On November 25, Mearsheimer appeared as a guest on Glenn Diesen's YouTube channel. This interview contains not only an analysis of the current war, but also a comprehensive diagnosis of the collapse of the entire European security architecture built after the Cold War. I highly recommend everyone to watch the interview:
View: https://youtu.be/e7hAS_8kThs?si=DyBQOqcadN88IcuS
For those of you who don't have enough time or patience, here's a summary of the key points:
1.) From Unipolarity to Multipolarity: Structural Transformation
The backbone of Mearsheimer's analysis is based on the observation that the US has entered a period of withdrawal from its global engagement for the first time since 1945. This withdrawal is not an emotional reaction, but a structural necessity. The unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War allowed the United States to maintain a strong military presence in Europe and other regions simultaneously. The 1990s and early 2000s marked the peak of American hegemony; Washington could intervene in the Balkans, wage wars in the Middle East, and remain the ultimate guarantor of European security. However, this era has now come to an end.
China's rise is the fundamental driver of this transformation. Mearsheimer noted that he began to view the world as multipolar around 2017. China has now become a 'peer competitor' to the US; Russia lacks this status. This distinction is critical: the United States' strategic energy is shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region, where its real rival is located. The concentration of American military presence in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Guam line), the strengthening of QUAD and the establishment of AUKUS are concrete indicators of this strategic shift. The main focus of the US Navy is no longer the Mediterranean but the Pacific; the priority of its intelligence network is no longer Europe but Southeast Asia; the fundamental axis of military innovation is no longer positioned against Russia but against China.
The implications of this structural transformation for Europe are clear: the continent is taking a back seat in American strategic priorities. In Mearsheimer's words, the US is now asking the question: 'If I have limited resources, where should I spend them?' The answer is clear: in Asia. This situation demonstrates that the US withdrawal from Europe is not merely a choice, but the inevitable evolution of hegemonic logic. The unipolar era has ended, and the US is accepting this.
2.) The Concept of ‘Pacifier’: The External Source of European Peace
One of the most critical concepts in Mearsheimer's analysis is the 'American pacifier'. This concept explains the essence of Europe's post-Cold War stability: Europe's peace was secured not from within Europe, but from outside Europe. The main producer of stability was not Berlin, Paris or Brussels; the centres of power in Washington played the role of an 'external regulator' that suppressed tensions in Europe.
This pacifying role of the US created a 'golden age of comfort' for Europe (Europe did not have to allocate huge budgets to national defence; instead, it built a welfare state). This comfort was the foundation of the exceptional period that lasted from 1945 to 2022. This exceptional period is now coming to an end. If the US significantly reduces its military presence in Europe, Europe will cease to be a 'historical area frozen in time by the US' and will once again fall into its own historical geopolitics. The concrete consequences of this situation can be summarised as follows: the extent to which Germany will strengthen itself becomes a matter of debate; power struggles within the France-Germany axis intensify; Poland and the Baltic states enter a state of panic; Southern Europe returns to its own priorities; the rhetoric of solidarity within the EU clashes with hard security calculations and erodes.
3.) Europe's Strategic Illusion
The war in Ukraine has begun to serve a purpose for Europe: an attempt to chain the US back to Europe. Europe hopes that if the Russian threat grows, the US will be forced to return to Europe and NATO will resume its former role. According to Mearsheimer, Europe's gamble is based on a dangerous illusion that denies the United States' true strategic priority lies in Asia; therefore, the outcome will inevitably be a disappointment for Europe.
4.) The Heart of the Conflict: Existential for Russia, Existential for Ukraine
Perhaps the most disturbing point of Mearsheimer's analysis is this: this war is an existential struggle for both sides. In the West, it is generally thought that Russia wants to expand through imperial conquest, that it could be satisfied by taking some territory from Ukraine, and that the issue will be resolved through diplomacy with 'a little land, a little concession, a little compromise'. Mearsheimer argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Russia's mental framework is as follows: Ukraine's integration into NATO, Ukraine's deepening ties with the EU, and Ukraine becoming an 'anti-Russian state' with a pro-Western liberal-democratic identity is an existential threat that destroys Russia's security architecture. Therefore, for Russia, this war is not about seizing Ukraine, but about breaking geopolitical encirclement. Russia's demands have not changed since 2022 and, according to Mearsheimer, will not change: Ukraine must remain outside NATO, the annexation of four oblasts plus Crimea must be legally recognised, and Ukraine must be militarily weakened. These demands are not negotiable.
Mearsheimer uses the same word for Ukraine: existential. From Ukraine's perspective, Russia's demands mean the following: the permanent loss of territory, the country being excluded from NATO, becoming a state with limited sovereignty and disarmed, and being in a position of weakness and defencelessness against Russia. This would be a devastating outcome for Ukraine's security and identity. Therefore, Russia's existential security and Ukraine's existential security are polar opposites. The clash of two existential demands makes diplomacy impossible.
Since both sides perceive an existential threat, this war cannot be "resolved through negotiation"; it can only end with one side forcing the other to accept imposed realities.
5.) Dark Future of EU and NATO
The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was framed by Europe as the 'spread of democracy'. Mearsheimer, however, defined it as the 'geographical expansion of the US security umbrella'. As NATO expanded, Europe was able to coexist under the same roof with countries it did not trust; because the main actor was the US, Europe was not acting alone but in solidarity with the US. This is proof that NATO's expansion is the expansion of the US security umbrella. When the US withdraws, this umbrella will disappear and NATO's raison d'être will be questioned.
When the US's pacifying influence is removed, divisions within Europe will deepen: serious strategic differences will emerge between the more US-loyal 'frontline' countries such as Poland and the Baltics, the more cautious Germany-France-centred bloc, and those such as Hungary and Serbia that 'do not want to burn their bridges with Russia'. This will mean permanent cracks within the EU and NATO. In the absence of the US, European states will ask each other the following questions: 'How much security does Germany provide us?', 'Will France really share its nuclear power?', 'Is Poland's military rise a risk or a guarantee for us?', 'Is a European army really possible or is it just Paris's fantasy?'.The withdrawal of the US will make European countries insecure not only towards Russia but also towards each other.
View: https://youtu.be/e7hAS_8kThs?si=DyBQOqcadN88IcuS
For those of you who don't have enough time or patience, here's a summary of the key points:
1.) From Unipolarity to Multipolarity: Structural Transformation
The backbone of Mearsheimer's analysis is based on the observation that the US has entered a period of withdrawal from its global engagement for the first time since 1945. This withdrawal is not an emotional reaction, but a structural necessity. The unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War allowed the United States to maintain a strong military presence in Europe and other regions simultaneously. The 1990s and early 2000s marked the peak of American hegemony; Washington could intervene in the Balkans, wage wars in the Middle East, and remain the ultimate guarantor of European security. However, this era has now come to an end.
China's rise is the fundamental driver of this transformation. Mearsheimer noted that he began to view the world as multipolar around 2017. China has now become a 'peer competitor' to the US; Russia lacks this status. This distinction is critical: the United States' strategic energy is shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region, where its real rival is located. The concentration of American military presence in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Guam line), the strengthening of QUAD and the establishment of AUKUS are concrete indicators of this strategic shift. The main focus of the US Navy is no longer the Mediterranean but the Pacific; the priority of its intelligence network is no longer Europe but Southeast Asia; the fundamental axis of military innovation is no longer positioned against Russia but against China.
The implications of this structural transformation for Europe are clear: the continent is taking a back seat in American strategic priorities. In Mearsheimer's words, the US is now asking the question: 'If I have limited resources, where should I spend them?' The answer is clear: in Asia. This situation demonstrates that the US withdrawal from Europe is not merely a choice, but the inevitable evolution of hegemonic logic. The unipolar era has ended, and the US is accepting this.
2.) The Concept of ‘Pacifier’: The External Source of European Peace
One of the most critical concepts in Mearsheimer's analysis is the 'American pacifier'. This concept explains the essence of Europe's post-Cold War stability: Europe's peace was secured not from within Europe, but from outside Europe. The main producer of stability was not Berlin, Paris or Brussels; the centres of power in Washington played the role of an 'external regulator' that suppressed tensions in Europe.
This pacifying role of the US created a 'golden age of comfort' for Europe (Europe did not have to allocate huge budgets to national defence; instead, it built a welfare state). This comfort was the foundation of the exceptional period that lasted from 1945 to 2022. This exceptional period is now coming to an end. If the US significantly reduces its military presence in Europe, Europe will cease to be a 'historical area frozen in time by the US' and will once again fall into its own historical geopolitics. The concrete consequences of this situation can be summarised as follows: the extent to which Germany will strengthen itself becomes a matter of debate; power struggles within the France-Germany axis intensify; Poland and the Baltic states enter a state of panic; Southern Europe returns to its own priorities; the rhetoric of solidarity within the EU clashes with hard security calculations and erodes.
3.) Europe's Strategic Illusion
The war in Ukraine has begun to serve a purpose for Europe: an attempt to chain the US back to Europe. Europe hopes that if the Russian threat grows, the US will be forced to return to Europe and NATO will resume its former role. According to Mearsheimer, Europe's gamble is based on a dangerous illusion that denies the United States' true strategic priority lies in Asia; therefore, the outcome will inevitably be a disappointment for Europe.
4.) The Heart of the Conflict: Existential for Russia, Existential for Ukraine
Perhaps the most disturbing point of Mearsheimer's analysis is this: this war is an existential struggle for both sides. In the West, it is generally thought that Russia wants to expand through imperial conquest, that it could be satisfied by taking some territory from Ukraine, and that the issue will be resolved through diplomacy with 'a little land, a little concession, a little compromise'. Mearsheimer argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Russia's mental framework is as follows: Ukraine's integration into NATO, Ukraine's deepening ties with the EU, and Ukraine becoming an 'anti-Russian state' with a pro-Western liberal-democratic identity is an existential threat that destroys Russia's security architecture. Therefore, for Russia, this war is not about seizing Ukraine, but about breaking geopolitical encirclement. Russia's demands have not changed since 2022 and, according to Mearsheimer, will not change: Ukraine must remain outside NATO, the annexation of four oblasts plus Crimea must be legally recognised, and Ukraine must be militarily weakened. These demands are not negotiable.
Mearsheimer uses the same word for Ukraine: existential. From Ukraine's perspective, Russia's demands mean the following: the permanent loss of territory, the country being excluded from NATO, becoming a state with limited sovereignty and disarmed, and being in a position of weakness and defencelessness against Russia. This would be a devastating outcome for Ukraine's security and identity. Therefore, Russia's existential security and Ukraine's existential security are polar opposites. The clash of two existential demands makes diplomacy impossible.
Since both sides perceive an existential threat, this war cannot be "resolved through negotiation"; it can only end with one side forcing the other to accept imposed realities.
5.) Dark Future of EU and NATO
The post-Cold War expansion of NATO was framed by Europe as the 'spread of democracy'. Mearsheimer, however, defined it as the 'geographical expansion of the US security umbrella'. As NATO expanded, Europe was able to coexist under the same roof with countries it did not trust; because the main actor was the US, Europe was not acting alone but in solidarity with the US. This is proof that NATO's expansion is the expansion of the US security umbrella. When the US withdraws, this umbrella will disappear and NATO's raison d'être will be questioned.
When the US's pacifying influence is removed, divisions within Europe will deepen: serious strategic differences will emerge between the more US-loyal 'frontline' countries such as Poland and the Baltics, the more cautious Germany-France-centred bloc, and those such as Hungary and Serbia that 'do not want to burn their bridges with Russia'. This will mean permanent cracks within the EU and NATO. In the absence of the US, European states will ask each other the following questions: 'How much security does Germany provide us?', 'Will France really share its nuclear power?', 'Is Poland's military rise a risk or a guarantee for us?', 'Is a European army really possible or is it just Paris's fantasy?'.The withdrawal of the US will make European countries insecure not only towards Russia but also towards each other.
