Last week, Washington’s three-week-old Trump administration threw Europe and the transatlantic alliance into a chaos of doubt, disgust and trepidation when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced a clear reversal of US policy concerning the war in Ukraine. For the past three years, European leaders had aligned with a narrative promoted by the US and the UK that painted Russian President Vladimir Putin as a pathological dictator intent upon conquering all of Europe, and that for that very reason, no legitimate reason could be invoked to consider even striking up a conversation with him.

Having followed the events in Ukraine for the past two decades, I was curious to understand what my AI chatbot friends might say about this kind of representation that had the effect of prolonging a destructive war by excluding even the idea of diplomacy as a means to resolve the conflict. I began with this prompt:

“If you read the media in the West, there is a pretty consistent effort at ‘mind reading’ Vladimir Putin to explain why Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The commonly expressed idea is that he wishes to reconstitute the Soviet empire. The evidence cited is usually anecdotal in the extreme. Serious analysts such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs explicitly state that there is no evidence for that claim, either in Putin’s words or acts. Moreover, they cite specific historical moments to suggest the contrary. How would you compare the credibility of those two positions?”

Before reproducing their complete analysis, let’s begin by comparing their respective conclusions.

DeepSeek

While both positions have their merits, the geopolitical and security concerns narrative advanced by scholars like Mearsheimer and Sachs appears to have higher credibility due to its stronger empirical foundation, analytical rigor, and consistency with historical precedents. The Soviet empire narrative, while compelling, relies more on anecdotal evidence and speculative interpretations, making it less persuasive as a comprehensive explanation for Putin’s actions. However, it is important to recognize that both narratives likely capture aspects of the truth, and a complete understanding of the conflict may require integrating elements of both perspectives.

ChatGPT

While both perspectives have merit, the realist argument tends to have stronger empirical backing, rooted in observable geopolitical dynamics. The imperialist narrative is more speculative, relying on interpretive frameworks that can sometimes oversimplify complex motivations. That said, Putin’s motives could very well be a mixture of both security concerns and a desire to reassert Russia’s influence, blending realist calculations with ideological ambitions.

The two assessments are practically identical. Both give a clear preference to the analysis of commentators such as Mearsheimer and Sachs. But both chatbots end by hedging their bets. This appears to be the standard behavior of AI bots, presumably justified by the need to offer a “balanced” conclusion. But is it really balanced to say, “we don’t really know, we leave it up to you?” Or should we see this standard chatbot tactic as a pusillanimous intellectual copout?

Here are the complete responses of the two AIs:

DeepSeek

“The debate over Vladimir Putin’s motivations for invading Ukraine in 2022 is highly contentious, with two primary narratives emerging: one that portrays Putin as seeking to reconstitute the Soviet empire, and another that emphasizes more immediate geopolitical and security concerns. To compare the credibility of these positions, we need to examine the evidence, historical context, and analytical rigor behind each.

 **Position 1: Putin Seeks to Reconstitute the Soviet Empire**

 Arguments and Evidence:

1. **Nostalgia for the Soviet Union**:

• Proponents of this view often cite Putin’s public statements expressing regret over the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he once called the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.’
• They argue that Putin’s actions, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, reflect a desire to restore Russian influence over former Soviet territories.

2. **Expansionist Actions**:

• The invasion of Ukraine is seen as part of a broader pattern of Russian aggression, including military interventions in Georgia (2008), Syria (2015), and elsewhere, which some interpret as attempts to rebuild a sphere of influence.

3. **Ideological Rhetoric**:

• Putin’s speeches often emphasize the historical, cultural, and linguistic ties between Russia and Ukraine, framing Ukraine as an integral part of the ‘Russian world’ (Russkiy Mir). This is interpreted as a justification for territorial expansion.

4. **Anecdotal Evidence**:

• Some analysts point to Putin’s personal background as a former KGB officer and his apparent admiration for Soviet-era symbols and policies as evidence of his imperial ambitions.

 Credibility:

• **Strengths**: This narrative aligns with some of Putin’s rhetoric and actions, particularly his emphasis on Russia’s historical and cultural ties to Ukraine and his willingness to use military force to achieve geopolitical goals.
• **Weaknesses**: The evidence is often anecdotal or interpretive, relying heavily on selective readings of Putin’s statements and actions. It tends to downplay other factors, such as NATO expansion and Ukraine’s geopolitical significance, which may have motivated the invasion.

 **Position 2: Putin’s Actions Are Driven by Geopolitical and Security Concerns**

 Arguments and Evidence:

1. **NATO Expansion**:

• Scholars like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs argue that NATO’s eastward expansion, particularly the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, posed an existential threat to Russia’s security. They cite Putin’s repeated warnings about NATO encroachment as evidence of this concern.
• The 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia ‘will become members,’ is often highlighted as a key moment that escalated tensions.

2. **Buffer Zone Strategy**:

• Russia has historically sought to maintain a buffer zone between itself and potential adversaries. The loss of Ukraine to the Western sphere of influence would eliminate this buffer, bringing NATO forces closer to Russia’s borders. 

3. **Domestic Politics**:

• Some analysts argue that Putin’s actions are also motivated by domestic considerations, such as consolidating power and rallying nationalist sentiment, rather than a grand imperial vision.

4. **Historical Precedents**:

• Mearsheimer and Sachs point to specific historical moments, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, to argue that great powers often take extreme measures to counter perceived security threats. They suggest that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are consistent with this pattern.

 Credibility:

• **Strengths**: This position is grounded in realist international relations theory, which emphasizes the importance of security and power dynamics in shaping state behavior. It also aligns with Putin’s explicit statements about NATO and Ukraine.
• **Weaknesses**: Critics argue that this perspective underestimates the role of ideology and personal ambition in Putin’s decision-making. It also downplays the agency of Ukraine and other former Soviet states in seeking closer ties with the West.

 **Comparative Credibility**

1. **Empirical Evidence**:

• The ‘geopolitical and security concerns’ position is supported by more concrete evidence, such as Putin’s explicit warnings about NATO expansion and the historical context of great power behavior. In contrast, the ‘Soviet empire’ narrative relies more on interpretive readings of Putin’s rhetoric and actions.

2. **Analytical Rigor**:

•  Scholars like Mearsheimer and Sachs provide a systematic, theory-driven analysis that situates Russia’s actions within broader patterns of international relations. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative often lacks this level of rigor, relying instead on anecdotal evidence and speculative interpretations.

3. **Historical Context**:

• The ‘geopolitical and security concerns’ position is more consistent with historical precedents, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, where great powers have taken extreme measures to counter perceived threats. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative, while evocative, lacks a similarly robust historical foundation.

4. **Policy Implications**:

• The ‘geopolitical and security concerns’ position suggests that diplomatic solutions, such as addressing Russia’s security concerns, could help de-escalate the conflict. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative implies that Putin’s ambitions are inherently expansionist, leaving little room for negotiation.

 **Conclusion**

While both positions have their merits, the ‘geopolitical and security concerns’ narrative advanced by scholars like Mearsheimer and Sachs appears to have higher credibility due to its stronger empirical foundation, analytical rigor, and consistency with historical precedents. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative, while compelling, relies more on anecdotal evidence and speculative interpretations, making it less persuasive as a comprehensive explanation for Putin’s actions. However, it is important to recognize that both narratives likely capture aspects of the truth, and a complete understanding of the conflict may require integrating elements of both perspectives.”

ChatGPT

“The contrasting narratives about Vladimir Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine reflect deeper divergences in geopolitical analysis, ideological leanings, and interpretive frameworks. Here’s a breakdown of how to assess the credibility of both positions:

1. The ‘Reconstitution of the Soviet Empire’ Argument:

This view suggests that Putin is driven by a revanchist agenda aimed at restoring Russia’s influence over its former Soviet neighbors. Proponents of this narrative often cite:

• Putin’s 2005 statement calling the collapse of the Soviet Union ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.’
• Actions in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), and the Donbas (since 2014) as incremental steps toward reasserting control over former Soviet territories.
• Cultural and historical rhetoric, such as Putin’s emphasis on the unity of Russians and Ukrainians, suggesting a deeper ideological belief in reclaiming lost territories.

Critique of this Position:

• Much of this argument relies on selective interpretations of Putin’s statements, often ignoring contextual nuance.
• Military actions can also be framed as defensive or reactive to perceived Western encroachments, such as NATO expansion, rather than purely imperialistic ambitions.

2. The Defensive/Realist Argument (Mearsheimer, Sachs, etc.):

This school, particularly associated with John Mearsheimer’s realist perspective, views the invasion as a reaction to Western policies, particularly NATO’s eastward expansion and the West’s increasing influence in Ukraine. Key points include:

• NATO Expansion: The eastward movement of NATO, despite earlier informal assurances to Russia in the 1990s, is seen as a direct threat to Russian security.
• The 2014 Maidan Revolution: Interpreted as a Western-backed regime change, this event significantly shifted Ukraine towards the West, heightening Russian fears.
• Historical Precedent: Russia’s historical sensitivity to invasions (e.g., Napoleon, Hitler) informs a security-first foreign policy, making Western alignment of neighboring states unacceptable.

Critique of this Position:

• This perspective may underplay Russia’s agency and ideological motives, reducing Putin’s complex political strategy to a mere reaction to Western actions.
• It can inadvertently legitimize aggressive behavior by framing it as a defensive necessity.

Comparing Credibility:

1. Evidence Base:
   • The imperialist narrative often relies on interpretive readings of Putin’s rhetoric and symbolic gestures, which can be anecdotal and selectively quoted.
   • The realist argument provides more concrete geopolitical evidence, such as the timeline of NATO expansion and specific policy changes in Ukraine.
2. Historical Consistency:
   • The realist position aligns with long-standing patterns in international relations theory, particularly the idea that great powers resist encroachments into their spheres of influence.
   • The imperialist narrative is more speculative, projecting motives based on historical parallels rather than clear policy statements or actions.
3. Bias and Framing:
   • Western media often reflects the imperialist view, perhaps influenced by Cold War legacies and a tendency to personalize conflicts around leaders like Putin.
   • Scholars like Mearsheimer and Sachs adopt a more structuralist view, which can sometimes be perceived as overly sympathetic to Russian security concerns.

Conclusion:

While both perspectives have merit, the realist argument tends to have stronger empirical backing, rooted in observable geopolitical dynamics. The imperialist narrative is more speculative, relying on interpretive frameworks that can sometimes oversimplify complex motivations. That said, Putin’s motives could very well be a mixture of both security concerns and a desire to reassert Russia’s influence, blending realist calculations with ideological ambitions.”

My conclusion after reading these two accounts

Both chatbots attribute greater credibility to the analysis of Mearsheimer and Sachs. At this point of a direct conversation with a human friend who made similar observations, we would expect them to say something like: “It’s time to readjust our collective thinking about the nature of and the possible solution to this problem.”

Why doesn’t that happen here? Both chatbots, even after summarizing the logical conclusion, hedge their bets, by essentially saying, “there nevertheless may be something to the accusations of imperial ambition on the part of Putin.” Both bots have identified a clear winner. But both invoke the mere possibility of ambiguity to hedge their bets. Why? For fear of offending the dominant voices in the West? Or simply because of the principle of affirming a “balanced position?”

Presumably, the European leaders, now seriously embarrassed by the Trump administration’s about-face on Ukraine, will spend the next few weeks looking at their own ways to hedge their bets. Can they find a way of not contradicting themselves?

The Europeans are faced with a far more formidable problem than the chatbots, who have the liberty of respecting both sides. Politicians can’t entertain two contradictory positions at the same time.

Worse for the Europeans is the fact that the US holds all the cards as the initial instigator of the war through former US President Joe Biden’s adamant refusal to discuss collective security with Putin to prevent the war from occurring. For the past 15 years at least, the Europeans have accepted to automatically align all their policies with the US. The days in which French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder could say no to US President George W. Bush have long passed.

In contrast with the Europeans, Trump has the liberty to proclaim, “I’m not Biden and can see things differently.” Whether it’s German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer or Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, none of the strongest European leaders can blame their predecessor for a mistaken position.

This drama for European leaders will continue over the coming weeks. In “Outside the Box,” we will continue working with our AI friends to examine this quandary and what it means in the world of both politics and the media.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.