John Mearsheimer: The West is playing Russian roulette

Freddie Sayers meets political scientist John Mearsheimer, the world-famous proponent of realism in international relations.

Listen to the podcast:

Follow UnHerd on social media:


00:00 – 00:47 – Introduction
00:47 – 05:28 – John Mearsheimer’s view of how the West forced Russia into its current position.
05:28 – 09:37 – What is the difference between a realist and a realistic view of the war?
09:37 – 14:27 – At what point would the West resist Russian aggression?
14:27 – 21:41 – What is the most likely outcome of the Ukraine War?
21:41 – 28:07 – What would happen if Putin used nuclear weapons?
28:07 – 33:47 – How has the UK responded to the crisis?
33:47 – 38:51 – How does the Monroe Doctrine apply to the U.S?
38:51 – 46:02 – Russia’s invasion in February
46:02 -49:45 – Is there a crisis on the horizon between China and Taiwan?
49:45 – 55:51 – Is it in the strategic interests of the US to send forces to defend Taiwan?
55:51 – 01:03:14 – Why did John Mearsheimer go to Hungary?
01:03:14 – 01:09:08 – Does Mearsheimer worry about being perceived as an activist?
01:09:08 – 01:17:13 – Concluding thoughts

#UnHerd #JohnMearsheimer #UkraineWar

Written by UnHerd


Leave a Reply
  1. How can you say that Putin has no intention to occupy Ukraine? Russians believe that Ukraine cannot be allowed to be independ from Russia. NATO threat is just a pretext for the invasion and asserting control over Ukraine.

  2. Mearsheimer's ideas are an absolutely excellent method to exponentially increase the risks of nuclear wars. Plural. Because if nuclear armed states can just invade non-nuclear states, and wave around nuke threats, the only defense against any nuclear state necessarily becomes having nuclear weapons of your own. Over night every nation on earth will begin procurement of their own.

    Countries that are unstable to the point that they can't go a decade without changing names and borders would suddenly have a justified interest in getting nukes, just to avoid getting pushed around by nuclear powers. And with the increased number of states that would start working on their own weapons programs, the chances of unstable countries getting nukes would get higher than ever.

    Which is also why Russia almost certainly won't use nukes. Because it would mean the few countries they could invade by conventional means would start to look at getting their own nukes. Locking Russia out of any potential invasion plans.

  3. As if the Ukrainians had no say in their future. Putin invaded an independent country, failed, bombed civilian targets and infrastructures and killed thousands. No amount of erudition will change these facts and the vital necessity for Ukraine to require compensation for the criminal
    war damages inflicted once Russia retreats to its borders.

  4. Russia has been invaded 3x through Ukraine this is why Ukraine has been chosen to join NATO, this makes Russia insecure because its memory is long, Russia didn't forget the approximately 27 million people who died in WW2. John Mearsheimer is correct Russia didn't invade in a form that gave the possibility for a diplomatic end that was squashed by Johnson, Russia has patiently waited for Winter, Winter works for them, the people of Ukraine will be cold and hungry which works to Russia's favore, the US doesn't want to put boots on the ground (more than they have done up to now) but would prefer to hide behind NATO.
    Please interview @ScottRitter for an informative alternative point of view.

  5. The Russians would have achieved their goal had not the USA supplied Ukraine with 80 billion dollars of the best military equipment. That is evidence of a proxy war the USA is fighting through Ukrainians against Russia.
    What most people do not realise about the Cuban missile crisis is that the Russian moves to instal nuclear weapons in Cuba was a direct response to the USA installing nuclear weapons in Turkey. Once again it was USA who caused the crisis.

  6. Don't care what Ukrainians want. Give Russians everything they ask for so they don't go nuclear. Contradict yourself at every opportunity. That's the first half of the interview.

  7. The crisis in Ukraine in 2014 was caused by the USA and its CIA arming neo Nazis to agitate to overthrow the democratically elected pro Russian government. They duly elected a pro western government so well done I don’t think CIA🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

  8. The hubris and arrogance took over the logic in the western world. Unfortunately, people like Mearsheimer are ignored. It is not only policy makers who are lost in their hubris but the people who outsourced their thinking to main stream narrative. We in deed live in a very dangerous moment in the history and unless we let our logic take control again, we will end up destorying our world.

  9. I am inclined to agree with Douglas Macgregor's view that Russia's initial foray into Ukraine was designed to cause minimal damage to property and minimal loss of life. That is why Putin only assigned 20,000 troops to the task. Putin hoped for early Peace talks and an end to the matter (Putin had tried to negotiate over the existensial threat NATO pose to Russia by Ukraine becoming part of NATO but the West refused to negotiate). Indeed peace terms had more or less been agreed upon and the Turks were to mediate. However the West pressurised Zelensky to abandon these talks). Now Russia has taken the gloves off and are about to deal the killer blow to Ukraine. This time negotiations will be conducted entirely on Russian terms. Ukraine has paId a terrible price for Western intransigience).

  10. It seems to me, in liight of Ukrainian encouragement for Ukrainians to get out of Ukraine, European countries are about to face very large numbers of refugees. I would have thought a neutral rump state might prove more attractive than a fully devastated and emptied out Ukraine. This seems a practical reason why the West, rather than Russia, would be willing to bear some loss of face, particularly because hawks can still look at it as a way to buy time needed for their eventual triumph.

  11. What does a neutral Ukraine mean to Russia? Somewhere they can poison Presidential candidates and try and get away with fixing elections, as in 2003/2004? Somewhere they can invade at will with no pushback as in 2014?
    Ironically the 2014 removal of Crimeans and Donbass Ukrainians from the Ukrainian electoral roles has even further increased the relative strength of the Ukrainian nationalist electorate in Ukraine, who would seem to favour a Ukraine that isn't neutral.

  12. In his speech before the invasion, Putin did not mention the threat of NATO expansion. Instead, he claimed that Ukraine was an artificial construct and Russia had the right to reclaim its historic lands. That means Ukraine faced an existential threat. Putin's resentment of losing Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union has fuelled revenge. Before his assassination in 2015, the Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov had exposed Putin's intentions.

  13. Thank you Freddie for bringing Mearsheimer, who was often seen in early discussions on Ukraine but had gone silent in recent months. He is definitely a levelheaded and reliable source in these days when all Western mainstream media have become nothing but propaganda outfits.

  14. John Mearsheimer is a brilliant individual with a tremendous grasp of the situation in Ukraine. He has laid out the perilous path the west is on against the most heavily nuclear armed country in the world

  15. The argument that western leaders would come to their senses if Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine is questionable.
    The problem for the plebs in the cities, is the elites have their deep bunkers with with everything they need to last for years.
    Fear of radiation, is not universal.

  16. Context. People need context. This war didn't start February 24th, but it's presented as such. The "unprovoked invasion" by "big bad Russia vs innocent poor Ukrainian" only makes sense if you purposely ignore all context.

    People who have jumped on this bandwagon are the same ones who put LGBT, BLM, "I'm vaccinated" flags/stickers on their social media profiles, cars, etc. It's virtue signaling BS considering most can't even point to Ukraine on a map nor pronounce the names of cities.

    Up until February 24th Ukraine was known for being the poorest & most corrupt country in Europe. Azov regime was on the global terrorist list.

    After the 2014 coup De ta ousted the legally elected president, the far right nationalist "volunteer battalions" became mainstream heroes. This war started 8 years ago. Ukraine was turned into a de facto NATO member for the purpose of being a western bulwark against Russia.

    Azov, Svboda, Centuria, Waffen SS, and the Right Sector (who have members in all levels of government/private sector/military/public sector) are supported by the general public. Ukraine national hero is Stepan Bandera Nazi Germany collaborate who was responsible for genocide is CELEBRATED yearly.

    The photos and videos don't lie. These Bandera-ites are covered in Nazi insignias and under their uniform, covered in Nazi tattoos.

    What is happening was inevitable. Sorry but Ukraine has lost ANY right to govern over the population of eastern Ukraine. Donbass region declared independence after 2014 but Russia did not give security or treaties to protect them. That's what the Minsk agreements were for….. The Minsk agreements were supposed to stop the shelling, give Donbass region autonomy within the framework of Ukraine including language protection.

    The ethnic Russian population in eastern Ukraine just wanted to live in peace and speak their own language legally. Yet Kiev regime passed legislation banning the Russian language in public and schools. Even Zelensky promised to bring peace to the Donbass region if elected President in 2018.

    He refers to them as "specimens". The Ukrainians in general call Russians "orcs". Not even human. How can you be so ignorant?

  17. Let’s remember that Brexit has allowed the UK to act independently of the EU and given that the USA is the army for the UK does it make sense to look at the relationship between Russia and the UK? We know that Putin has not followed the idea of one world government which is promoted by the G7 and thus Russia left this collective. Historically the angst between the two countries goes back to WW2 where the UK reneged on the deal with Russia,, creating a theatre of mis trust which has meant that Russia is the enemy.. An enemy is necessary if you want to play power games. As we saw when the Donald was in the White House, no deals, verbalizing the need to be on amicable terms with Russia,, as the Donald sees the world from economics not power……

  18. Huh? ''Unherd! (Freddie Sayers! CHECK MARK!) Me! “ I take issue with this – so-called academic John *Mearsheimer! “ How conveniently does 'he' make no mention and leaves ''out'' .,. the escalation of *Russia's wealth column $$$ .. has solely been achieved via economic participation venues with EUROPE and the *West, in general! { 1999 to 2019~! } .,. [ The *EURO! ., $$ .,. The – U.S. dollar! and So on! ] The *WEST., could have easily ''disregarded'' 'Putin's *RUSSIA and dealt with *B.P. PETROLEUM, * NORTH SEA fuel sources – U.S. energy realms ., Qatar, O.P.E.C =- etc.! "Putin'' amounts to the ''dog'' that bites the ''hand'' that has ''fed it''~!" [ *MEARSHEIMER amounts to a ''joke'' here! ] ., My OPINION! ( The 'guy' has never .. run … or … has BEEN ., in ''business'!" FACT!

  19. You know, I’m tired about hearing how Russia is facing an existential threat. All the other countries in Eastern Europe are suffering an existential threat, and it’s called Russia. A bit over thirty years ago they were all dominated by Russia and behind the Iron Curtain, and guess what, they do not want it to happen again. That’s why they all joined NATO and the ones who can afford to arm up, like Poland, are arming themselves to the teeth. To be blunt this talk of Russian existential threat is bullshit, because the chance of invasion of Russia is zero. Why? Because if someone did invade Russia they’d get nuked. Everybody knows this, so no one was going to do it. There is no existential threat because it can’t actually happen.  
    About the only thing this war is doing is providing an excuse for nuclear proliferation. It is clear that if a nuclear armed country invades they can try to blackmail everyone into accepting it, so you have to have your own nukes to to make it clear that you can drag them to hell with you. No one wants that, which is why the actual adults want this war to be settled with conventional weapons, and for a Ukrainian victory to show nuclear proliferation is not necessary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *