This response to John Mearsheimer’s recent lecture at the EUI delves into the validity of his central thesis, the quality of the evidence, the broader implications and the concept of academic social responsibility. It finds that Mearsheimer’s explanation of the war in Ukraine is unsatisfactory and rests on shaky empirical foundations.

There is no justification for the atrocities committed by Russia against the people of Ukraine. This does not stop scholars from trying to explain Putin’s decision to invade. John Mearsheimer’s recent lecture at the EUI was one such attempt – which fails on multiple counts, the authors argue.

Analysing a survey in five EU countries, Research Fellows Ioana-Elena Oana and Alexandru Moise find Hungarians and Poles to have the widest disagreement about EU membership for Ukraine and about ending energy dependence on Russia.

Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe will deprive the European Court of Human Rights of some of its funding, even as the caseload relating to Russia continues to grow. Law Researcher Helga Molbæk-Steensig explains the key role the Court could play in transitional justice following the war in Ukraine and calls on member states to up their contributions.

Following the invasion of Ukraine, there is much talk of ‘smart sanctions’ – those with a strong impact on Russia but a low cost for the EU. Visiting Schuman Fellow Daniel Gros argues that a tariff on imports of gas might be smartest sanction of all.

EUI Professor of History Alexander Etkind and Rutgers University Sociologist Sergei Erofeev focus on Russian democratic leader Alexei Navalny, urging readers to recognise his efforts in the fight against corruption in Russia, and entreating Amnesty International to reinstate the man’s status as a ‘prisoner of conscience’.

Russian intervention is possible, but at this point very unlikely. Much depends on the next steps of the protesters, the Belarusian regime, and major Western states.