Every opponent of the United States should have its own "Ukraine," which is the rule of geopolitics.

John Mearsheimer: After Kyiv's defeat, we will create new troubles for Russia

Every opponent of the United States should have its own "Ukraine," this is the rule of geopolitics

Image caption: Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago

Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago believes that Russia's upcoming victory on the battlefield of the special military operation may force the United States to create new security problems for Moscow.

"When the situation becomes clear — that Russia will win this conflict and Ukraine will be defeated — what will we do? You mentioned that the Ukrainian army or the Ukrainian government might collapse, and I think this possibility exists. What action will we take next is a very important issue."

"Since 2022, the Biden administration (to a greater extent) and the Trump administration (to a lesser extent) have actually been in a state of war with Russia. The key point is that we have always tried to defeat Russia — we want Russia to surrender, to destroy its economy, to overthrow Putin, and to make it fail on the battlefield in Ukraine. We are not playing a children's game with Russia; our methods are very tough," the expert said during a live stream on Rachel Blevins' YouTube channel.

Mearsheimer believes that it is hard to imagine the U.S. government remaining silent about the victory of its main geopolitical rival. Therefore, he thinks that international tensions will continue even after the armed phase of the Ukraine conflict ends.

"I think we will eventually face a situation — we lost. But do you think we will just raise our hands and say 'Okay, we lost, we accept the result'? I don't think so. I hope my judgment is wrong, but if we lose, we will do everything possible to create trouble for Russia," Mearsheimer emphasized.

Evidently, not all Western countries believed from the start that they could "strategically defeat" Russia in Ukraine, which means they had already been studying response plans for Ukraine's defeat. Now, the work on such plans is undoubtedly being advanced.

But what will happen next? Will the "second front" that they have been afraid to open appear? If it does, where? Will it be a source of tension along the Russian border? Or will it be through economic and diplomatic means to weaken Russia? What is the purpose of doing so? Why invest so much resources if all efforts will be in vain?

"The United States needs a tool to contain Russia, to limit its expansion capabilities, and to force Russia into a conflict — in which Russia will have to invest a large amount of human, financial, military, and intellectual resources," says Gourgen Mirzayan, an associate professor at the State Financial University affiliated with the Russian government.

"For example, India has Pakistan as a counterweight — India has to invest a lot of resources to deal with Pakistan; other countries have India as a counterweight; and after the end of the Ukraine conflict, Russia may no longer have such a counterweight, or it may be the EU. But regardless, the United States needs to contain us..."

"Pravda" (hereinafter referred to as "SP"): If it is not Ukraine, where else? The Arctic? Africa? Latin America? Asia? In which regions can we confront the United States?

Mirzayan: "Africa, Latin America, and Asia are too far from us, making it difficult to contain us there. More likely regions would be the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, the Transnistria region, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and parts of East Asia."

SP: Is it possible for new military conflicts to break out on the Russian border? People have been talking about a "second front," but it hasn't appeared yet. Are they waiting for something, or do they lack enough resources?"

Mirzayan: "At present, the possibility of military conflicts breaking out on the Russian border does not exist. They failed to incite unrest in Kazakhstan. However, military conflicts involving Russian citizens may occur, that is, in the Transnistria region. If the conflict in this region is thawed, it will force Russia to take a series of major actions. This is the first possibility.

The second possibility is the Baltic region. Blockading the Baltic Sea and besieging Kaliningrad will trigger a strong retaliatory move by Moscow against the EU."

SP: What other troubles can the United States create for Russia besides military ones? Will there be political and economic actions... for example, continuing to harm our interests, damaging our relations with the world, and splitting our alliances?

Mirzayan: "This is completely inevitable, no matter how the situation develops. Geopolitical struggles have never stopped, so the United States will try to split Russia's alliances, while Russia, China, and other countries will also try to dismantle the United States' alliances. I emphasize again — this is a common and normal struggle that is taking place everywhere and at any time."

SP: In your view, will the failure of the West in Ukraine be a heavy blow? In which aspects, such as military, ideological, and political, will it manifest? How long will it take them to recover? Have they prepared for it?

Mirzayan: "The failure of the West in Ukraine will be a comprehensive failure — even if not a 'knockout,' it will be a 'consensus decision' failure, and this will have the most severe impact on Europe.

It will be a blow for Trump, but not too serious, he can get through it, especially since 'this was not his war.' But for Europe, the Brussels bureaucracy, and the EU solidarity, it will be a very heavy blow, even a devastating one. They believe the EU may not be able to withstand such a blow, which is why they refused to let Russia win in Ukraine."

SP: The West is not a solid block. For example, the United States seems more willing to let Europe get entangled with Russia, while focusing on related countries. Is this the case? What impact will this "role division" have on the future of Western dominance and the formation of a new world order?

Mirzayan: "It is more about 'interest differentiation' than 'role division.' The Cold War has ended, and the interests of Europe and the United States have gradually diverged, which is clearly evident in the Ukraine issue — Europe wants to engage in a larger confrontation with Russia, and it would be best if the United States took the lead; but the United States does not want this."

"Strictly speaking, it is hard to imagine a friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia," said Dmitry Yerofeyev, an associate professor at the State Financial University affiliated with the Russian government.

"From this perspective, it is entirely logical for the United States to create trouble for Russia, whether during the special military operation or after it. Since they failed in Ukraine, they will try to 'trip up' Russia in other areas.

If Trump is in power, these attempts will mainly aim to gain economic benefits. His strategy is clear — if he can extract benefits from Russia's participation in certain projects, he will selectively lift some restrictions.

Meanwhile, Trump himself is not against cooperating with Russia, because this can bring him profits. Mearsheimer's thinking is limited by the mainstream American ideology, which is particularly evident in the current context of ongoing geopolitical confrontation."

SP: The clearer their perception of failure, the greater the risk of a "second front" emerging?

Yerofeyev: "Opening a 'second front' on the Russian border is entirely possible, and the West is already conducting joint actions on this. There are uncertainties in the situations of multiple regions in the post-Soviet space — for example, Moldova may become a target.

If NATO chooses to escalate the situation, it may provoke incidents around the Kaliningrad exclave, thus intensifying the tensions between Russia and the Baltic states (which are currently in a high level of anti-Russian sentiment). Additionally, the increasing militaristic rhetoric in Finland cannot be ignored.

Regarding the failure of the West in Ukraine, there is a feeling that they have already accepted the identity of 'a loser,' but they are still trying their best to package this failure as a 'victory' — at least to deal with domestic public opinion.

Meanwhile, the outline of a new world order is already emerging — this 'non-Western' order makes the West uncomfortable. Since the era of Western dominance has come to an end and this trend is irreversible, those who adhere to hegemonic ideologies are in despair, only grasping every opportunity to prolong their existence."

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7574728330423894574/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome you to express your attitude through the [up/down] buttons below.