John Mearsheimer Ukraine Won't be Getting Meaningful Security Guarantees

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Russian Strategy and Continuation of War

Russia has been clear from the beginning: they will not stop until their objectives are achieved.

Continued air attacks and battlefield advances are expected—this is consistent with their long-term strategy, not a new development.

Alongside the physical war, there is an ongoing propaganda war.

Western coverage portrays Russia as ruthless murderers and the main obstacle to peace.

However, propaganda is seen as secondary; the real determinant is the battlefield situation, where Ukraine is struggling and deteriorating daily.

Civilian vs. Military Targets Debate

Russia claims to target only military or energy infrastructure, not civilians.

Images from recent strikes show apartments and houses hit, raising doubts.

Possibilities:

Collateral damage from strikes on intended military targets.

Misfires/off-target missiles (common earlier in the war).

Ukrainian forces stationed in civilian areas, making them legal military targets under the laws of war.

Or, Russia may deliberately be striking civilian targets, though current casualty levels do not resemble a deliberate “punishment campaign.”

Example given: if NATO advisers were killed at a civilian restaurant, it could be classified as a legitimate strike, though civilians would inevitably also be harmed.

Propaganda, Drone Warfare, and Claims

Russia has increased drone and missile usage, with more sophisticated strikes.

Ukraine frequently claims to intercept almost all attacks, yet destruction on the ground suggests otherwise.

Charts of Ukrainian interception claims often don’t match battlefield outcomes:

They claim nearly 100% shoot-down rates, even during massive barrages.

Yet significant numbers of drones and missiles clearly get through.

Analysts argue this “fails the common sense test.”

With Russia increasing volume and quality of attacks, and Ukraine’s defenses weakening, it’s implausible they’re shooting down nearly everything.

Broader casualty numbers also seem inconsistent:

Western/Ukrainian claims that Russia has suffered far more losses don’t align with battlefield firepower imbalance (which heavily favors Russia).

Analysts suggest Ukrainian casualties must realistically be much higher, but propaganda distorts these figures.

NATO, Peace Proposals, and Security Guarantees

Western leaders (UK, France) have floated the idea of security guarantees and even troops in Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Analysts see this as unworkable:

A genuine peace settlement cannot include NATO troops on Ukrainian soil—Russia would reject it outright.

If NATO troops enter under a ceasefire, Russia has warned they will be legitimate targets.

Militarily, European powers (Britain, France, others) have small armies and declining troop quality.

In any direct clash between Russian forces and NATO ground troops (excluding large-scale U.S. involvement), Russia is expected to prevail.

➡️ Overall takeaways:

Russia’s actions are consistent with their long-term war goals, not a policy shift.

The propaganda war obscures facts, but battlefield realities show Ukraine in worsening condition.

Civilian casualties, while real, may result from collateral damage, misfires, or Ukrainian forces embedded in cities.

Ukrainian claims about interceptions and casualties are seen as implausible and part of the propaganda effort.

Proposals for NATO security guarantees or boots on the ground are incompatible with any negotiated peace and risk direct NATO-Russia confrontation—where Russia would likely hold the advantage.