The first part of the conversation is dedicated to the structural realism and a general policy recommendation: the US should have prevented the rise of China long ago trying to keep the gap between itself and China. But the corrupt liberal elites like Biden were profiting from cooperation with China. Trump was right to turn to containment, but this was too late. The West caused the war in Ukraine by its mindless liberal illusions underlying the NATO expansion, whereas Russia rightfully perceived it as a threat and had to go to war. Russia was behaving as if they listened to Mearsheimer, whereas the US elites made a mistake by not doing so and promoting liberal hegemony, which is an unnatural policy, not suitable for the multi-polar world which started in 2017. This part of the conversation is an exposition of a pure imperialist ideology predicated on the competition with China as the main enemy and trying to play Russia against it. American elites should have been more ruthless predators instead of being corrupt liberal pussies.

The second part of the conversation is dedicated to the Russo-Ukrainian war and is essentially a picture where facts are straitjacketed into the above ideological narrative. This war was the fault of the US, its miscalculation due to the liberal illusions that concealed the true balance of forces. Since the American elites didn’t follow the gospel of Structural Realism, everything goes bad for them. They are losing in Ukraine, Russia is winning. Sanctions don’t work, Russia has the capacity to use nuclear arms, and it will use them if by some miracle it will be losing. Mearsheimer doesn’t need to read Putin’s mind: as he considers Putin a faithful adherent of the gospel, he already knows his next steps.

Putin will take only the oblasts inhabited by Russian speakers (it’s the only time when Mearsheimer corrects Otto’s insinuations that these oblasts are 80% inhabited by Russians) - not exactly clear which are these oblasts, but they stretch towards the Dnieper river, possibly include Kharkiv and Odessa. He will not take the West of Ukraine because it is inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians, and Russians cannot swallow it. It remains unclear what’s the fate of everything else - because Ukraine doesn’t consist only of the east and west, but presumably the rest - Kyiv and half a dozen central oblasts will be turned into a ’rump state.’ In the rump state Russians or Russian speakers will not be able to stay because there will be hyper-nationalism (ethnic cleansing). The reason is demographics, stupid - Russia has an advantage in population. Also in artillery. The numbers quoted are 4.5-5 to 1 advantage in population and 5-10 to 1 advantage in artillery (according to ‘responsible newspapers’). Because ’they say here in the US’ that artillery is the god of war, this is decisive. In his lecture, there is a slightly perceptible perspective shift: if at first Putin was a diligent student of Mearsheimer, Mearsheimer becomes a student of the Kremlin repeating the talking points about existential threat to Russia because the West wants to destroy it, bring about a regime change, and dismember it. So Russia has more resolve to fight than Ukraine or at least the same.

And again, even if this doesn’t happen and Russia starts losing, it will nuke Ukraine and the Western elites will stop the war because they would be afraid. What will the end of the war look like? A Korea-style ceasefire with a possible relapse into a hot war. This may happen either in a few months or in years. Europe will suffer from Russophobia and Russia will undermine Europe’s unity.

The best thing to do for Europeans would be stop listening to Americans and be independent - presumably, trying to establish some ties with Russia, although it is not clear what is implied there. Otte’s hints are definitely pointing into this direction. The end of the conversation is another barrage of flattery plus a discussion on how Schmitt is a great thinker and how Germany needs more realism.

These interview and lecture are, in my opinion, of limited use as a scholarly analysis or as a concrete discussion of policy recommendations. It is an exercise in what I call social astrology - a discipline that interprets and predicts regional/conjunctural developments based solely on large-scale generalization thereby bypassing mid-level analysis and ignoring concrete empirical investigations. Its methodology is the strategic ignorance of mistakes and failed predictions generated by the large-scale generalizations, which Mearsheimer is famous for. Pursuant to this methodology, you can pick a random prediction that accidentally came true and then use as a proof of validity. You can also make vague general predictions that would possibly ring true in the future if one is willing to be careless enough about facts. Basically any realistic outcome of the war in the next year fits the vague prediction, so Mearsheimer might safely return to another interview with a German far-right intellectual and claim he was right.

So what’s the appeal? The benefit of Mearsheimer is the somber mood that he projects, a doze of pessimism that is useful to keep in mind. Nobody is served well by well-meaning illusions that inevitably appear in the heat of the fight. The unhelpful part is the heavy doze of moralism that hides behind the supposedly objective realism - it’s the West’s fault, our fault, the fault of crazy Ukrainians, whose rump state we are doomed to support because of liberals’ stupid mistakes. This is the point where it does become useful for down-to-earth, small-power politics.

It is clear what’s in it for the right-populists and conservatives: it fits very well their sentiments about how the world works, that it is a jungle and one needs to be a stronger predator here. What is there for some on the left, who will circulate this interview broadly in the next weeks? I’ve been puzzled since some progressive first discovered Mearsheimer right after the Russian invasion. In my opinion, it primarily performs a psychological therapeutic function. It validates the US-centric fixation that has become a convenient substitute for political analysis: even if Mearsheimer, the preeminent ideologist of American imperialism, says it is true, then it definitely must be true. The left can follow the lead of the ultra-conservatives in their crusade against liberals and be content. Secondly, it helps control the fear of the future that has supplanted hope in most if not all left-wing intellectual debates: the world is going to hell, so let’s at least not rock the boat and end our small progressive lives in a relative safety of harmless sectarian existence. Mearsheimer says the behemoths and leviathans can find a way to coexist by eating lesser fish, so maybe we can also find a cozy corner in their bellies.

Volodymyr Artiukh

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and/or French.