washington DC.
Unfortunately, you’re largely correct. However, I think your assessment might be slightly skewed because not everyone involved in these flawed policies is motivated by pure greed. One would hope that the people making these decisions have at least some integrity rather than being driven solely by greed and hubris—because that would mean we’re dealing with pure evil rather than the more common garden variety. But I’m not in the room, so it’s hard to tell. At the end of the day, whether it results from pure evil or a mixture of evil and stupidity, the outcome amounts to the same thing: pure evil. You should watch my film and see if you think it points toward the antidote.
Framing the problem with a binary of evil and stupidity obscures the banality. Consider the mainstream media, the New York Times and the Washington Post, pump a narrative of Russophobia. Congresswomen and their voters are scammed into supporting billions of dollars for Ukraine. In return the congresswoman has her campaign coffers filled by benefactors of that vote. Hundreds of thousands die in the proxy war, but the voters and often the congresswomen have no sense of any responsibility. Thanks to the scam from the mainstream media they demonize Putin instead.
You haven’t said anything I disagree with. And that fact points to why I have yet to hear anything from John Mearsheimer that I disagree with. What’s interesting is that while Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism largely explains how the international power system works, I’m sure he would argue that the skillful use of diplomacy and soft power is the best way to avoid tragedies like the one unfolding in Ukraine. No matter how you slice or dice it, it’s a clown show and special interest groups the media funds the circus.
Largely agree, but given the death and destruction I'm reluctant to slice and dice as a clown show. The Neocons have a lot of blood on their hands which would have not been possible without mainstream media collusion.
I completely agree with you. What’s happened and what continues to happen is absolutely despicable. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing it to happen.
What's the point of sharing this interview in French without providing a translation?
For those, like me, who read French. No problem.
Not everyone needs a translation. Prof. Mersheimer has many followers whose native language is not English.
Do you really need translations, the point my friend, is to admire.
Idiotic comment...
That is a desired comment, so to make amends , I asked Chat GPT to read and Translate the text. If you are familiar Mersheimer thoughts on Ukraine and world powers , this should not be new to you,
-------------
“We are heading toward a frozen conflict that will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe”
a new Afghanistan. It would be a strategic folly.
Western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who would fiercely resist a Russian occupation. It would require an army of at least 1.5 million soldiers on the ground, which Russia does not have. Their strategy is therefore attrition: what matters is not so much the speed at which you advance nor the amount of territory you take, but the speed at which you bleed the adversary. This is Verdun in 1916. Ukraine needs roughly 100 billion dollars per year to continue the war. The United States has already spent 114 billion euros and no longer has the means. Hence the temptation among European leaders to seize frozen Russian assets held in Europe, because they themselves cannot finance the war.
The war has considerably strengthened Ukraine’s pro-Ukrainian fiber. Isn’t that the opposite of its objective?
That is exactly why Putin has every interest in taking as much territory as possible, without going as far as regions that are overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Ukrainians. Today, Russia controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. If he has the means, I believe Putin will seek to reach something like 40 percent, notably by seizing Kharkiv and Odessa, pushing as far as the Dnieper in the center and the north, then advancing in the south. The more weakened Ukraine becomes, the more limited the threat it will pose to Russia. I think that when he launched the invasion in 2022, his main objective was to force Ukraine to negotiate very early on. Talks had already begun in Istanbul. Negotiators from both sides say that the discussions were progressing, but the Ukrainians left the table. Why? Principally because the United States and the United Kingdom convinced Zelensky that they believed that, with a Ukrainian army trained by the West since 2014 and massive sanctions, Moscow would end up being defeated.
Donald Trump is today where he has been before, but it was he who authorized the delivery of Javelin missiles as early as 2017…
Trump genuinely wanted, as he said during his first campaign, to improve relations with Russia. But he found himself trapped by his political enemies, both Democrats and Republicans, who accused him of being an agent of the Kremlin. Under the pressure of these accusations, he wanted to demonstrate that, as President of the United States, he was ready to stand up to Russia. That explains the delivery of the Javelins in 2017.
According to you, Ukraine was thus “trapped” between two fires, the West and Russia. Under these conditions, why do Ukrainians remain pro-European?
Because the dominant narrative in the West, which portrays Putin as an imperialist driven by a project to reconstruct the Soviet empire, presents him as a man who wants first all of Ukraine, then other countries of Eastern Europe. The alternative narrative that I defend explains that the central factor is NATO’s expansion. For Moscow, seeing Ukraine join the Alliance is an existential threat. Putin was not seeking to “reconquer” the empire; he was seeking to prevent the installation of a Western bastion on Russia’s borders. The three non-negotiable elements for Moscow flow directly from this analysis.
Your position is that of American diplomats of the 1990s and the 2000s…
Exactly. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense William Perry… even Bill Burns, the American ambassador to Russia, and his famous memo “Nyet Means Nyet”, and (this is little known) the one he sent to Condoleezza Rice ahead of the Bucharest summit. All of them state without hesitation that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable to Russia.
Two major debates dominate discussion in Europe today: cutting off Russian gas by 2027 and seizing Russian assets to finance Ukraine. You don’t believe in this?
Even if they managed to finance the war using frozen Russian assets, that would change nothing in the balance of forces in men and arms. Europeans should work with Ukrainians to bring them to accept Russia’s principal demands. Is that a good thing for Ukraine? No. It is even terrible. But the central question is not “Do we like this solution?” The real question is “What are the alternatives?” And the alternative is to continue the war, to lose more territory, to see tens of thousands more Ukrainians die. I am convinced that the only reasonable solution, in the sense of “the least bad”, would be an agreement largely dictated by Russian terms. But I do not believe for a moment that this will happen. We are heading toward a frozen conflict that will lead to execrable relations between Russia and Europe. A frozen conflict will be even more unstable than before, because the potential points of friction are multiple: the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldova, the Black Sea…
The last ten years have proven you right about the consequences, but your view of the causes has earned you being labeled a “mouthpiece of the Kremlin”…
I believe they are wrong, both morally and strategically. If one looks at what is happening on the ground, the price paid by Ukraine and the growing imbalance of forces, defending the continuation of this war is, to me, morally indefensible. It is an extremely unpopular position in the West. Yet I remain convinced that, morally as well as strategically, it is nevertheless the most responsible position.
Interview conducted by Vincent Jolly
John, fyi, there’s so much fake AI of YOU being impersonated on YouTube it’s a crime!
An auto translated version is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13wL9akFywFb4vhJpeGBNy1b1cNfBagyztouZho_E9SU/edit?usp=sharing.
'Nous allons vers un conflit gelé qui entrainera
des relations exécrables entre la Russie et l'Europe"
nouvel Afghanistan. Ce serait une folie stratégique! L'Ukraine occidentale est peuplée d'Ukrainiens ethniques qui résisteraient farouchement à une occupation russe. lui faudrait une armée d'au moins 1,5 million de soldats sur| le terrain, ce qu'elle n'a pas. Leur stratégie est une guerre d'attrition: ce qui compte n'est pas tant la vitesse à laquelle vous avancez ni la quantité de territoire que vous prenez,
mais la vitesse à laquelle vous saignez l'adversaire.
C'est Verdun en 1916. L'Ukraine a besoin d'environ 100 mil- liards de dollars par an pour continuer la guerre. Les Etats- Unis disent désormais clairement : « Ce n'est plus notre problème, que les Européens payent. » Or, les Européens n'ont pas les moyens. D'où la tentation des dirigeants curo- péens de saisir les avoirs russes gelés chez Euroclear: parce
qu'ils ne peuvent pas financer eux-mêmes la guerre La guerre a considérablement renforcé la fibre proeuro péenne de l'Ukraine. N'est-ce pas l'inverse de son objectif
initial ? C'est exactement pour cela que Poutine a tout intérêt à prendre le plus de territoire possible, sans aller jusqu'aux régions très majoritairement peuplées d'Ukrainiens eth- niques. Aujourd'hui, la Russie contrôle environ 20 % du territoire ukrainien. S'il en a les moyens, je pense que Pou- tine cherchera à monter à quelque chose comme 40 %, en s'emparant notamment de Kharkiv et d'Odessa, et en poussant jusqu'au Dniepr au centre et au nord, puis en le franchissant au sud. Plus I Ukraine sera atlaiblie, plus la menace qu'elle representera pour la Russie sera limitée. Jel pense que lorsqu'il lance l'invasion en 2022, son objectif|
principal est de forcer les Ukrainiens a negocier tres vite.
Des pourparlers s'ouvrent d'ailleurs rapidement à Istanbul. T
es négociateurs des deux camps attirment que les discussions avancent, mais les Ukrainiens quittent la. table. Pourquoi? Principalement parce que les Etats-Unis. et le Royaume-Uni ont convaincu Zelensky ; ils étaient persuades qu'avec une armée ukrainienne entrainée et armée par l'Occident depuis 2014 et avec des sanctions éco- nomiques massives, ils pourraient vaincre la Russie Donald Trump veut aujourd'hui la paix, mais c'est lui qui
autorise l'envoi des missiles Javelin dès 2017.... Trump voulait vraiment, comme il le disait lors de sa première campagne, améliorer les relations avec la Russie. Mais il s'est| retrouvé pris dans le « Russiagate » et a été accusé d'être une marionnette de Poutine. Sous la pression de ces accusations, il a voulu montrer que ce n'était pas le cas. Et c'est aussi pour|
cela qu'il a accepté d'armer l'Ukraine en 2017. Selon vous, l'Ukraine a donc été « piégée » deux fois par l'Occident. Dans ces conditions, pourquoi les Ukrainiens
restent-ils si procuropéens ?| Car le récit dominant en Occident, que les Ukrainiens partagent largement, est celui qui désigne Poutine comme un impérialiste animé par un projet de recons- truction de l'empire soviétique, un homme qui veut
d'abord toute l'Ukraine, puis d'autres pays d'Europe
38/ Le Figaro Magazine / 12 décembre 2025. de l'Est. Le récit alternatit que je défends explique que. le facteur central est l'expansion de l'Otan. Pour Mos- cou, voir l'Ukraine intégrer l'Alliance est une menace existentielle. Poutine ne cherchait pas à « reconquérir l'empire », il cherchait à empêcher l'installation d'un bastion occidental antirusse à ses frontières. Les trois. exigences non négociables de Moscou découlent direc-
tement de cette analyse. Votre position est celle des diplomates américains des
années 1990 et des années 2000... Exactement. George Kennan, Paul Nitze, le chef d'état-
major Shalikashvili, le secrétaire à la Défense William. Perry... même Bill Burns, l'ambassadeur américain en Russie et son célèbre mémo « Nyet means Nyet » (non. c'est non) qu'il envoie à Condoleezza Rice peu avant le sommet de Bucarest. lous attirment sans hésitation que l'idée de faire entrer l'Ukraine dans l'Otan est, pour lal
Russie, inacceptable. Deux grandes discussions dominent aujourd'hui le débat en Europe : couper le robinet du gaz russe d'ici à 2027 et| la saisie des avoirs russes pour financer l'Ukraine. Vous
n'y croyez pas ? Même s'ils parvenaient à financer la guerre avec les avours russes geles, cela ne change rien au rapport de force en hommes et en armes. Les Européens devraient| travailler avec les Ukrainiens pour faire en sorte d'ac- epter les exigences principales de la Kussie. Est-ce und onne chose pour l'Ukraine ? Non. C'est même terrible Mais la question centrale n'est pas : « Cette solution nous plaît-elle ? » La vraie question est : « Quelles sont| les alternatives ? » Et l'alternative, c'est de continuer la. guerre ; de perdre davantage de territoire ; de voir des. dizaines de milliers d'Ukrainiens supplémentaires mourir. Je suis convaincu que la seule solution raison- nable - au sens de « moins mauvaise » — serait un accord. largement dicté par les conditions russes. Mais je ne crois. pas une seconde que cela se produira. Nous allons vers. un conflit gelé qui entraînera des relations exécrables. entre la Russie et l'Europe. Un conflit gelé qui sera. encore plus instable qu'avant car les points de triction potentiels se sont multipliés : l'Arctique, la mer Baltique,
Kaliningrad, la Biélorussie, la Moldavie, la mer Noire... Les dix dernières années vous ont donné raison sur les conséquences, mais votre opinion sur les causes vous vaut
d'être taxé de « porte-voix du Kremlin »... Je pense qu'ils ont tort, à la fois moralement et stratégique- ment. Si l'on regarde ce qui se passe sur le terrain, le prix payé par l'Ukraine et le déséquilibre croissant des forces. défendre la poursuite de cette guerre est, pour moi, morale. ment bancal. C'est une position extrêmement impopulaire en Occident. Je reste pour l'instant persuadé que, sur le plan moral comme sur le plan stratégique, c'est pourtant lal
position la plus responsable. u
Propos recucillis par Vincent Jolly|
It doesn't matter how large the print becomes, my French just isn't good enough to translate this sort of political discussion. Is an English translation available?
Consider importing the photo into an AI & have it translated. Et voilá.
I thought of that but it wouldn't allow me to copy it. Crafty French bastards!
i think it says something along the lines of “you think french is difficult wait until you have to learn mandarin” (jk)