John J. Mearsheimer on Kursk Invasion: Department Of Cope
A few thoughts on Mearsheimer’s high-room-temperature IQ, Great Powers pilled, realpolitik analysis of Ukraine’s occupation of Russia
The mastermind of realpolitik ideology broke his 10-day silence on Ukraine’s counter-invasion of the Kursk oblast in Russia. He should have stayed quiet.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.” — A famous saying everyone associates with different people.
Mearsheimer’s latest piece on the Russo-Ukraine war is called “The Kursk offensive: a foolish move.” This happened roughly at the time when I shared my thoughts on the staunchly pro-Russian bias of realists.
One can imagine the author sweating profusely and breathing heavily while coming up with this title.
“Ukraine is collapsing on all fronts”? Oh, that’s a different talking point… “The West caused russia’s Kursk crisis.” Wait, this isn’t the right time… Ah, here we go: “Ukraine’s surprise attack is a strategic defeat for Ukraine. The West is on life support!” No, too on the nose… “Ukraine is stupid.” Yes, that’s it!
The article itself is just two paragraphs long, but boy, oh boy, are they fascinating. (Un)Ironically, the number of paragraphs correlates with a popular saying, “to go number two.”
Let’s dissect this brown iceberg, argument by argument.
1. “Ukraine’s invasion of Russia was a major strategic blunder”
First of all, imagine seeing a news headline like this in 2012.
A major blunder (not just any ordinary one) would imply Ukraine’s complete failure. Mearsheimer could have argued that the operation was pointless or insignificant, but calling it a failed one proves that he’s at least a little biased against Ukraine.
He also wants to interpret the incident in a way that is favorable to Russia. It doesn’t work.
In real life, Ukraine captured over 1200 square kilometers of Russian land, including 93 settlements, while facing minuscule resistance from Russian forces. More than two weeks have passed, and there are no signs that Ukraine is losing its edge.
Interestingly enough, Mearsheimer never labeled Russia’s strategies as “blunders” or “failures,” even though Russia lost over 54% of the initially captured territory in 2022.
The georealist mastermind doesn’t bother to estimate Ukraine’s broader military objectives. Here’s a thought: securing territory with minimal casualties is often one of the goals. It keeps your forces strong, lets you dig in, messes with enemy logistics, and shifts the momentum. Rapid advances create chaos, force hasty defenses, and can open up new fronts.
More importantly, Mearsheimer does not know what the goals are. The Kursk operation is top secret, kept in the dark even from the Western allies or top commanders in Ukraine. I doubt that some barely relevant Valdai courtesans have better intel.
Not a good start, isn’t it? That’s only the subtitle text.
2. “The key determinant of success is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory”
I must admit: I have not read Sun Tzu’s Art of War, nor have I studied every battle of World War II under a microscope. Even so, I know that wars aren’t just about body counts.
Warfare is a little more complex than that. It involves a web of factors: economic sustainability, political will, troop morale, logistics, and much more. The mere idea of Ukraine capturing Russia’s territory hit Russian morale and shifted public sentiment, given that Russia had planned for a swift blitzkrieg-style invasion two years ago.
Speaking about history. The red army bested nazi Germany on the Eastern Front despite much heavier casualties.
But let’s say that Mertsheimer is right, and the casualty-exchange ratio is the determinant.
3. “The casualty-exchange ratio in the Kursk offensive decisively favors Russia”
Mearsheimer doesn’t provide any credible sources to support the claim that the casualty-exchange ratio favors Russia in the war. Why? Because the opposite is true.
Mearsheimer ignores the mounting evidence of Russian losses during the Kursk invasion. We’ve got verified footage of obliterated Russian convoys and prisoners being taken by the dozens and even hundreds. We have yet to see anything remotely comparable to the Ukrainian army in the Kursk region.
In the broader war, Russia is in a much worse spot. The visually confirmed and easily verifiable open-source intelligence (OSINT) shows that Russia lost about three times more military vehicles than Ukraine. Most importantly, you can check every single documented instance.
Human casualties? Based on leaks for which people got arrested, Russians are losing several times more soldiers. You can also check them.
At this point, it’s clear Mearsheimer isn’t a military analyst or an analyst in any general sense. His conclusions are based entirely on vibes and Russophilia rather than trustworthy data.
4. “Ukraine’s army effectively overran undefended territory”
Once again, the author ignores facts. Ukraine didn’t stroll into empty fields. Hundreds of Russian troops surrendered, and those are just the ones caught on camera. Russia wasn’t undefended; it was poorly defended.
When the reinforcements came, they got hit hard. And those Chechen units somehow narrowly missed the advancing Ukrainian soldiers. Some of them were not as lucky.
5. “Moscow quickly brought massive airpower to stop the advancing Ukrainian troops”
If Russia’s response was so swift and effective, why is Ukraine still taking ground?
I have to remind you that Russian officials initially claimed that Ukraine didn’t break through the border at all.
He conveniently forgets that Ukrainian forces have occupied towns and villages. So, yes, Russia is bombing its own cities with guided bombs. That’s not nearly as effective as Mearsheimer thinks it is.
Besides, Russia’s aim is infamous for being off — except when they’re targeting Ukrainian maternity wards and children’s hospitals. Some Russian armored personnel carriers even fight each other, destroying small settlements in the process, while the Ukrainian BTR observes in confusion.
6. “The attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge proportion of their equipment”
I already explained how this contradicts reality. But the wording itself. “Many soldiers”? Really? Is he a junior copywriter?
This vague language — “many soldiers” and “huge proportion” — is right out of the propaganda playbook. He uses imprecise, exaggerated terms to incite emotion without providing any measurable proof.
And we’re done with the first paragraph. Don’t worry, though. The next one has even less substance.
7. “Kyiv removed key combat units from the front lines in eastern Ukraine”
At this point, he’s just writing geopolitical fan fiction.
None of us know exactly how many troops or brigades are in this operation. Valdai boys are the last people who I believe would have that information.
The Ukrainian front stretches over 1,200 kilometers, with plenty of spots where Russia can’t gain traction. Mearsheimer assumes that moving forces from Ukraine weakened its defense lines, ignoring that the enemy had to redeploy its own troops from Ukraine to Kursk.
8. “The invasion is tilting the already lopsided casualty-exchange ratio further in Russia’s favor”
Nothing new here. The realist doesn’t want to accept vetted data, preferring a fewer dream about Russia’s greatness.
In the harsh reality department, Ukraine captured over a thousand square kilometers of Russian territory. They’ve blown up bridges that Russia could’ve used to resupply, leaving Russian troops cut off and surrounded. And they eradicated the statue of a syphilitic, again.
Meanwhile, Russian contract soldiers have taken up new roles: stars of Ukrainian FPV drone videos (I’m not providing a link), prisoners of war, and people apologizing for criticizing Chechens (a common practice in Russian society).
9. “The russians were caught by surprise because the incursion was foolish”
Military Strategy 101 from a realist: “Successful surprise attacks during full-scale wars are actually bad. It pales in effectiveness to my strategy: ‘Grind my forces to dust to capture a square mile per week.’”
I must repeat: This whole operation is hard to examine right now due to a lack of information, but it certainly does not appear to be poorly planned or failed in any measurable way.
Oh, and get this: In two weeks, Ukraine captured more territory than Russia in Ukraine in a year (since October 2023). With substantially smaller casualties, I might add.
What does that teach us bout Mearsheimer’s military expertise?
Arguments sprayed across this article are nothing short of a masterclass in reality denial, strategic ignorance, and life-threatening levels of coping.
There’s something both sad and heartwarming in watching a once-respected (allegedly) PhD of licking Russian boots become so sloppy at it. No genuine effort, no finesse, not even the convoluted socialist-like word salad to dress it.
Just two pitiful paragraphs of junior copywriter-quality nonsense, probably written in a state of hysteria. I wouldn’t be surprised if the last keystroke came from his tear, dropping on the keyboard.
Every word Mearsheimer now writes, thinks, or breathes is in lockstep with Russia’s official narrative: KURSK IS FINE. NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. IT’S EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!
To me, it seems like Kursk has broken Mersheimer and the entire realpolitik troupe. They need a dopamine rush from something, some sort of Russian operational success. Anything. If not, then we may have a batch of new, expired genocide supporters on our hands.
The Valdai gurus want your money in exchange for their barely coherent drivel. I criticize their drivel for free. Enjoy it while it lasts, please!
Kashadoo (Punished Ukrainian), or Georgii, is a technical copywriter and ex-prosecutor from Ukraine. Consider checking my Twitter for something true but unhinged.
