Ray McGovern: John Mearsheimer on Putin’s Options on Ukraine

3 Comments

By Ray McGovern, website, 5/24/23

When Professor John Mearsheimer spoke on “Where is the Ukraine War Going?” at the Committee for the Republic on May 22, I was able to ask the first question of the Q & A. I referred to the conventional wisdom that Putin had “other options” to invading Ukraine and noted that, so far, no one has able to tell me what those options are. I asked John if he knew what those espousing that conventional wisdom might be talking about. My question and Mearsheimer’s response can be seen beginning at minute 51:30 of the video:

The following is a transcription of John’s comments:

“No, I don’t think he had any options. I do believe that Putin was deeply committed to finding a negotiated settlement to the problem. As I said to you in my formal comments, he was deeply committed to the Minsk agreement because what he wanted to do was to shut down the conflict in the Donbas so he would not have to invade.

And, with regard to NATO expansion, EU expansion, and the efforts to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border, he went to great lengths to explain to the West why that was unacceptable. And on December 17, 2021, he sent a letter to Biden and to NATO saying that you have to do x y and z, so we can find a solution to this problem. And we refused to go along. And I think that Putin was left in a position where he felt he had no choice, because, to answer your question, there was no other way to deal with the problem. So I think that he, with great reluctance, invaded Ukraine.”

3 thoughts on “Ray McGovern: John Mearsheimer on Putin’s Options on Ukraine”

  2. As with every US war, the neocons develop a set of propaganda talking points to repeat endlessly in order to brainwash the public into backing that war. The proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is no different. For example, in the US war against Iraq the lines repeated ad nauseam were “Iraq has WMD” and “Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attack.” These were repeated so much that to do this day most Americans still believe they are factually correct. With the current war, the lines that are repeated endlessly are, “This war is totally unprovoked,” and “This war is a result of Russian aggression,” and “Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union,” and, finally, “This war was avoidable, Putin had other options to pursue a settlement.” All of these points are utterly bogus. This war was totally provoked; the war is the result of US/NATO aggression, namely the effort to bring Ukraine into NATO; no one in Russia, including Putin, is trying to recreate the Soviet Union; and Putin had exhausted all possible options, evidenced by the total disdain shown to Putin’s sincere proposal put forward in December 2021 to negotiate on a new European-wide security structure. In short, this war is all about boxing Putin into a corner, giving him the option between 2 less-than-ideal choices: 1) do nothing, basically surrender and allow the total encirclement of the Russian Federation, knowing that the agenda of the US/NATO is to eventually weaken it and break it up; or 2) act. And so he did. Undoubtedly, Putin must realize that he waited too long, that by not acting in 2014 beyond incorporating Crimea into Russia, he gave the US/NATO 8 years to build up and train the Ukraine army for a full-scale war. Putin naively thought the West was sincere about trying to find a negotiated settlement for the Donbass via the Minsk II agreement. As we all know, he was taken for a ride, given the admissions by Merkel and Hollande that they never had any intention of implementing the agreement. And now, as a result of this diplomatic duplicity, the world is at the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Comments are closed.