Was the West lulled into a false sense of security by the expansion of NATO and the European Union in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“People who are used to acting in one way will not change; they will be destroyed when the times change, they will no longer match their ways” – Niccolò Machiavelli
It goes without saying that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an unjust travesty, a violation of human rights and that Putin is a crazy dictator. But this article is not about how bad / unfair / reprehensible the war in Ukraine – it is an analysis of the situation, and what can be prevented, by looking through the lens of realpolitik.
To start, let’s go back in time. On the evening of Christmas Day 1991, the guards lowered the Soviet “hammer and sickle” flag in Red Square and replaced it with the Russian tricolor. As the sun set, literally and figuratively on the Russian Empire, so did Russia’s global pre-eminence. Before its breakup, the Soviet Union was the second or third-largest economy in the world. The military is second only to the United States and has significant political influence, from Communist Cuba, to North Korea.
In 1999 at the Washington Summit, a few months before Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia (on December 31); Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO, despite Russian opposition. The Baltics and several other Eastern European countries will follow in 2004, bringing the world’s most powerful military alliance to Russia’s doorstep. All this happens when Russia is at its weakest, GDP (PPP) is about half that of Germany (now they are mostly the same), its economy. restructured of the Soviet system, and at military already underfunded as a result of at economic crisis. The leader of this weakened country is the man who in 2005 described the dissolution of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical disaster of this century.”
“If an injury must be done to a person, it must be so severe that revenge need not be feared” – Niccolò Machiavelli
From a realpolitik perspective – the post-1990 period was the right time to expand NATO. Russia is the weakest and can do nothing to prevent expansion – there are too many internal problems to worry about.
However, it should be noted that at this time, certain elements in Russia seem, on balance, to perceive NATO expansion as a threat. There is some evidence to suggest that the West can reassure Russia that NATO will not expand as it did last time. US Secretary of State James Baker famously said he had assured Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not one inch to the east”.
This argument is rather theoretical, but. From a realpolitik perspective, this is the right time to expand and ensure that Russia, a powerful country due to its population and resources, will be more difficult to become a threat again. Threads from realpolitik and personal interests can be found in the policies of the US Administrations at the time. Bush Administration officials (1989-1993) seem eager to expand US influence. In the Clinton Administration, Secretary of State Madeline Albright appeared to recognize the future threat that Russia could pose, and the role that NATO could play in mitigating that threat, noted. in testimony before the US Senate that the United States:
“Can’t ‘rule out’ the possibility that Russia could go back to the pattern Back then. Therefore, expanding NATO helps to ‘close the way to further destruction alternative in the future of Russia”
If this is the plan, it works. The prospect of Russia becoming a country that approximated the military and economic might of the Soviet Union was quite bleak; given the degree of political and economic integration between most countries under the former influence of Russia and NATO/EU.
What do Georgia and Ukraine have in common?
Four things,
-
Aspiration to join NATO (participate in continuous dialogue)
-
Border with Russia
-
Failed to join NATO before 2004
-
An ongoing territorial dispute with Russia
It is evident that these factors are all interrelated, with one contributing to the other. Ukraine and Georgia are both trying to join the party, so to speak, of NATO. Georgia “turned to the West” after the Rose Revolution in 2003, pursuing a pro-Western foreign policy and NATO membership. Russia invaded five years later in 2008, and declared war by eliminating Georgia’s prospect of joining NATO. The situation in Ukraine (Euromaidan Uprising, 2013-2014), followed by the seizure of Crimea, can be seen in the same context.
After the beginning of the 2000s, Russia is in a very different place than it was in the 1990s – when Poland, the Baltics and other important Eastern European countries started discussions to join NATO. By 2008, Russia had largely won the long and bloody war/insurgency in Chechnya and economic and defense spending had increased roughly fivefold since 2000. Russia’s trade with Europe had also grown, with critical fuel exports rising nearly sevenfold in between the years 2000. & 2008, and increased further since then. Suffice it to say that Russia is in a stronger position to assert its national interests (justified or not), and it is clear that the Kremlin does not see the pro-Western orientation of Georgia, and then the Government of Ukraine as a national interest of Russia.
It should be noted that Russia acting “to protect its interests” (rightly or wrongly) in neighboring countries is not anathema to countries such as the US. US foreign policy often counts America as part of the US “circle of influence”. A notion underpinned by for a long time, and frequently reinterpreted principles such as the Monroe Doctrine. The US is also no stranger to overthrowing democratically elected Governments to protect its interests – during the Cold War the United States acted to overthrow several democratically elected Marxist Governments in South America, apparently preferring right-wing dictators to democratically left-wing ones. elected leaders. Bottom line – the US needs to understand the danger Russia poses due to its own historical behavior.
“Wisdom consists in knowing how to distinguish nature from obstacles, and choosing the lesser evil” – Niccolò Machiavelli
Focusing specifically on the current Russia-Ukraine War, the above discussion suggests that NATO (and the European Union for that matter) could, or should, have managed the situation differently after Russia’s re-emergence as a powerful state in the early 2000s. Rejecting the prospect of NATO / EU membership for Ukraine at any point before February 17, 2022 can force the Ukrainian political elite to use a balanced approach to improve relations with the West, to the extent possible, while also placating Moscow. With the prospect of NATO or EU membership taken off the table, Ukraine may become a buffer state and war could be prevented.
We might even go further and suggest that NATO is doing a disservice to Ukraine (and Georgia) by withholding the prospect of membership in the way it is doing. At the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, a summit attended by Putin, NATO welcomed the membership prospects of Georgia and Ukraine and agreed “these countries will become NATO members”. At the Brussels summit in 2021, NATO leaders said that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance.
To be clear again – the author does not agree with the Russian invasion of Ukraine from a moral or geopolitical point of view. All countries have the right to self-determination and the efforts of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people deserve respect.
But… to use another Machiavelli quote in this article – “Politics has nothing to do with morality.” Especially after the Georgian War in 2008, maybe NATO should see that further expansion of the alliance will antagonize Russia and increase the prospect of war in Europe. In this context, publicly holding out membership prospects for Ukraine, in the absence of a membership solution that will keep Russia happy, it is arguably irresponsible. After all, NATO will not put boots on the ground to defend Ukraine if it does not gain membership, and it seems clear that Russia will certainly attack before membership. Perhaps in today’s geopolitical context, Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO would be futile and make war inevitable.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Please share using the link below. ▼▼