In a lecture at the European Parliament, the renowned Chicago professor analyzed the possible scenarios for the end of the conflict and blamed Western liberal policy for its start.

By Javier Villamor 

On Tuesday, November 11th, the Patriots for Europe Foundation hosted at the European Parliament a keynote lecture by Professor John Mearsheimer, one of the most influential voices in contemporary political realism. The University of Chicago scholar outlined, with his trademark precision and bluntness, his analysis of how the war began and the five scenarios that could define the future of Ukraine and the European continent.

“Europe is in deep trouble, and the origin of this crisis lies in the war in Ukraine,” Mearsheimer warned at the start of his address. “It was the West itself, and especially the United States, that provoked the conflict by trying to bring Ukraine into NATO.” With this statement, the American professor summarized more than three decades of strategic mistakes that, in his view, turned Europe’s balance into a board of permanent instability.

Mearsheimer recalled that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, “the Western elite was carried away by the illusion of unipolarity,” believing the world could be shaped “in the image and likeness of the American liberal model.” It was that same “hegemonic arrogance,” he explained, that led Washington and Brussels to push NATO’s borders eastward, ignoring Moscow’s repeated warnings.

Quoting former CIA Director William Burns, Mearsheimer recalled his famous 2008 memorandum: “Ukraine’s entry into NATO is the brightest red line for the Russian elite.” He added: “Angela Merkel had already warned that such a decision would be interpreted by Moscow as a declaration of war. But no one listened.”

According to Mearsheimer, the war that began in February 2022 was not an imperial Russian offensive, but a “preventive war” intended to prevent Ukraine from becoming “a Western platform for aggression.” With his usual numerical precision, the professor compared the invasion to the German campaign of 1939: “Russia entered with between 100,000 and 190,000 soldiers—an insufficient force to conquer a country the size of Ukraine. It was not a total invasion, but a limited operation.”

For Mearsheimer, the current situation is clear: “Russia is winning a war of attrition. It has more men, more artillery, and greater industrial capacity.” In his analysis, Kyiv lacks the human and material resources to resist indefinitely, and Western fatigue only worsens the problem. “Ukraine is totally dependent on Western weapons, and neither Europe nor the United States can sustain that effort without bankrupting themselves,” he concluded.

In the final part of his lecture, the American scholar outlined five possible futures for Ukraine, all of them, as he said, “bad—some worse than others.”

1. Partial Russian victory and frozen conflict
“The most likely scenario,” he said, “is an ugly victory for Moscow, consolidating between 20 and 40% of Ukrainian territory, while the rest of the country becomes a failed state dependent on Europe.”
2. Pragmatic negotiation
“The best option for Ukrainians would be to get on a plane, go to Moscow, and accept the loss of Crimea and the eastern regions. It would be a bad outcome, but the least bad one,” he insisted. “Every day that passes, more Ukrainians die in a war they cannot win.”
3. Regional escalation
Mearsheimer warned that “tensions between Russia and Europe will not end with a ceasefire.” He listed six potential future flashpoints: the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldova, and the Black Sea. “Europe will remain a dangerous continent,” he said.
4. U.S. withdrawal and NATO weakening
“Europe’s security structure depends on the American pacifier,” he explained. “But the United States is already pivoting toward Asia, and Trump has no interest in saving Europe. If Washington leaves, NATO will collapse.”
5. Political disintegration in Europe
Finally, Mearsheimer predicted a period of instability within the EU itself. “When defeat comes, the blame game will begin,” he stated. “Europeans will blame each other, and the result will be a more divided, poorer, and less secure continent.”

The packed audience listened in silence as the professor ended with a reflection rarely heard these days in the halls of a European Parliament devoted to political correctness:

The disaster in Ukraine is the work of the West. If in 2008 we had not promised its entry into NATO, Ukraine would be intact today, and Europe would be more prosperous.

For Mearsheimer, the continent has reached a turning point: “Europe must learn to live without the illusions of globalist liberalism and without Washington’s tutelage. Otherwise, it will once again pay the price of others’ mistakes.”

As he concluded: “History has not ended, as Fukuyama once claimed. It is only beginning again—and Europe remains without a map or a compass.”         

©europeanconservative.com