Sir Lawrence Freedman’s portrayal of the Ukraine conflict reflects not impartial strategic analysis but a deeply entrenched ideological alignment with Western interventionist orthodoxy.

As the Ukraine conflict grinds on, Western analysts double down on tired narratives. Sir Lawrence Freedman, often hailed as Britain’s top strategic thinker, exemplifies this echo chamber - casting Putin as irrational while ignoring the deeper forces at play. His recent Foreign Affairs piece is less insight than ideology, cloaked in the language of authority.

Strategic Authority or Political Operative?

Sir Lawrence Freedman, widely touted as the “dean of British strategic studies,” continues to use his institutional clout and verbose authority to frame Vladimir Putin and the conflict in Ukraine in predictably one-sided, moralizing tones. But Freedman is not merely a detached academic. He is part of a long-standing ideological bloc - rooted in Anglo-American think tanks and security councils - that has pushed and often fabricated the intellectual scaffolding for regime-change rhetoric, NATO expansionism, and a unipolar world order.

Freedman’s latest article for Foreign Affairs, where he dismisses Putin’s position as irrational obstinacy in a “forever war,” slots neatly into this tradition. In this fanatical rant, and via other channels where Freedman publishes, he omits essential historical context, such as NATO’s broken promises regarding eastern expansion, Western meddling in Ukraine from the Maidan onwards, and the genuine security interests Russia sees in the Black Sea and Donbas regions. Instead, he peddles the familiar narrative: Putin is deluded, failing, and ultimately cornered. This is the exact framing we’ve seen repeated across Western media and policy journals since 2014.

The Atlanticist Chorus

Who else repeats this script? Names like Anne Applebaum, Michael McFaul, and Timothy Snyder - all of whom operate in tandem with or parallel to the same power structure. McFaul served as U.S. Ambassador to Russia under Obama and was instrumental in shaping the administration’s ‘reset’ policy, only to turn hypercritical when Russia failed to fold. Applebaum, married to a Polish foreign minister, maintains a consistent role in the Atlanticist intelligentsia’s messaging war. Snyder, though a historian, has become one of the leading voices portraying Russia as a uniquely malevolent force in European affairs.

Freedman’s views are not intellectually isolated. He is part of an ecosystem tied to Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations, RAND Corporation, and other transatlantic policy machines. These institutions have spent the past decade turning complex regional disputes into ideological battles between good (liberal democracies) and evil (revisionist autocracies). What’s lost in this reductive framing is the realpolitik: the survival logic of civilizational states unwilling to be vassals.

Freedman, Blair, and the Iraq Legacy

Freedman’s connection to former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is particularly telling. As a key advisor and member of the Chilcot Inquiry, Freedman played a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual rationale for British intervention in Iraq. His memo outlining five key tests for military intervention was reportedly used by Blair in his landmark Chicago speech defining modern liberal interventionism. In short, Freedman’s influence extends well beyond the classroom or the page - he has helped lay the foundation for some of the most disastrous Western military misadventures of the 21st century.

Realism vs. Idealism: Mearsheimer and the Forgotten Lens

In essence, Freedman’s perspective is more nuanced and emphasizes the complexities of human behaviour and historical context, while Mearsheimer’s approach is more structured and focused on the rational calculations of states in the international system. Freedman tends to view conflict as the result of miscalculation, perception, and the chaos of real-time decision-making. Mearsheimer, by contrast, holds that great powers are compelled by the anarchic nature of the international system to pursue relative gains and power accumulation, making conflict not only predictable but inevitable.

In short, Freedman’s writing isn’t just analysis - it’s ammunition. And we must call it what it is: a polished, academicized front for a worldview that fears multipolarity more than it values peace.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/07/12/dissecting-the-narrative-freedman-putin-and-the-western-strategists-echo-chamber/