Mearsheimer: What's Being Said Behind Closed Doors About Ukraine, Russia, China & NATO

That’s the title of an outtake from a much longer video interview/discussion between Danny Davis and John Mearsheimer. I really highly recommend this, because the two of them get to the real bottom line—and the disgrace of what the American Empire has done and continues to do around the world. This isn’t just a series of monologues in response to some set questions. Davis is a very active participant, and it makes for a very stimulating experience for the listeners. It’s slightly less that 20 minutes long, and I’ve appended a transcript.

One thing I want to make clear. I don’t really agree with Mearsheimer regarding China. He characterizes China as a “peer competitor”. To the extent that China actually is such a competitor, however, I think that’s more due to America’s folly in pursuing the impossibility of becoming now and future World Hegemon. China has many problems that are at the core of its national existence. If America retrenches in the direction of pursuing its own limited national interests, China will end up not being anything like a “peer competitor.”

For that reason I also would take issue with the idea that America should regard China as a “threat”, as an “adversary”, or that “containing China America's principal mission.” I can certainly agree that it’s foolish to push Russia into the arms of China. However, to the extent that China is perceived as a threat, I would maintain—as commenter Cassander did earlier today—that that is mostly do to the cynical and self interested policies of our ruling class in pursuing their own enrichment. Framing this issue as The China Threat simply diverts attention from the real issues and their real solutions.

Not long ago I heard Mearsheimer present his “optimistic” take on China US relations. He maintained that, by 2075, the US would be much more “powerful” than China. Why? Because, he said, the US population is growing while China’s is contracting. I was stunned at this statement, failing, as it did, to account for how America’s population is growing and the quality of the human capital that is causing that growth by walking across our borders.

At any rate …

JM: The United States is in a colossal mess. To put it more generally, the West is in a colossal mess. Let's just start with what's happened with regard to Russia and China as a result of the Ukraine war. The United States has helped push Russia into the arms of the Chinese. This is not in our strategic interest. We should have good relations with Russia, because China is a peer competitor--Russia is not. China is a greater threat to the United States than Russia is. Pushing Russia, the third great power in the system, into the arms of your principal adversary, China, makes no sense at all. Furthermore, getting bogged down in Ukraine--and now getting bogged down in the Middle East as well--makes it very difficult to fully pivot to Asia to contain China. Which is, again, America's principal mission at this point in time.

Getting bogged down in unwinnable and debilitating wars—proxy or otherwise—makes lots of things very difficult.

So the Ukraine war has had really negative effects on America's ability to deal with China. Then, as you point out there's Iran and there's North Korea. What we've hoped for in the past is that both China and Russia would cooperate with us to make sure that Iran did not go nuclear. Well, what happens if Iran decides it's going to develop nuclear weapons? Are the Russians and the Chinese going to work with us? I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that! We've also hoped that the Chinese and the Russians would work with us to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. That's not going to happen now, either. So, if you think about the nuclear proliferation issue as it applies to both North Korea and Iran, we have created a situation where we're in a very weak position with regard to those countries. So the the situation here looks disastrous. And then when you marry to that situation what's going on in the Middle East--where the Israelis are doing poorly inside of Gaza, and there is no possibility that they're gonna eliminate Hamas and create a peaceful Gaza, and where they're talking about attacking Hezbollah and escalating the War into Lebanon--you really begin to wonder! And then furthermore on top of this the Israelis are waging a genocidal campaign in Gaza that is going to cause the United States--and especially Israel--huge problems from a reputational and moral perspective, moving forward.

DD: Which is absolutely vital in diplomacy. As you said at the top of this show, diplomacy tries to get the other side to do what you want to do, making them think it's in their interest to do so. If we don't have any moral authority no one's going to do anything that we want them to do. It is crucial for the United States to get this war wrapped up quickly. So, given where we are right now, and given the momentum that we had going down this path and apparently are heading towards even into the spring, how do we start to turn this ship around? If you were invited into the administration and Biden just said, ‘Look, professor, whatever you say we're going to do, what would be our action starting tomorrow?’

JM: Well, again, I think what you want to do is, you want to solve the Ukraine problem by creating a neutral Ukraine and doing everything you can to make sure that the Russians feel assured that Ukraine--and NATO--are not together going to present them with a serious threat moving forward. At the same time I think what you try to do is improve diplomatic relations slowly but steadily with the Russians. The problem is that selling that kind of diplomatic solution in the United States at this point in time is almost impossible. People are so deeply invested in this war and so thoroughly convinced that the Russians are a mortal threat to Western Europe, or to Europe more generally and to the United States, that getting them to change their thinking is just going to take a considerable amount of time--and what we don't have at this at this juncture is time.

DD: The point I want to make is that, what I'm about to show you is troubling because, what you just laid out is something that the administration should start doing. Now, maybe you're right. I certainly hope so, that behind the scenes these conversations are going on right now. We need to get them escalated but in order for those to have some success we have to make sure that these kinds of public statements stop being made. Like this:

Pay attention to what Pelosi says, and the ensuing discussion. Mearsheimer asserts—on no credible basis that I can discern—that Pelosi actually believes the demonizing lies she mouths. He also claims that Pelosi has a principled belief that you can’t negotiate with “evil.” Really? But later he asserts—far more credibly—that the MSM has propagated “myths” about Russia and Putin that are simply untrue. OK. Is Mearsheimer really telling us that the MSM not only propagated these myths but also invented them? Please. We know the MSM simply repeats the lies of their political masters—people exactly like Pelosi.

Likewise, both Davis and Mearsheimer piously mouth the platitude that Putin is “not a nice guy”. Yet, later, Mearsheimer flatly characterizes the notion that Putin is the “font of all evil” as simply “nonsense.” C’mon guys. Get your stories straight. And don’t make silly concessions to conventional Russia hysteria talking points that you know are lies.

Pelosi: They're [Ukrainians are] fighting for their democracy and fighting for our democracy. We need to send the resources to the Ukraine. And I want the people to know that Russia has been very evil--whether it's kidnapping children, raping women, killing families, and all the rest. But also their army is bigger now than it was when it went into Ukraine. They are building using money from people are escaping sanctions in the rest and getting help from Iran and from China and other places to build their technology. So we'll win in Ukraine we must we have to send the money. We must.

DD: If that's your go forward position--that Russia's evil--then, John, you're not going to have any negotiation. You're not going to talk to anybody, because they're evil. You can't talk to evil, you can't make a deal with Hitler. All you can do is defeat him. And, with that mentality, I don't know how the administration will then pivot to saying, 'Okay, actually, you know he's evil and the devil, but let's make a deal with him. People are going to have a hard time with that, so I think you're gonna have to change that before you can do the other.

JM: Well there's two things about Nancy Pelosi's comments. One is, she does believe the Russians are evil and that you can't compromise with evil, as you point out. But she also believes that we have the resources to give Ukraine so that it can defeat the Russians. And the fact is, we don't have the resources. Leave aside the issue of whether Putin is evil we don't have the resources. He is going to win in Ukraine. Ukraine is going to lose on the battlefield. And you have to then go from there to figure out how you can ameliorate the situation, how you can solve this problem, and that leaves you with diplomacy. And the good news is that the argument that Putin is the second coming of Adolf Hitler and he's the font of all evil in the modern world is a laughable argument. Right? Nobody's arguing that Vladimir Putin is a nice guy, but the idea that he is someone who can't be dealt with in terms of diplomacy is not a serious argument. In fact, if you look at Putin's behavior from 2000, when he took over control in Russia, up until probably 2022, which is the year that Russia invaded Ukraine, he went out of his way to work with the West. There's no evidence that he was antagonistic to the West and wanted to cause us trouble and wanted to conquer Ukraine. These are myths that the mainstream media and the foreign policy establishment created. Putin can be dealt with. He doesn't trust us much anymore, so we have a real problem here. There's a trust deficit, for sure. but right ...

DD: And speaking of that trust deficit, actually, we had Doug Macregor on our show recently who talked on that very subject:

DD: If the Russians see the Western nations doing this, putting all this money into killing their troops, I mean at some point they're going to say, 'It's stupid for us not to get ready for that outcome.' And, of course, then if you have this mutually building fear of each other, and that's what leads to a lot of wars. And so we're going down a path right now that our foolish actions here could lead us into catastrophe.

DMac: No, I think so, but I also think Mr Putin is a rational man. He's never wanted any of this. He really wants to get back to some sort of state of normalcy with the West and do business. But, as you say, he has to respond to what he sees developing. Right now, we have Americans moving in to create bases in northern Finland and Sweden. We've destroyed decades of trust and mutual confidence, replaced all of it with mutual suspicion, fear, and distrust.

DD: So, almost exactly what you just said there. So, obviously there are some minds that are getting this, here in the country, so the big question here--in the last few minutes we have: How can we start to repair that, and how, what time frame are we talking about, and even--to some extent--can it be repaired?

JM: Well, it can't be repaired in the short term--that that's the real problem here. The problem is that Putin--he's made this clear, right? He's explicitly said, 'You know, I trusted the West much too much. I was wrong and I don't trust them anymore.' So you have this huge trust deficit. That's why I emphasize that, if you're going to solve the problem diplomatically, you have to make a radical move right now. And that radical move is that NATO has to sever its relationship with Ukraine or, to put it more generally, the West has to sever its relationship with Ukraine and accept the fact--trumpet the fact--that Ukraine is going to be a neutral State. That's the only hope for saving Ukraine at this point. But I don't see how you can do that because so so many people think like Nancy Pelosi and don't think like Doug Macgregor. Again, I want to emphasize that I think, behind closed doors, people are beginning to move in the direction of Doug Macgregor and away from Nancy Pelosi's way of thinking. I think they understand that the Ukrainians are doomed on the battlefield and that, really, there's no military solution here. We're going to have to turn to diplomacy. But again, the question is how quickly can you go down that road? And my answer is, you can't go down that road quickly. It takes too much time to turn the aircraft carrier around.

DD: Well, I would argue there is one path, which comes with a near political suicide moment. We just had super Tuesday yesterday, so everybody's now really looking forward to November 2024, and every action politically is tied to what it may do to that, and of course turning that ship in any capacity--even talking about it publicly--would be perceived as undercutting Biden's chance to win there. But John, that's what needs to be done. Biden should come out today, this afternoon, and say, 'All right, here's what what we've been doing. Is it working ?' And, I mean, like a 180 degree turn--which would be political suicide. They're probably right, but it's also the right thing to do, and what we need in the commander-in-chief, right now--you keep using the urgency of this and I am wholeheartedly in agreement--it needs to happen now to save what's left of Ukraine, to save more Ukrainian people, to save our own reputation and stop the damage which will take a generation to repair. The longer we wait to do what you suggest here, the more damage we're going to suffer. And I don't even know where it may end up.

JM: Let me make a quick point to you. There is one possible scenario that we haven't discussed that could radically transform things.

DD: Oh, lay it on me!

JM: It is possible that the Ukrainian Army will crumble in the not too distant future. if you look at the beating that the Ukrainians are taking on the battlefield, and you look at the trouble in Kiev, in terms of both the military hierarchy having to do with the firing of General's Zaluzhny ...

DD: And then all of the commanders, after that, have been purged down to brigade level.

... yes, and if General Syrski, who is in charge now, is hardly a popular commander, right, and if you look at all of the trouble surrounding President Zelensky at this point in time--he was once sort of in the catbird seat, he's in political trouble now--so you look at what's happening inside of Kiev and you look at what's happening on the battlefield, you can imagine a situation--I'm not arguing that this is going to happen or that it's highly likely but you can imagine a situation-- where the Army crumbles on the battlefield and there is a coup in Kiev and the Ukrainians themselves decide, and even the West comes to the realization, that it is time to negotiate, and the Russians understand that they are definitely playing from a ...

DD: position of strength

... position of strength, yeah, and therefore things rapidly move to where you get some sort of meaningful diplomacy. I mean, that's a possibility. I just I want to emphasize it's just a possibility but, I've spent a lot of time over the years studying armies and how they fight wars and how some armies collapse at the end, and others don't collapse. I think there is a serious possibility--again, not a likelihood, but a serious possibility--that the Ukrainian army could just shatter. It's just taken such a beating. And when you look at the politics that sit behind that army fighting on the battlefield, you can really begin to tell yourself a story about how Things Fall Apart. And in a funny way, in a perverse way, if the Ukrainian Army were to fall apart that might create the incentives to move to the diplomatic track--which is, both you and I agree, would be the best possible solution for Ukraine. Again, it's sort of a perverse logic here. We're basically saying, the sooner this thing gets done on the battlefield for the Ukrainians, and the sooner they lose, the more likely it is that they'll move to getting some sort of diplomatic solution that will work to their advantage.

DD: And what is so anguishing to me, John, is that that could be done today. There could be a unilaterally declared ceasefire right now. They then move on to a bilateral ceasefire and move into negotiations. Just acknowledging the reality here that the killing could stop on both sides of the line--no more territory would have to be lost--I mean, it's not a guarantee, it would be hard to do, but it is absolutely in the realm of possibility. Or, we can just let things continue to go on with the fiction until it collapses. But getting back to my point a second ago you talk about political suicide? Do you think Biden would survive at all into the November election should he still be serving at that point? If all of his plans collapse and all of these claims we've made for two years just crumbles in sight of everybody? That would be far worse. I don't think you could recover from that one, politically. But if you take the other course, where you take the political courage, right now, then there's at least a possibility because you can argue that this makes sense, or whatever. The other one? You've lost all ability to have any arguments so--even politically much less strategically--it makes sense to to do exactly what you argued we should do. I hope they listen.

I heard Stephen Bryen make a similar argument about a military collapse. His interlocutor didn’t get what Bryen was saying—since they had both agreed that the only purpose of the $60 billion is to prevent a Fall of Kiev scenario similar to the Fall of Kabul one, happening in plain sight before the election. So the interlocutor says, So what happens after the election? And Bryen responds, No, I’m talking about a collapse before the election and regardless of the money.

JM: The problem is, though, just going back to president Macron, who we talked a lot about at the beginning of the program, what he reflects is just how deeply involved the West is in this war. How committed we are, and therefore how difficult it is for us to reverse Direction and go down the Diplomatic Road in a serious way. I mean Macron is saying certain things--like, putting boots on the ground in Ukraine--that most Western leaders would certainly not say today or even in the future. But, nevertheless, I think almost all Western leaders feel the way he does, the way Macron does, about just how important our commitment to Ukraine is and how important it is for the future of NATO and how, if we walk away militarily from this conflict, it will damage the alliance. I mean, I think that's the way most people think.

DD: It is, John, but the perverse logic underneath that desire is that, if you think that that would weaken NATO, that is nothing compared to what happens if what you said is likely--that Russia wins and Ukraine loses. That will undercut NATO because then it'll show that all these efforts you put--all these weapons, all the money, all the strategy, all the techology, the training--everything utterly failed. And then you have a real credibility problem.

JM: But the problem, Danny, with that point is that Russia wins regardless, right? It's only a question of how big the win is.

DD: Exactly! So for us it's a matter of cutting the damage now or waiting and let it be worse later. Those are, in my view, the only two options for us.

JM: I agree 100%. And instead of talking about for us, I would say for the Ukrainians more importantly, because the people who have really paid the blood price ...

DD: absolutely agree

... and not only the blood price, in terms of what's happened to their country territorially, economically, and so forth and so on. This war has been an unmitigated disaster, and for the people of Ukraine I think this war has to be brought to a halt as quickly as possible, before even more damage is done.

DD: Yeah, because right now--and this I'll end on this, because I know we we're past time here--but, the future of Ukraine is being squandered by the day here. I mean, the war will end. I mean, I don't think anybody's under the delusion that victory is is possible, anymore. But every day that you delay doing the things that you've laid out here throughout this program comes at the cost--pointless cost--of the very men who were going to be needed to rebuild this country. And you're sacrificing an entire generation of the population.

JM: It's disastrous.

And this is all at the feet of our ruling class—and of Americans who have been to lazy to take an interest in what’s being done in our names. Same in Palestine, same as has happened in so many other places around the world.