Navigating the Ukraine War narratives

John Mearsheimer talked about Russia and Europe in this interview with Tom Switzer. (1)

And among other things, he talks about how stereotypical Western images of Russia may be tempting some Western countries to indulge in threat inflation in thinking about the actual possible challenges from Russia, which also can fall prey to misleading stereotypes. And the temptation to start believing one’s own side’s hype about wars. As the investigative journalist Izzy Stone famously put it, “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.”

In my previous post, I included a video of a lecture giving a staunchly conservative account of the Russian Civil war of 1918-20 by British historian Antony Beevor. It provides a good example of the kind of Western Russophobia that Mearsheimer often mentions.

At one point, Beevor refers to the “Asiatic savagery” displayed by both sides in the Civil War. Presumably this “Asiatic” quality includes Russians from both the European and Asian parts of the country. And I would guess that’s supposed to apply to Ukrainians. It’s less clear whether he’s suggesting that the British, French, American, Polish, Czech, and Slovakian participants involved also count as Asians in that characterization.

European leaders are stepping up try to fill the diplomatic space on the Russia-Ukraine War left by what has been essentially the collapse of normal diplomacy with Russia that we’re seen under the Trump 2.0 regime:

British, French and German ambassadors to Russia held talks Thursday in Russia's Foreign Ministry, several days after a London summit with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky. The United Kingdom hosted Zelensky and the leaders of France and Germany earlier this week, supporting Kyiv's call for direct talks with Russia to end more than four years of war. The envoys met with Russia's deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Galuzin. …

Russian President Vladimir Putin this month rejected Zelensky's offer for a face-to-face meeting to end the fighting. In London, the UK's Keir Starmer, France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz said they supported Zelensky's proposal and that the current frontline should be a "starting point for negotiations." (2)

Ukraine’s supporters understandably indulge in some combination of optimism and standard war propaganda to make it sound like Russia’s willingness and/or ability to keep the war going is failing. But the front lines have scarcely changed in a long time. Part of the confusion is that Western governments and commentators tend to talk about Russia’s aim as being to conquer all of Ukraine. In fact, it looks like Russia right now is continuing to focus on holding the one-fifth or so of the Ukrainian territory they currently occupy. That gives them enormous leverage in blocking Ukraine from entering NATO or any other kind of formal military alliance with the current European NATO members.

Ukraine is still far from meeting the conditions to immediately become a full EU member. Ukraine benefits from the EU’s “Eastern Partnership” without becoming a full EU member. The EU Treaty also contains an explicit mutual-defense commitment. This hasn’t received a lot of attention, especially before 2025, because NATO had been the key (mostly) defensive alliance before Trump started making explicit threats to attack US allies like Denmark (Greenland) and Canada. But the Russians are unlikely in the foreseeable future to accept Ukrainian membership in an alliance with potential adversary European powers.

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) – a reliably “establishment” group like its American counterpart – sponsored a poll among EU nations that “confirms the collapse in European faith in the US. Only 11% of respondents now consider it an ally, down from 16% half a year ago and 22% in November 2024. Meanwhile fully 25% see it as either a rival or an adversary.” (3)

Scott Lucas has been a good analyst on the Russia-Ukraine War and the US-Israeli War on Iran. But he sometimes seems to get a bit too enthusiastic about symbolic events, like the Russian cutback of its Victory Day Parade last month, which Lucas sees as a particularly important symbolic victory. He again cites that in this discussion with two Ukrainian journalists: (4)

I’m very skeptical about the usefulness from the Ukrainian attempts to use strikes deep inside Russia. It’s hard to imagine that Ukraine is seriously damaging Russia ability to wage war with those “strategic” attacks. My nonspecialist assumption is that concentrating on tactical strikes at the Russian forces occupying Ukrainian territory and those immediately near the Ukrainian border would be a more effective use of firepower.

In the real existing game of power politics in Europe, the EU countries and Britain do have to make calculations about potential military threats from Russia. That’s just a standard power-political consideration. John Feffer argues that Russia is not likely in practice to attempt any serious military aggression against current NATO countries like Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. That doesn’t mean their won’t be the occasional (non-combat) testing of air space defenses – which is pretty routine procedure – or sometimes a case where a drone “accidentally” crashes in one of those countries. As Feffer puts it:

Putin is not so dumb as to double down on his Ukrainian blunder by sending military forces into Poland or even the Baltic states. Cyberattacks and clandestine operations can be more effective since they don’t cross the threshold that mandates a NATO counterattack. Meanwhile, influence operations - disinformation campaigns, strategic political alliances, and the marketing of illiberalism - are even more effective in undermining the ideological underpinnings of the EU.

This latter campaign has more than double the impact when it’s mirrored on the Atlantic side by the actions of Trump, Vance, and Hegseth. (5)

Feffer’s article does not use the concept of “hybrid warfare” for those attempts at political interventions. It’s inevitable that terms like “propaganda war” pop up. But it is also very important to remember warfare is military conflict. It’s a current part of the politics of the parties and activist groups that are part of the Trumpist Nationalist International to claim that immigration is a type of hybrid warfare and an invasion. Democratic parties should be encouraging the use of that rhetoric, which is clearly xenophobic hate- and fear-mongering.

Notes:

(1) Why the war is not over - John Mearsheimer. Switzerland with Tom Switzer YouTube channel 06/12/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/xAspI4jxvWI?si=YFnX4Grk6tl2wYbz> (Accessed: 2026-12-06).

(2) Le Monde/AFP (2026): British, French and German envoys hold talks in Russian Foreign Ministry. 06/11/2026. <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/06/11/british-french-and-german-envoys-hold-talks-in-russian-foreign-ministry_6754349_4.html> (Accessed: 2026-13-06).

(3) Kobzová, Jana & Zerka, Pawel (2026): Home alone: Europeans are ready to defend themselves. ECFR 06/10/2026. <https://ecfr.eu/publication/home-alone-europeans-are-ready-to-defend-themselves/> (Accessed: 2026-13-06).

(4) Crimea CUT OFF — Putin’s bridges ON FIRE! No FUEL at all. War & Politics 24 and Scott Lucas Worldview YouTube channel 06/12/2026. <https://youtu.be/P18bRWDUnyQ?si=eWYRE6GwPlbZMHBn> (Accessed: 2026-13-06).

(5) Feffer, John (2026): Pete Hegseth’s Invasions. Foreign Policy in Focus 06/10/2026. <https://fpif.org/pete-hegseths-invasions/> (Accessed: 2026-13-06).