Professor John Mearsheimer, a prominent political scientist, discussed the dynamics of the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a recent YouTube conversation with Norwegian Professor Glenn Diesen and British geo-strategist Alexander Mercuris. Mearsheimer emphasized the limitations of European power, the constraints on Trump’s options and Russia’s three non-negotiable positions.
Mearsheimer argued that Europe is not capable of independently continuing the proxy war against Russia if the US were to withdraw its military and financial support. He noted that even joint efforts by the US, Europe and Ukraine were unable to stop Russian advances, making it unlikely that Europe could compensate for the loss of American support on its own.
Mearsheimer referred to the weakened state of European armed forces, particularly the British and French, which lack the resources and coordination to effectively help Ukraine. Even with increased defense spending, it would take years for Europe to provide meaningful support on the battlefield, making any independent attempt short-lived.
Mearsheimer’s assessment is based on Europe’s fragmented nature, which he considers a decisive obstacle to collective action. He rejects the idea of Europe as a cohesive unit and describes it instead as a collection of nations with diverse interests. Without the US, which historically resolved collective action problems through its dominant power, European efforts would falter. He cited recent meetings in Paris and Britain, which were primarily driven by France and the UK, along with Ukraine, as the “three musketeers” while nations like Poland, Germany and Italy hesitated to provide troops or resources. This discord, he predicts, will increase over time and weaken Europe’s position.
Regarding Trump’s pursuit of peace with Russia, Mearsheimer questioned whether this would require a downgrading of US-Europe relations. He hinted that Trump’s disdain for Europe, which was already evident in his first term and is now further strengthened by his current political goals, could lead to a reduced US military engagement in Europe.
Mearsheimer proposed a strategic alternative: Trump could offer to support a NATO presence and a limited US presence in Europe in exchange for European cooperation in pressing Ukraine to negotiate. This approach, he argued, would align with both strategic and moral imperatives – ending the war to save Ukrainian lives and prevent further territorial losses.
While he doubts that Europe’s current emotional attachment to the conflict would immediately accept this rationality, Mearsheimer believes that a pragmatic deal between Russia and the US, with European involvement, is the only way to prevent the fragmentation of Europe.