It is not my practice to direct the Community to podcasts of my peers or to issue critiques of what any given colleague is saying about the war. I will break that rule now because the expert whose views I will challenge here is one of the most authoritative persons you will find on youtube. He is the dean of the Realist School of international affairs, which I adhere to. And yet I believe he is seriously mistaken when he said a few hours ago on ‘Judging Freedom’ that Russia is winning the war and that it would be a mistake for the Russians to get into a war with NATO countries over their supply of drones and drone technology to Ukraine.
See
I have known Professor Mearsheimer as a follower of his writings and videos. I have also known him in person, about which I will speak below. I have the greatest respect for his courage, demonstrated by publication of his 2008 book (with Professor Stephen Walt) on the Israel lobby, which almost brought his career to an early end. I have still more respect for his 2014 article in the autumn issue of Foreign Affairs magazine explaining why the West was to blame for the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, a position for which he was pilloried by FA’s regular staff in their next edition. He followed up the article with a podcast speech that was seen by tens of millions of viewers. However, these achievements do not make him infallible as I saw in the past, when I first made his acquaintance.
In March 2015 in my capacity as co-founder, Board member and European representative of the American Committee for East West Accord, I organized a panel discussion on the subject of ‘revising the security architecture of Europe to bring Russia in from the cold.’ I was the moderator and the panelists were John Mearsheimer, Professor Stephen Cohen (ACEWA co-founder) and his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, owner-publisher of The Nation magazine. The presentation took place in Brussels’ International Press Club and received good media attention. A video recording of the event is still accessible on youtube:
See
After the presentation, all three panelists came to my home for dinner and we had a lively discussion during which John and I very courteously crossed swords over the question of Russia’s status as a great power. John said plainly that Russia was a country in decline that could only be a ‘spoiler’ in international relations. His view was at the time widely held among political scientists. Like them, John measured hard power by a country’s GDP. Russia’s GDP was in 2015 a shadow of its Soviet past and accordingly John, like the Yabloko Liberals within Russia, believed that the notion of Russia standing up to the United States was nonsense. I took and take a very different view of the measure of a country’s hard power, insisting that it depends heavily on WILL, i.e., on national determination properly harnessed by leaders. Indeed, if I may interject an observation from today, anyone who assumed that Iran would be a push-over for the combined might of the USA and Israel because of its very small GDP in conditions of economic disarray caused by the U.S. sanctions of 50 years, such person would now realize that he or she was deeply mistaken by missing the resilience factor and undiluted courage.
John Mearsheimer maintained his low estimation of Russia well into the Special Military Operation, but at some point had a eureka moment and has since then been speaking of Russia as a Great Power. Regrettably, he has not been following the logic of Professor Glenn Diesen and myself, that Russia has been frittering away its Great Power status by failing to respond to ever more brazen provocations and now serious physical attacks on its critical infrastructure from the Collective West.
As you will hear on today’s podcast, Mearsheimer says that Russia is winning the war. In terms of daily advances on the battlefield. He is perfectly correct. But in terms of end-game, I do not see a capitulation by Kiev in the cards so long as Europe is ready to provide all necessary funds and military materiel to keep a rump Ukraine west of the Dnieper and land-locked in the fight against Russia and to use its territory to launch ever more devastating missile and drone attacks on the Russian Federation far into the future.
Mearsheimer also says that Russia should not strike against NATO countries, because it has its hands full right now fighting Ukraine. Here I disagree most strongly. Russia is already at war with NATO de facto if not de jure. And I believe this is precisely the best moment for Russia to deliver a blow at the UK, at France, at Germany in a well-considered move against the military factories now supplying drones and missiles to Kiev. This would be permitted under international law. More importantly it will not trigger a united NATO response under Article 5.
NATO is toothless absent the USA, and the two years of Donald Trump in the Oval Office represent a rare opportunity for Russia. One can be fairly certain that Trump will not jump into the fight to save Britain or to save Germany if Russia hits the factories producing weapons being used against it.
Moreover, the longer Russia waits to respond, the more time it is giving Europe to rearm so that any eventual war would be fought on terms more adverse to Russia than at present.
These are my arguments. Let the chips fall where they may.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026
.
As Napoleon is reputed to have said (translated from the French) -- In war, the moral is to the physical as three to one. So, yes, WILL is important. And so is the physical -- the capacity to make weapons, build ships, produce hydrocarbons, etc.
It is well understood that Western Political Class's GNP is a very poor indicator of a nation's actual physical capacity. A country which hires vast numbers of bureaucrats thereby increases its GNP ... and reduces its production of Real Goods & Services. Europe boasts about its GNP, while China is the Workshop of the World. There is no question about which party is in the better position.
Bottom line is that Russia beats Europe on the physical. Europe's Political Class may have the Will ... but the indications are that the general European public is not willing to die for the Ukraine. The war in the Ukraine will not be over until the Europeans decide to stop supporting Zelensky. The question is whether Russia has the capacity to get the Euro "leaders" to change their minds? It is doubtful if a Russian attack on Euro military factories would achieve that end. Russia may have to disrupt Euro civilian infrastructure before the Euro public wakes up and tells its Political Class to back down -- Oreshniks on the Channel Tunnel? on Heathrow Airport?
The great risk facing Russia is that "escalate to de-escalate" may expand into a thermonuclear war which destroys Europe. Hopefully the US will not support the belligerent Euros if that is the direction things take.
In praising Iran's resistance to the West, they do deserve a lot of credit. But, there are factors that made it possible, which Russia does not have, a particular strategy and geography.
Strategy 1: Iran did not try to build tanks, cruisers, combat planes, etc., they designed and built drones and missiles. Strategy 2 + Geography: they buried weapons and facilities under the numerous mountains of Iran, where they cannot be reached. Strategy 3 + Geography: they built underground shore batteries along the Hormuz Strait, which gave them control of a vital waterway.
Trump is trying yet another form of sanctions. What I fear is that, when these fail, he will turn to nuclear weapons, which could end this substack, along with the rest of civilization.