The New Yorker: “Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine”

I’m curious what you think, if any, of the moral dimension to what’s going on in Ukraine right now.

I think there is a strategic and a moral dimension involved with almost every issue in international politics. I think that sometimes those moral and strategic dimensions line up with each other. In other words, if you’re fighting against Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945, you know the rest of the story. There are other occasions where those arrows point in opposite directions, where doing what is strategically right is morally wrong. I think if you join an alliance with the Soviet Union to fight against Nazi Germany, it is a strategically wise policy, but it is a morally wrong policy. But you do it because you have no choice for strategic reasons. In other words, what I’m saying to you, Isaac, is that when push comes to shove, strategic considerations overwhelm moral considerations. In an ideal world, it would be wonderful if the Ukrainians were free to choose their own political system and to choose their own foreign policy.

But in the real world, that is not feasible. The Ukrainians have a vested interest in paying serious attention to what the Russians want from them. They run a grave risk if they alienate the Russians in a fundamental way. If Russia thinks that Ukraine presents an existential threat to Russia because it is aligning with the United States and its West European allies, this is going to cause an enormous amount of damage to Ukraine. That of course is exactly what’s happening now. So my argument is: the strategically wise strategy for Ukraine is to break off its close relations with the West, especially with the United States, and try to accommodate the Russians. If there had been no decision to move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, Crimea and the Donbass would be part of Ukraine today, and there would be no war in Ukraine.

Isaac Chotiner

This interview was heavily criticized on Twitter and after reading it I can see why. It mixes circular reasoning (‘I stated this, therefore it must be true’), contradictory statements (contemporary Russia doesn’t have the economic foundation to sustain a powerful military, yet it’s somehow one of three great powers alongside the US and China), impractical policies (fostering friendly relations with the Russians as part of a balancing coalition against China is a good idea in theory, but in practice the right moment to engage in that policy was the early ‘90s – instead the US treated Boris Yeltsin as a drunken fool and dismissed Russia as a marginalized declining power that couldn’t possibly threaten anyone despite its large military and nuclear arsenal), assumptions that Putin’s decision making is overall rational (if it were, he never would have invaded Ukraine in the first place), and dismissing the agency and security needs of Eastern European states (who voluntarily aligned with NATO and the European Union to achieve prosperity and regional security precisely because they were afraid of a resurgent Russia). And I appreciated that the interviewer pushed back on some of Mearsheimer’s assertions.

He is not going to conquer all of Ukraine, Mearsheimer says, of Putin. It would be a blunder of colossal proportions to try to do that. Photograph by Adam Berry / Getty

Nevertheless, I am in full agreement with the paragraphs quoted above. It’s all well and nice to hold the moral view that each country has the freedom to choose its path and alliances, but in the real world countries need to have the strength to uphold those choices if others don’t agree with them. Ideally, the United Nations would defend the territorial integrity of smaller states; in the real world there is no such guarantee unless the permanent members of the Security Council approve it…

Foreshadowing: In 1997, Sen. Joe Biden visited Moscow and concluded that it opposed NATO expansion not out of real security concerns but out a “deeper psychological problem…the loss of empire and a fear of Moscow’s being marginalized in the changed world of the 21st century.”

— Evan Osnos (@eosnos) March 23, 2022

The tension between moral arguments and strategic considerations is very tangible in the current Ukraine crisis as well. The US loves to paint the war as a clash between liberal democracies and authoritarianism, and talk about a ‘grand coalition’ condemning Russian aggression – when in fact many countries have declined to impose sanctions, and China and India are as close to Russia as ever, if not closer.

Making regime change in Russia our objective but leaving Ukrainians alone to fight for it is morally wrong. President Biden just made it harder for Ukraine to win the war.

— Kori Schake 🌻🇺🇦 (@KoriSchake) March 26, 2022

The recent statement of President Biden that Putin ‘cannot remain in power’ reflects again a moral position that is incompatible with the realities of the world. Anyone in his right mind would agree that Putin is the main culprit for this invasion, the resulting casualties and destruction in Ukraine, but as leader of a great power you need to stay open to negotiation with an adversary, no matter how despicable you judge him to be, to try to put an end to the conflict as soon as possible. Indeed, some have argued that these remarks by Biden conceal a cynical calculation: to drag out hostilities by arming and funding Ukraine until Putin is forced out of power by disgruntled subordinates or popular revolt. A risky gamble – and a deadly one for the Ukrainians that will continue to die on the battlefront and in bombed cities. Looking back, I doubt this will be regarded as the more ‘moral’ choice as opposed to encouraging peace talks…