Mearsheimer: U.S. & West Responsible for Ukraine Escalation; ‘Russia Has Nuclear Warheads’

University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who served five years in the Air Force, is on a tour in Europe, not unrelated to efforts to break the U.S. free from actions leading to a strategic confrontation with Russia. He spoke on March 2 in Brussels along with Prof. Stephen Cohen of Princeton, and Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, at a well-attended event, “Defining a New Security for Europe that Brings Russia from the Cold,” sponsored by Gilbert Doctorow of the American Committee for East West Accord. Many European Parliament members attended the event. Former Reagan Administration Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock was to have spoken at a December 2014 event of the group but was unable to attend.

In Berlin on March 4, Mearsheimer spoke to a packed event of the Die Linke party-associated Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, along with Bundestag member Andrej Hunko, (Die Linke) from Aachen, and Helmuth Markov, current Justice Minister of Brandenburg and former Deputy Minister President under Matthias Plazeck, who is now head of the German-Russian Forum.

In Berlin, Professor Mearsheimer made clear that Western efforts to escalate for a military “solution” by Kiev, including Western weapons and training, will not permit victory over the Donbass militias in eastern Ukraine, because the Ukraine Army would never be able to succeed. He then added without further commentary the following: “If I am wrong and if the West is successful with a strategy to raise the deployment and costs for Russia, one should be reminded, Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads.”

We have no text from the Brussels event, but a week earlier in a New York City radio interview, well-known Russia specialist Stephen Cohen, a co-founder of the East West Accord group, made a similar point, that the Ukraine Army decisively collapsed after being encircled recently. He emphasized that the current confrontation with Russia is potentially more dangerous than the Cold War.

According to Schiller Institute representatives in Berlin who attended the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung event, and asked questions regarding the threat of a U.S.-Russia nuclear confrontation, and the BRICS alternative, all of the speakers forcefully condemned the West’s approach towards Ukraine. Hunko, who is familiar with the Schiller Institute policy, gave a thorough summary of the chronology of the Ukraine crisis and mentioned all important elements of the Western-financed coup d’ état. Even in his speech, he repeatedly emphasized that what happened was not a revolution but a coup, which had also been recognized by the scientific advisory board of German government. Nonetheless Germany has seen this revolt as a legitimate revolution like the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  Hunko further pointed out the danger of the Nazi fighting-forces who serve as private armies, an issue that has to be resolved.

Mearsheimer’s remarks focused on three main trends dominating the political motives of the U.S., that have caused the Ukraine crisis: NATO expansion, EU expansion, and the promotion of democracy. Professor Mearsheimer repeated that ignoring or provoking Putin even though he had made many warnings, is foolish and dangerous, especially since Putin is in possession of nuclear weapons. He recalled George Kennan’s warning that “the expansion of NATO will lead to a crisis with Russia and we will blame the Russians for it.” Mearsheimer also noted that the regime-change policy aiming to overthrow Putin is a goal and that its ultimate target of containment is China.

Helmuth Markov attacked the EU for pushing the association agreement on Ukraine, with ridiculous demands, such as the release of Yulia Tymoshenko. He welcomed the BRICS development and said he believes that Russia’s increasing involvement with China is enhanced by the sanctions against it. Therefore, in order for there for to be de-escalation,  not only for the region but the political atmosphere as a whole, there has to be support for the OSCE’s positive steps, which have to be strengthened and integrated more deeply. Even so, Markov was quite optimistic about the agreement reached in Minsk, whereas Hunko is not that hopeful, since after the Minsk agreements, there was promotion of more sanctions, which halt the process of collaboration and trust.

During the question-and-answer period, many people brought up the danger of a potential war, and even nuclear war, and the policy of regime-change.