Prof. John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago thinks the West is to be blamed for what’s happening in Ukraine. But the prevailing wisdom in the West suggests the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in Eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.
Source: https://www.economist.com
Prof. Mearsheimer thinks this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement. The central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement. In recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbour turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” - was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base.
As Prof. Mearsheimer sees it, Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.
But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant. The U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold. The consequences are now laid bare. It would be an even greater mistake to continue this “silly” policy.
Just as the carefully balanced relationship between Taiwan and mainland China has been in place for years, with alternating periods of calm and tension. The same is true in Ukraine. Russia has regularly placed troops on its border with Ukraine, and vice versa.
In 1989 and 1990, Europe went through a massive political earthquake, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and numerous related events. The Western powers and the Soviet Union held a series of meetings to reassure the other that they would not take advantage of the shake-up for purposes of aggressive expansionism.
The buzz phrase that emerged from those discussions was just three words long: “Not one inch.” It came, originally, from the mouth of the US Secretary of State James Baker, on February 9, 1990. NATO, he told Gorbachev, would move “not one inch eastward”.
Fast forward to the present day: NATO has spent years declaring itself a “defensive” rather than “expansionist” force, while its actions show itself doing precisely the opposite, year after year.
The “not one inch” promised has been disregarded, with Western diplomats saying that it was never intended to be lasting, and was never put down on paper, anyway.
Coming back to the present day, what is Russia asking for?
- It is calling on NATO to halt its program of building missile bases in countries bordering or close to Russia’s territory.
- It is asking NATO to withdraw troops in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.
- It is urging NATO to make it clear that Ukraine is not being groomed to join, thus further damaging the 1990 agreement.
Like China, Russia will be painted as the aggressor whatever it does. The western powers will be portrayed as the defenders, whatever they do. But while the press is taking a sharply pro-western angle, academics and the public have a much wider range of views. Russia’s response “is relatively moderate when compared with the American reaction to Moscow’s effort to establish a military presence in Cuba during the 1960s,” he added. Then it was the Monroe doctrine.
What’s the way out? Make Ukraine a neutral state between NATO and Russia (a view expressed by Prof. Mearsheimer). The goal is for a sovereign Ukraine to be “independent” of Russia and the Western camp. That’s like Cuba not being in the Soviet bloc. And will the U.S. allow for that in the first place? Well, the Cuban missile crisis was a testimony to that.
Economic sanctions will not impact Russia, as it is no longer dependent on the West. Russia’s reserves (USD630 billion) are largely in gold and other currencies, not the U.S. dollar. The West, however, needs Russia’s gas – 40% of EU’s natural gas imports are from Russia. So the West maybe inflicting self pain if it goes on with the idea of further economic sanctions.
It is a “no win” situation. Can the U.S. afford to lose another war after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Vietnam? But then again, U.S. military-industrial complex sees war as big business. Throughout the U.S. history, its military-industrial complex has repeatedly manipulated the country’s political decision-making and seen wars as a shortcut to profits, causing one catastrophe after another in the world!
Hopefully, this Valentine’s Day there is more love than aggression.
References:
Why the Ukraine crisis is the west’s fault, John J. Mearsheimer, http://www.foreignaffairs.com
Press stunned as Ukraine leader points finger at west, Seth Mallicks
(https://www.fridayeveryday.com)
U.S. military-industrial complex sees war as shortcut to profits, Zhong Sheng (People's Daily) December 22, 2021
