Is the war in Ukraine approaching a strategic turning point that Western governments are unwilling to acknowledge? In a new interview with Lena Petrova, Professor John Mearsheimer argues that Russia holds the military advantage, Ukraine faces a deepening national crisis, and NATO's strategy has produced consequences that may reshape European security for decades
American political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer has delivered a stark assessment of the war in Ukraine, warning that the country faces a deteriorating military position, severe demographic losses and the possibility of further territorial disintegration.
Speaking with Lena Petrova on World Affairs in Context, in an interview published on 10 October 2026, the University of Chicago international relations scholar argues that Russia is gradually gaining the upper hand in a conflict that Western governments continue to portray as winnable.
The discussion examines Russia's military objectives, Ukraine's economic difficulties, NATO expansion, the failure of peace negotiations and the increasingly strained relationship between Washington and its European allies.
Mearsheimer, one of the best-known proponents of the international relations theory known as offensive realism, has long argued that the expansion of NATO towards Russia's borders contributed to the confrontation over Ukraine.
His latest interview develops that argument while examining the increasingly dangerous consequences of the continuing war.
Russia's Battlefield Advantage
Asked whether Russia or Ukraine currently holds the strategic advantage, Mearsheimer argues that Moscow has established a significant military advantage despite the slow pace of its territorial advances.
He attributes the relatively gradual Russian advance partly to the widespread use of drones and what he believes is Moscow's determination to limit its own casualties.
Nevertheless, he predicts that Russian forces will eventually capture the remaining territory they seek in Donbas and Zaporizhzhia.
Of greater immediate concern, he says, is the intensification of Russian attacks on Ukraine's infrastructure.
Mearsheimer describes attacks on energy facilities, railway networks, bridges, communications systems and logistics infrastructure as part of a wider effort to weaken Ukraine's ability to sustain both its economy and military operations.
He argues that the cumulative consequences of these attacks could become particularly severe during the approaching winter.
His assessment is that Ukraine's difficulties are no longer confined to the battlefield but increasingly involve the country's ability to function economically.
Ukraine's Financial Crisis
The discussion turns to the enormous financial resources required to sustain Ukraine's war effort.
Mearsheimer refers to European funding commitments of approximately $52 billion for 2026 and a further $52 billion for 2027, alongside what he describes as an additional Ukrainian requirement of $27 billion before the end of 2026.
These figures are presented as Mearsheimer's account of the funding situation during the interview.
He argues that European governments face growing difficulty maintaining existing levels of financial support while confronting economic pressures within their own countries.
According to Mearsheimer, the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure compounds the problem by reducing the country's ability to generate revenue and support its military.
He believes these financial pressures will increasingly influence Ukraine's willingness to negotiate.
Russia's Objectives: Neutrality and a Weakened Ukraine
Petrova asks whether Russian President Vladimir Putin's objectives remain primarily territorial or now extend to a fundamental restructuring of European security.
Mearsheimer suggests that Moscow would prefer a European security arrangement capable of accommodating Russian interests, but he considers such an agreement increasingly unlikely.
He argues that Russia's central objective remains preventing Ukraine from joining NATO.
However, he believes Moscow may now pursue additional territorial gains to ensure that Ukraine cannot become a significant future military threat.
The discussion specifically addresses the strategic importance of Odesa and Kharkiv.
Mearsheimer suggests that control of Odesa would deprive Ukraine of its remaining direct access to the Black Sea, with serious consequences for its economic independence.
He argues that the longer the conflict continues without a realistic prospect of peace, the stronger Russia's incentive becomes to weaken Ukraine's future military and economic capacity.
Ukraine's Demographic Crisis
One of the most troubling parts of the interview concerns Ukraine's population losses.
Petrova raises estimates suggesting that Ukraine's population has fallen dramatically since 2022 because of emigration, displacement, deaths and declining birth rates.
Mearsheimer refers to figures discussed by former Ukrainian presidential press secretary Iuliia Mendel, while acknowledging uncertainty about the country's present population.
He argues that the demographic consequences may prove even more damaging than the immediate military losses.
A shrinking population, he says, creates long-term problems for economic recovery, public finances, military recruitment and the country's future development.
He describes the scale of the demographic damage as a national catastrophe.
The interview also examines Ukraine's difficulties recruiting and retaining military personnel.
Mearsheimer argues that Ukrainian forces have been remarkably effective in using drones to compensate for shortages of soldiers, slowing Russian advances despite an increasingly unfavourable balance of manpower.
He credits Ukrainian troops with fighting effectively but questions how long this situation can be sustained.
Why Peace Negotiations Have Failed
The interview revisits the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine held in Istanbul during the early months of the war in 2022.
Mearsheimer argues that an opportunity existed to reach an agreement before the conflict developed into a prolonged war of attrition.
He attributes considerable responsibility for the breakdown of those negotiations to Western governments, particularly the involvement of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
That interpretation of the Istanbul negotiations remains disputed, including the extent to which Western pressure influenced Ukraine's decisions.
Petrova also raises more recent diplomatic contacts involving Washington and Moscow.
Mearsheimer believes Ukraine's deteriorating position should provide a growing incentive to negotiate, but he doubts that the parties are prepared to make the compromises necessary for a settlement.
He argues that European governments remain committed to continuing the war in the expectation that Russia can eventually be defeated.
In his assessment, this approach places the greatest human burden on Ukrainians rather than on the European countries supporting the war.
NATO Expansion and the Origins of the Conflict
Mearsheimer returns to an argument he has advanced for many years: that Western efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO were a major strategic mistake.
He contends that Ukraine could have avoided both the 2014 crisis and the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022 had it remained outside the alliance.
He identifies the administration of President George W. Bush as a particularly important advocate of Ukraine's eventual NATO membership.
Mearsheimer notes that some European leaders, including Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, opposed moving forward with Ukrainian membership at the time.
He argues that NATO enlargement failed to account for how Russian leaders would interpret the arrival of a Western military alliance on their borders.
This is Mearsheimer's explanation of the conflict's origins. It is contested by those who emphasise Ukraine's sovereign right to choose its security relationships and Russia's responsibility for its invasion.
Nevertheless, Mearsheimer maintains that the consequences of NATO's Ukraine policy have been disastrous for Ukraine itself.
The Danger of Nuclear Escalation
The discussion becomes particularly serious when Mearsheimer addresses the possibility of direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO.
He argues that Moscow regards the conflict as an existential security issue.
For that reason, he believes Russian leaders would consider extraordinary measures, potentially including nuclear weapons, if they faced the prospect of decisive military defeat.
Mearsheimer compares the current confrontation with the Cold War, suggesting that relations between Russia and the West may now be more dangerous than during much of the period following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
He points to the ongoing war, NATO's substantial involvement in supporting Ukraine, Ukrainian operations inside Russia and attacks affecting Russian strategic military capabilities.
In his assessment, these developments create an unusually dangerous environment in which escalation could occur rapidly.
Trump, Europe and the Future of NATO
The final part of the interview examines the widening differences between American and European strategic priorities.
Mearsheimer argues that European governments remain deeply committed to maintaining NATO and keeping American military forces stationed in Europe.
He describes the United States as the dominant power that holds the European alliance together and helps prevent conflict among its members.
President Donald Trump, however, is portrayed as having a very different view.
According to Mearsheimer, Trump would prefer to reduce American military commitments in Europe while improving relations with Russia.
He also argues that American strategic interests increasingly require Washington to concentrate on China rather than Europe.
This creates a fundamental tension.
European governments want continued American protection, while the United States faces growing incentives to redirect its military resources towards East Asia.
Mearsheimer does not predict the immediate collapse of NATO.
Instead, he suggests that the alliance is likely to survive, although America's role may diminish over time.
He also doubts that European countries could establish an effective replacement security arrangement without continued American leadership.
Can Europe Establish a New Security Order?
Petrova asks whether Europe might eventually establish a security system that includes Russia and recognises its interests as a major European power.
Mearsheimer is deeply pessimistic.
He believes relations between Russia and Europe have deteriorated so badly that a comprehensive new security settlement is unlikely in the foreseeable future.
He argues that hostility between Russia and major European powers, particularly Britain and Germany, has become entrenched.
Even if the war in Ukraine ends, he expects political and military tensions to persist.
Mearsheimer also discusses the historical role of NATO in managing relations among European states, including the security concerns associated with a reunified Germany.
In his interpretation, the alliance has served not only to deter external threats but also to maintain a particular balance of power within Europe.
Mearsheimer's Recommendation for Washington
Asked what advice he would offer a future American president, Mearsheimer argues that Washington should make ending the Ukraine war and improving relations with Russia major priorities.
He considers Trump's desire to negotiate an end to the conflict strategically sensible, although he believes the administration has so far failed to achieve that objective.
Mearsheimer suggests that American leaders would need to exert substantial pressure on both European governments and elements of the American national security establishment to secure a settlement.
He argues that continued confrontation is unlikely to produce a favourable outcome for Ukraine and risks further damaging European security.
The interview concludes with his warning that the longer the conflict continues, the more difficult it may become to restore stability between Russia and the West.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Although the discussion centres on Ukraine and European security, the issues raised have implications for countries such as New Zealand.
New Zealand has supported Ukraine through sanctions, diplomatic measures and assistance, while maintaining close security relationships with Western partners.
Any substantial change in American commitments to NATO, or a wider shift in Washington's strategic attention towards China, could influence the international security environment in which New Zealand operates.
Mearsheimer's assessment also raises questions about the economic and human costs of prolonged conflict, the effectiveness of sanctions, and the importance of diplomacy in preventing escalation between nuclear-armed powers.
For New Zealand, the wider issue is how a smaller country maintains its own interests and independent foreign policy judgment during a period of growing competition among major powers.
Watch the Full Interview
John Mearsheimer: NATO Is Defeated in Ukraine - Russia's Existential War & Strategic Dominance
Watch the interview with Lena Petrova on World Affairs in Context Or Stream Below.
Interview: Lena Petrova with Professor John Mearsheimer
Publisher: World Affairs in Context
Published: 10 October 2026
Duration: Approximately 47 minutes
Source
World Affairs in Context, John Mearsheimer: NATO Is Defeated in Ukraine - Russia's Existential War & Strategic Dominance, YouTube, 10 October 2026
eLocal World | Interview Report
This article reports the views expressed during the interview. Military forecasts, financial estimates and interpretations of diplomatic events are attributed to the participants and should not be understood as independently verified findings.