There is a growing body of compelling evidence showing that Russia and Ukraine were involved in serious negotiations to end the war in Ukraine right after it started on 24 February 2022 (see below). These talks were facilitated by Turkish President Recep Erdogan and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and featured detailed and candid discussions on the terms of a possible settlement.
It's interesting to see responses that ignore the facts since 2008 that Russia considers non-neutrality of Georgia and Ukraine as border states going toward NATO would provoke Russia as it would provoke the US if Mexico joined a Chinese security pact.
I would think everyone would agree if you research facts, you'll have a perspective more to do with reality than ego or news/history you haven't researched.
Thank you Professor for your insights and efforts. It is refreshing to hear facts vs opinions people think are facts :-)
Professor you made a mistake, the distinction between annexations, either conquest or forced fealty, the later retains all the political economy super structures of Ukraine (the ruling class), and the negotiations were mainly on the terms of vassalage.
How much did russians pay you? If they didn't, write them, they love supporting people that dictate other people how to live their live because of "concerns"
What does Ukranian *neutrality* mean ? Putin defined Ukranian neutrality in his speech before the invasion . It means complete demilitarization & disbandment of the Army .
He reiterated this to Emmanuel Macron in April 2022 , that a Ukraine settlement was only possible if Kyiv was completely "demilitarised" and Russian control over annexed Crimea was formally recognized. (This was confirmed by the Kremlin. ) . In other words , Ukraine loses the ability to defend itself . This is what was rejected by Ukraine . It is not just about membership of NATO.
An adverse reaction to Prof. Mearsheimer's real politics:
The good Professor presents his point of view in the form of a logical argument: axioms, definitions, deductive arguments. This lends force to his conclusions. His point of view is not a logical argument. The definitions are not precise, as in mathematics or physics. The axioms are really postulates, declarations. Chief among them is the postulate that since there is no supra-national entity that can compell obidience to international agreements, superior power, military power, has the last word. He is certainly correct that there is no such supra-national entity with compelling force. There are different sorts of compulsion, fear and reason. Fear of nuclear war. The faculty of reason that (almost) all human beings have. Combined with fear of great, perhaps total destruction, the two have been effective, in several past examples, of averting disaster. An examples that comes to mind are Kennedy v. Kruschev in 1962.
The axiomatic framework of Mearsheimer's arguments, unchallenged, is destructive to efforts to allow those who argue fear and reason, of which I write, to make their case. Real politics, as Mearsheimer, presents it, is a dangeroursly destructive point of view.
" The counter-argument, which enjoys little support in the West, is that Putin was mainly motivated to invade by the threat of Ukraine joining NATO and becoming a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. For him and other Russian elites, Ukraine in NATO was an existential threat.
The negotiations in March-April 2022 make it clear that the conventional wisdom on the war’s causes is wrong, and the counter-argument is right ...".
If the eminent professor bothered to check any decent dictionary he would discover that "bulwark" means "defensive wall". Defensive walls do not attack! Ukraine did not attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.
The whole article and its argumentation is based on this kind of the "dialectics" — the author's understanding of historical reality.
"Ukraine did not attack Russia" correct. But where have you been since 2013?
Ukraine attacked the ethnically Russian oblasts in the East of Ukraine, which had until been the same country as Russia (the Soviet Union).
The US attacked by engineering a coup in Ukraine (presumably you remember Victoria Nulands infamous "fuck Europe" leaked phone call), and in 2014 the new government started shelling those Eastern oblasts more and more intensively until Russia stepped in.
Absolutely right Professor and even a child in Europe realized who provoked the conflict and why. Disconnect the EU from Russia and China to take the EU economy hostage, overthrow Putin and re-take Russia's resources like in the 90s. All in the name of good old hegemony. But wait for the brainless and Russophobic mob in the comments who are sure that Putin is worse than Stalin and wants to take over Europe and the world. And what led Russian intelligence and the military to put real pressure on Putin was the arrival of the AEGIS missiles in Poland in December 2021. Therefore, its normal that their withdrawal continues to be part of Russian demands in a new European security framework. As in December 2021. The activation of art.51 served to legalize the intervention in the UA.
"One might argue that he [Putin] participated in these negotiations and talked a lot about neutrality to mask his larger ambitions. There is no evidence, however, to support this line of argument, not to mention that: 1) Russia’s small invasion force was not capable of conquering and occupying all of Ukraine; and 2) it would have made no sense to delay a larger offensive, as it would afford Ukraine time to build up its defenses."
The real reason Putin wanted to negotiate: he knew he had made a huge mistake, knew that an aroused and united Ukraine, having shredded elite Russian forces and saved their capitol, would now settle for nothing less than total victory. He knew they were coming for him and he wanted to stop them. And at this very time, while pretending to want to end the blood shed, Putin's troops were murdering raping and torturing civilians in Bucha.
Those who expect Ukraine, with a gun to her head, to "negotiate" are immoral, cowardly and foolish. Ukraine's centuries long battle for its independence from Russia, going back to the tsar's deception of Hetman Khmelnytsky at Pereiaslav in 1654, has now come out in the open for its final stage. It is Ukraine that is facing the existential threat. Ukrainians know that and they will not stop, cannot stop, until victory is theirs.
You’re comments are romantic, uplifting and mostly wrong. You must have studied Ukrainian history from Snyder. Khmelnitsky would be very much surprised to find out that some Yale professor considers him “a Ukrainian” - not sure whether he would laugh or order an execution of such foolish person. He was a Cossack and a Malorussian szlachtich.
And the Ukrainians, having run out of everything are going the beat the Russians who not only have the most advanced weapons on the planet, but plenty of them, and the most nuclear weapons?!
You’re smoking something that’s not good for you ...
A lot of hypotheticals and unsupported conclusions here. Putin will take as much as he can get, now that he has his foot in the door. He has a plan: why assume it is rational, well informed, and well thought out? Also, the people of Ukraine get to decide their future as long as they can defend their state. It makes no sense to assert they are obligated to a non-existent entity (the USSR).
"A lot of hypotheticals ..." and yet you are doing the same - assuming that you can impute Putin's thinking.
Putin didn't "take as much he could get", did he? Look at a map. He established a corridor - incorporating the ethnically Russianoblasts ... to Sevastopol.
So you think Putin could have taken more territory but didn’t? Ukrainian forces didn’t stop the Russian advance? I don’t understand your point. It seems counterfactual.
Which people exactly? The current mess started with part of people of Ukraine deciding to stain bring part of it. You know, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc”
I disagree with the esteemed Mr. Mearsheimer and think it was always Russia's intention to conquer Ukraine in its entirety. Russia went out of its way to make it look like it was being reasonable, open to a political solution or only potentially interested in the Donbas. This was most likely an appeal to the world sans the west, as Russia is fighting a diplomatic and economic war along with the kinetic one.
But if you go back and read Putin's article from July, 2021, his ultimate goals and vision are fairly well enunciated. Clearly he is acting with a view to his place in history, together with Russia's place in the world. Finally, Russia's strategic goals were outlined in its letter to NATO in December of 2021: it essentially wants the US out of Europe. So while Russia's territorial conquests will likely remain confined to Ukraine, it will continue its war with the west until either the US is out or Russia is defeated.
Well, “always” did not start in 2021. By that time it was getting clear that Minsk was not being abided by Ukrainians. Do you have any sources from 2014-2015? Why wasn’t Ukraine dealt with when she was in complete disarray?
The stronger one is, the stronger one really is, more mistakes can one do without direct negative effects.
Someone wrote that unipolar decades ate US diplomatic brain. A correct assessment. Russian mistakes are survivable, still very painful. And different from US mistakes.
Russia has not really digested fully the dissolution of Soviet Union. SSSR has been communist dictatorship but also in a way continuation of tzarist Russia, the only Russia that existed before communism. Conversion to market economy, democratic elections has been accepted, but loss of empire, like a loss of Brutish empire after WW2 was endured with sadness. Putin said himself:
Who does not feel sad after destruction of Soviet Union has no heart
Who ever thinks it should be recreated has no brain
One cannot help but wander how would this whole story have ended if both Russsia and Ukraine have been invited to Nato.
As long as Ukraine remained similar to Russia, Russia was able to accept new border dividing what was not so long ago one state, one nation. Once Ukraine became something else, something not only different, but ready to serve an existential enemy, war was highely likely. Neutrality would have saved Ukraine.
Great post. Along with the foolhardy decision to end the peace talks is America’s ill-fated attempt to cripple the Russian economy. Both of these decisions have backfired tremendously, leaving Ukraine in shambles and America far weaker.
Do you find it disconcerting that Western media operates with dishonesty? Have you taken the time to study the concrete channels through which information dissemination systems are controlled and by which entities such control is managed? Do you know of any initiatives to regulate these information systems, aimed at ensuring the verity of information disseminated? By this I mean a system of checks and balances designed to prevent governmental (and other) bodies from "fooling" populations to pursue agendas contrary to those presented at face value. Do you think a system of this nature would lead to a more peaceful human existence?
I think about this topic in the context of my interests in the nature of mind, more specifically, in my ambition and efforts to go through a process of individuation with a target of achieving mental sovereignty.
It is my premise that a substantial amount of human suffering is perpetuated through a discrepancy between word (what is said to others) and action (what is actually done). At the level of the individual psyche, I believe that word and action can be merged and united in such a way that they no longer contradict one another. I believe further that the principles that govern mind at the level of individual are the same as the principles that govern mind at the collective level and that through the establishment of a system of checks and balances to regulate mass information systems, we can achieve a merging and uniting of word and action at the level of nation and, in so doing, prevent the occurrence of a substantial amount of unnecessary human suffering.
When the entity corrupting the news media is as broad and powerful as is presently the case, to write about regulating them seems to me odd, to say the least. I am very pessimistic about finding any reliable sources in such a society. One has to treat each source as an individual case and decide if it has integrity and reliability, or does it serve a hidden interest. Our country, since the end of WW2, has engaged in deception of the public continually, with each of its aggressions, meddlings and overturnings of disfavored governments, and conspiracies with oppressive dictatorships.
I wrote about this in July 2023 'WHO WALKED AWAY FROM THE 2022 RUSSIAN-UKRAINE DRAFT PEACE TREATY?' :
'Last June seven African leaders met with President Putin in Moscow. They were on a peace mission to end the Ukraine war which has severely disrupted food and fertilizer deliveries to their countries.
The delegation consisted of Presidents Macky Sall of Senegal, Comoros President Azali Assoumani, Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Egypt’s Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly as well as top envoys from Uganda and Gambia.[i] The delegates had also met with President Zelensky in Kiev.
What Putin told the African representatives came as a surprise. He said that Moscow and Kyiv had talks face to face, mediated by Turkey in the Spring of 2022. It had been agreed that Ukraine should remain neutral and Russia withdraw its troops from Kyiv.
The ‘Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine’ was signed by both parties, said Putin. It looked like peace might have broken out.
What gave Putin hope that Zelensky might want a peaceful resolution? According to the Financial Times, there had been a concession made by Zelensky in May of 2022, in which Ukraine could consider a peace deal if Russian forces returned to positions in eastern Ukraine predating last year’s invasion. The issue of Crimea, it was suggested, would be resolved later through diplomacy.[i]
After the talks, Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the terms of the treaty. His current position is to rule out peace negotiations until Russian forces leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea.
Putin told the African leaders, ‘After we pulled our troops away from Kyiv – as we had promised to do – the Kyiv authorities … had tossed [the draft treaty] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.’
It's interesting to see responses that ignore the facts since 2008 that Russia considers non-neutrality of Georgia and Ukraine as border states going toward NATO would provoke Russia as it would provoke the US if Mexico joined a Chinese security pact.
I would think everyone would agree if you research facts, you'll have a perspective more to do with reality than ego or news/history you haven't researched.
Thank you Professor for your insights and efforts. It is refreshing to hear facts vs opinions people think are facts :-)
Professor you made a mistake, the distinction between annexations, either conquest or forced fealty, the later retains all the political economy super structures of Ukraine (the ruling class), and the negotiations were mainly on the terms of vassalage.
Lmao why don't you write to the Americans then? This has nothing to do with Ukrainian security concerns but everything about American ones.
How much did russians pay you? If they didn't, write them, they love supporting people that dictate other people how to live their live because of "concerns"
Here's my response to this piece by Professor Mearsheimer:
https://open.substack.com/pub/richardstevenhack/p/response-to-john-j-mearsheimers-the?r=b9evx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true
What does Ukranian *neutrality* mean ? Putin defined Ukranian neutrality in his speech before the invasion . It means complete demilitarization & disbandment of the Army .
He reiterated this to Emmanuel Macron in April 2022 , that a Ukraine settlement was only possible if Kyiv was completely "demilitarised" and Russian control over annexed Crimea was formally recognized. (This was confirmed by the Kremlin. ) . In other words , Ukraine loses the ability to defend itself . This is what was rejected by Ukraine . It is not just about membership of NATO.
An adverse reaction to Prof. Mearsheimer's real politics:
The good Professor presents his point of view in the form of a logical argument: axioms, definitions, deductive arguments. This lends force to his conclusions. His point of view is not a logical argument. The definitions are not precise, as in mathematics or physics. The axioms are really postulates, declarations. Chief among them is the postulate that since there is no supra-national entity that can compell obidience to international agreements, superior power, military power, has the last word. He is certainly correct that there is no such supra-national entity with compelling force. There are different sorts of compulsion, fear and reason. Fear of nuclear war. The faculty of reason that (almost) all human beings have. Combined with fear of great, perhaps total destruction, the two have been effective, in several past examples, of averting disaster. An examples that comes to mind are Kennedy v. Kruschev in 1962.
The axiomatic framework of Mearsheimer's arguments, unchallenged, is destructive to efforts to allow those who argue fear and reason, of which I write, to make their case. Real politics, as Mearsheimer, presents it, is a dangeroursly destructive point of view.
Mearsheimer writes:
" The counter-argument, which enjoys little support in the West, is that Putin was mainly motivated to invade by the threat of Ukraine joining NATO and becoming a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. For him and other Russian elites, Ukraine in NATO was an existential threat.
The negotiations in March-April 2022 make it clear that the conventional wisdom on the war’s causes is wrong, and the counter-argument is right ...".
If the eminent professor bothered to check any decent dictionary he would discover that "bulwark" means "defensive wall". Defensive walls do not attack! Ukraine did not attack Russia; Russia attacked Ukraine.
The whole article and its argumentation is based on this kind of the "dialectics" — the author's understanding of historical reality.
You'll find plenty of people explaining the "not one inch further" idea you seem to be unaware of with your dismissal of the bulwark concept.
"Ukraine did not attack Russia" correct. But where have you been since 2013?
Ukraine attacked the ethnically Russian oblasts in the East of Ukraine, which had until been the same country as Russia (the Soviet Union).
The US attacked by engineering a coup in Ukraine (presumably you remember Victoria Nulands infamous "fuck Europe" leaked phone call), and in 2014 the new government started shelling those Eastern oblasts more and more intensively until Russia stepped in.
Absolutely right Professor and even a child in Europe realized who provoked the conflict and why. Disconnect the EU from Russia and China to take the EU economy hostage, overthrow Putin and re-take Russia's resources like in the 90s. All in the name of good old hegemony. But wait for the brainless and Russophobic mob in the comments who are sure that Putin is worse than Stalin and wants to take over Europe and the world. And what led Russian intelligence and the military to put real pressure on Putin was the arrival of the AEGIS missiles in Poland in December 2021. Therefore, its normal that their withdrawal continues to be part of Russian demands in a new European security framework. As in December 2021. The activation of art.51 served to legalize the intervention in the UA.
Mearsheimer writes:
"One might argue that he [Putin] participated in these negotiations and talked a lot about neutrality to mask his larger ambitions. There is no evidence, however, to support this line of argument, not to mention that: 1) Russia’s small invasion force was not capable of conquering and occupying all of Ukraine; and 2) it would have made no sense to delay a larger offensive, as it would afford Ukraine time to build up its defenses."
The real reason Putin wanted to negotiate: he knew he had made a huge mistake, knew that an aroused and united Ukraine, having shredded elite Russian forces and saved their capitol, would now settle for nothing less than total victory. He knew they were coming for him and he wanted to stop them. And at this very time, while pretending to want to end the blood shed, Putin's troops were murdering raping and torturing civilians in Bucha.
Those who expect Ukraine, with a gun to her head, to "negotiate" are immoral, cowardly and foolish. Ukraine's centuries long battle for its independence from Russia, going back to the tsar's deception of Hetman Khmelnytsky at Pereiaslav in 1654, has now come out in the open for its final stage. It is Ukraine that is facing the existential threat. Ukrainians know that and they will not stop, cannot stop, until victory is theirs.
You’re comments are romantic, uplifting and mostly wrong. You must have studied Ukrainian history from Snyder. Khmelnitsky would be very much surprised to find out that some Yale professor considers him “a Ukrainian” - not sure whether he would laugh or order an execution of such foolish person. He was a Cossack and a Malorussian szlachtich.
romant ... and badly expressed!
> Undefined mistake;
> raping ... this guy doesn't seem to have any grasp of the nature of war propaganda
> Ukraine did negotiate, and successfully arrived at an agreement, which Boris Johnson scuppered.
And the Ukrainians, having run out of everything are going the beat the Russians who not only have the most advanced weapons on the planet, but plenty of them, and the most nuclear weapons?!
You’re smoking something that’s not good for you ...
A lot of hypotheticals and unsupported conclusions here. Putin will take as much as he can get, now that he has his foot in the door. He has a plan: why assume it is rational, well informed, and well thought out? Also, the people of Ukraine get to decide their future as long as they can defend their state. It makes no sense to assert they are obligated to a non-existent entity (the USSR).
"A lot of hypotheticals ..." and yet you are doing the same - assuming that you can impute Putin's thinking.
Putin didn't "take as much he could get", did he? Look at a map. He established a corridor - incorporating the ethnically Russianoblasts ... to Sevastopol.
So you think Putin could have taken more territory but didn’t? Ukrainian forces didn’t stop the Russian advance? I don’t understand your point. It seems counterfactual.
Yes
Which people exactly? The current mess started with part of people of Ukraine deciding to stain bring part of it. You know, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc”
What does "stain bring part of it" mean? I don't understand your comment.
urgh sorry - “deciding to stop being part of it”
I disagree with the esteemed Mr. Mearsheimer and think it was always Russia's intention to conquer Ukraine in its entirety. Russia went out of its way to make it look like it was being reasonable, open to a political solution or only potentially interested in the Donbas. This was most likely an appeal to the world sans the west, as Russia is fighting a diplomatic and economic war along with the kinetic one.
But if you go back and read Putin's article from July, 2021, his ultimate goals and vision are fairly well enunciated. Clearly he is acting with a view to his place in history, together with Russia's place in the world. Finally, Russia's strategic goals were outlined in its letter to NATO in December of 2021: it essentially wants the US out of Europe. So while Russia's territorial conquests will likely remain confined to Ukraine, it will continue its war with the west until either the US is out or Russia is defeated.
2021? The shelling of the Eastern oblasts by the new Ukrainian government put in place by Victoria Nulands et al. STARTED IN 2014.
Well, “always” did not start in 2021. By that time it was getting clear that Minsk was not being abided by Ukrainians. Do you have any sources from 2014-2015? Why wasn’t Ukraine dealt with when she was in complete disarray?
The stronger one is, the stronger one really is, more mistakes can one do without direct negative effects.
Someone wrote that unipolar decades ate US diplomatic brain. A correct assessment. Russian mistakes are survivable, still very painful. And different from US mistakes.
Russia has not really digested fully the dissolution of Soviet Union. SSSR has been communist dictatorship but also in a way continuation of tzarist Russia, the only Russia that existed before communism. Conversion to market economy, democratic elections has been accepted, but loss of empire, like a loss of Brutish empire after WW2 was endured with sadness. Putin said himself:
Who does not feel sad after destruction of Soviet Union has no heart
Who ever thinks it should be recreated has no brain
One cannot help but wander how would this whole story have ended if both Russsia and Ukraine have been invited to Nato.
As long as Ukraine remained similar to Russia, Russia was able to accept new border dividing what was not so long ago one state, one nation. Once Ukraine became something else, something not only different, but ready to serve an existential enemy, war was highely likely. Neutrality would have saved Ukraine.
Well said. Of course NATO would never have invited Russia: it's raison d'être was to unite against Russia (Soviet Union).
Jeffrey Sachs Testimony at the UN Security Council Meeting - November 20, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm4qLWc_Co0
Great post. Along with the foolhardy decision to end the peace talks is America’s ill-fated attempt to cripple the Russian economy. Both of these decisions have backfired tremendously, leaving Ukraine in shambles and America far weaker.
Dear Professor Mearsheimer,
Do you find it disconcerting that Western media operates with dishonesty? Have you taken the time to study the concrete channels through which information dissemination systems are controlled and by which entities such control is managed? Do you know of any initiatives to regulate these information systems, aimed at ensuring the verity of information disseminated? By this I mean a system of checks and balances designed to prevent governmental (and other) bodies from "fooling" populations to pursue agendas contrary to those presented at face value. Do you think a system of this nature would lead to a more peaceful human existence?
I think about this topic in the context of my interests in the nature of mind, more specifically, in my ambition and efforts to go through a process of individuation with a target of achieving mental sovereignty.
It is my premise that a substantial amount of human suffering is perpetuated through a discrepancy between word (what is said to others) and action (what is actually done). At the level of the individual psyche, I believe that word and action can be merged and united in such a way that they no longer contradict one another. I believe further that the principles that govern mind at the level of individual are the same as the principles that govern mind at the collective level and that through the establishment of a system of checks and balances to regulate mass information systems, we can achieve a merging and uniting of word and action at the level of nation and, in so doing, prevent the occurrence of a substantial amount of unnecessary human suffering.
When the entity corrupting the news media is as broad and powerful as is presently the case, to write about regulating them seems to me odd, to say the least. I am very pessimistic about finding any reliable sources in such a society. One has to treat each source as an individual case and decide if it has integrity and reliability, or does it serve a hidden interest. Our country, since the end of WW2, has engaged in deception of the public continually, with each of its aggressions, meddlings and overturnings of disfavored governments, and conspiracies with oppressive dictatorships.
I wrote about this in July 2023 'WHO WALKED AWAY FROM THE 2022 RUSSIAN-UKRAINE DRAFT PEACE TREATY?' :
'Last June seven African leaders met with President Putin in Moscow. They were on a peace mission to end the Ukraine war which has severely disrupted food and fertilizer deliveries to their countries.
The delegation consisted of Presidents Macky Sall of Senegal, Comoros President Azali Assoumani, Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Egypt’s Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly as well as top envoys from Uganda and Gambia.[i] The delegates had also met with President Zelensky in Kiev.
What Putin told the African representatives came as a surprise. He said that Moscow and Kyiv had talks face to face, mediated by Turkey in the Spring of 2022. It had been agreed that Ukraine should remain neutral and Russia withdraw its troops from Kyiv.
The ‘Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine’ was signed by both parties, said Putin. It looked like peace might have broken out.
What gave Putin hope that Zelensky might want a peaceful resolution? According to the Financial Times, there had been a concession made by Zelensky in May of 2022, in which Ukraine could consider a peace deal if Russian forces returned to positions in eastern Ukraine predating last year’s invasion. The issue of Crimea, it was suggested, would be resolved later through diplomacy.[i]
After the talks, Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the terms of the treaty. His current position is to rule out peace negotiations until Russian forces leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea.
Putin told the African leaders, ‘After we pulled our troops away from Kyiv – as we had promised to do – the Kyiv authorities … had tossed [the draft treaty] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.’