John Mearsheimer v brilijantni analizi vojne v Ukrajini postavi nekaj ključnih ugotovitev. Izpostavljam tri. Prvič, konvencionalno stališče, da je ruski napad na Ukrajino le prvi korak Rusije pri agresiji na ostale evropske države, je po Mearsheimerju napačno. Ker za takšno stališče ni absolutno nobenega empiričnega dokaza – niti v obliki kakšne ruske strategije niti v obliki kakršnekoli Putinove izjave v tej smeri do sedaj. In če bi Putin res hotel zasesti najprej Ukrajino in nato nadaljevati proti drugim državam, bi se na vojno bolje pripravil in Ukrajine ne bi napadel zgolj s 190,000 vojaki. Ko je Hitler leta 1939 napadel Poljsko, je za to uporabil 1.5 milijona vojakov. Mearsheimer trdi, da gre v primeru eskalacije v Ukrajini za rusko percepcijo širjenja Nata v Ukrajino kot “eksistenčne ogroženosti” zase. In če veš, da širjenje Nata v Ukrajino pomeni eksistenčno ogroženost za Rusijo kot regionalno velesilo, tega ne boš naredil.

Drugič, zakaj so ZDA izvršile širitev Nata v Vzhodni Evropi, čeprav je bila Gorbačovu ob kolapsu komunizma dana obljuba, da se Nato ne bo širil proti ruskim mejam in zakaj so ZDA napovedale širitev Nata v Ukrajino in Gruzijo, čeprav so vedele, da to pomeni eksistenčno ogroženost za Rusijo? Preprosto, ker so lahko. Ker je bila Rusija po razpadu Sovjetske zveze šibka in ker so ZDA tudi v primeru Ukrajine skrajno podcenjevale Rusijo in so nadaljevale s širjenjem vojaškega vpliva v Ukrajini ne glede na ruska opozorila.

Tretjič, glede Ukrajine ni možna diplomatska rešitev, ker ta ni v interesu ZDA, pač pa zgolj dolgotrajna vojna izčrpavanja z jedrsko eskalacijo na koncu. Zakaj? Ker Rusije v tej vojni ni mogoče poraziti. Ker Rusija te vojne ne sme izgubiti. Ker bi bilo s tem konec Rusije. In zato bo Rusija, če bo pritisnjena ob zid, v Ukrajini v skrajni sili, če bo ogrožena njena eksistenca (kot jo percipira Rusija, ne mi), uporabila tudi jedrsko orožje. Zakaj? Ker ve, da si ZDA ne bodo upale odgovoriti z jedrskim napadom na Rusijo, saj bi slednji pomenil konec Evrope in konec sveta, kot smo ga poznali.

Komu bolj verjamete – Mearsheimerju ali temu, kar govorijo ameriški in evropski politiki?

Zelo verjetno bi večina ruskih in svetovnih voditeljev v enaki situaciji, če bi bila na čelu Rusije, naredila to, kar je storil Putin. Nihče ne bi toleriral, da bi domače glavno mesto regionalne velesile nenadoma pristalo v dosegu konvencionalnih raket sovražnega režima. Poglejte si reakcijo ZDA, ko je Rusija pred 60 leti v odgovor na ameriško širjenje jedrskih raket v Italijo in Turčijo poslala jedrske rakete na Kubo. Takrat smo se za las izognili jedrskemu spopadu. Seveda to nikakor ne pomeni opravičevanja ruske agresije na Ukrajino, gre zgolj za razumevanje sosledja dogodkov. Tako kot tudi ni opravičila za ameriško agresijo na Irak (in vse ostale države, ki so jih ZDA neizzvano napadle v zadnjih 70 letih), kjer pa ZDA niso bile eksistenčno ogrožene.

John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar, who belongs to the realist school of thought. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation.

Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as being primarily driven by the rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system. In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer believes that China’s growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States.

Mearsheimer’s books include Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss Jr. Book Award; Nuclear Deterrence: Ethics and Strategy (co-editor, 1985); Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), which won the Lepgold Book Prize; The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007); and Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (2011). His articles have appeared in academic journals like International Security and popular magazines like the London Review of Books. He has written op-ed pieces for The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune.

Mearsheimer has won several teaching awards. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. In addition, he was selected as a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar for the 1993–1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. In 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the recipient of the American Political Science Association‘s 2020 James Madison Award, which is presented every three years to an American political scientist who has made distinguished scholarly contributions. The Award Committee noted that Mearsheimer is “one of the most cited International Relations scholars in the discipline, but his works are read well beyond the academy as well.”

Mearsheimer’s works are widely read and debated by 21st-century students of international relations. A 2017 survey of US international relations faculty ranks him third among “scholars whose work has had the greatest influence on the field of IR in the past 20 years.”

Vir: Wikipedia