To understand the roots of the Russia's invasion of Ukraine one need look no further than to one of International Relation's most prevalent, but trendily ignored theories, realism. More specifically as John Mearsheimer coined it, offensive realism. In short, Offensive realism posits that states are self interested, wary of other states, and always looking to maximize power vis-à-vis other states; because the international system has no supranational oversight institution it is by definition anarchic, so gaining power is the best way to ensure a state's survival.
If you assume this theory to be strong, which history has proven time and again you should, looking at the Ukraine issue from Russia's, and more specifically Vladimir Putin's perspective, it's clear he's only acting as a rational leader would be expected to. This is no moral judgement on Putin's character, but quite frankly in international relations morality has a minuscule role to play.
Take a minute to put yourself in Putin's shoes. Beginning with the Clinton administration in the late 1990's NATO began its expansion eastward towards the Russian border by adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Then in 2004 seven more Eastern European countries including post-Soviet states Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were added. Then in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit NATO promised future entry to Georgia and Ukraine. In 2009 Croatia and Albania were also added.
Now as a rational actor how should Putin react in such a situation? Should he be expected to simply acquiesce to a NATO presence on Russia's doorstep? Remember this is the same collective treaty thats main reason for inception was as a bull-work against the Soviet Union. Putin was very clear about his position at the Bucharest Summit when he said NATO's promise that Ukraine would one day become a NATO member was a "direct threat" to Russian security. He also went on to say Moscow could aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine should it join NATO. Would the United States simply sit idly and allow China to station troops in Mexico? Of course not. If US policy makers took even a minute to read Mearsheimer or any other realist scholar, this would be blatantly obvious to them. Remember the lengths the Reagan administration went through to make sure Communism was defeated in Nicaragua, a country that hales in comparison to Ukraine when it comes to strategic value.
If NATO expansion wasn't enough to ruffle Putin's feathers, the 2013-14 Maidan Revolution was certainly the nail in the coffin. The Maidan Revolution was an uprising in Ukraine which was triggered when pro-Russian, albeit democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected an economic deal with the European Union in favor of a more lucrative deal with Moscow. As many Ukrainians wanted stronger ties with the EU the deal was seen as a betrayal of popular demand by the president. Ensuing protests that resulted in the death of about 130 Ukrainians eventually ended with the ousting of Yanukovych as he fled to Russia.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with popular uprising against an unpopular ruler. However, it's the specifics of the revolution that one must consider to understand Russian perception. Whether or not the direct cause of the civilian uprising, The West, more specifically the United States, had been pushing for Yanukovych's removal for quite some time. According to Victoria Nuland, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, between 1991 and 2013 the United States had spent about $5 billion to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves." This included funding the Endowment for Democracy which funded opposition to Yanukovych when they determined he was standing in the way of their progress.
Infamous bankroller George Soros also spent his fair share in promoting "democracy" in Ukraine. According to the Atlantic Council, since 1990 Soros has spent $181 million in support of 17,000 civil institution in Ukraine. In a 2014 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Soros even admitted that his foundation played a roll in the overthrow of Yanukovych.
Aside from providing funding, US politicians and beauracrats openly expressed their support for the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected leader. In a leaked phone call with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, the earlier mentioned Victoria Nuland stated the State Department favored opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Unsurprisingly after Yanukovych was forced out, Yatsenyuk became the new Prime Minister. Senator John McCain flew to Kyiv to be with the protestors, exclaiming at a rally, "We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe."
The goal of the liberal internationalists and neo-conservatives has been, and still is, to spread democracy across the globe by any means necessary. In their eyes the unipolar world of the post Cold War era, which saw the United States as lone global hegemon, provided the opportunity to transform the world, starting with Eastern Europe, into one giant liberal democracy. In 2014 they successfully accomplished this task in Ukraine.
Many pundits are now asking the very reasonable question, "Why would Putin stop with just Ukraine? Why shouldn't we expect him to pursue domination over all of the former Soviet Union?" In the same breath we must ask ourselves the reverse. Why would Putin expect the regime change to stop in 2014 with Ukraine? Would it not be reasonable to for him to see Russia as the next prize for the liberals and neo-cons?
Congressman Dan Crenshaw recently tweeted "Those who denied Putin’s evil and portrayed him as “looking out for his national interest” have been thoroughly disabused of that notion." I would like to ask Crenshaw why he thinks this? Because Putin launched a war? Simply because Putin did something destructive and evil doesn't mean he only did so because he is some sort of mad man. History is rife with nations committing atrocities because they perceived it in their national interest to do so. Imperial Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor because the leadership in Tokyo was insane, It did so because Japanese policy makers thought it was the only way to prevent inevitable destruction at the hands of America.
Like Pearl Harbor, Putin's invasion of Ukraine should be condemned as an evil act. One that will certainly lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Ukrainians. At the time of writing the latest estimate is that 352 civilians have already been killed. In response the US and its NATO allies should continue to provide ample support in the forms of harsh sanctions against Moscow and adequate weaponry to Ukrainian forces.
However, a response like Crenshaw's is unadvised. Simply portraying Putin as an unhinged boogeyman gives policy makers an excuse to proceed with reckless abandoned and this heightens the chance of escalation beyond Ukraine's borders. Like Pearl Harbor, Russia's invasion can reasonably be viewed, at least in part, as a preemptive strategic action against Western domination.
For decades, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western governments have failed to treat Russia as a rational actor worthy of respect and understanding (see NATO / UN intervention in Bosnia as one example). This disregard for the Russian perspective is part of the reason that Ukraine finds itself in its current distraught position. If this attitude continues it could push Putin even further than he's already gone. Remember nuclear weapons don't just exist in the movies.
Yes, Russia should absolutely be met with an appropriately harsh response. What it is doing in Ukraine is nothing short of evil and anyone praising Putin as some sort of champion of conservatism should study his life more closely. However, the main goal should be resolving the conflict with a focus on minimizing loss of life. In order to accomplish this the US and European NATO members should follow the advice of Sun Tzu when he said, "A surrounded army must be given a way out." This means that the notion of a forced regime change in Russia should be wrapped up and placed in an incinerator.
If the US continues to treat every opposition actor as a "bad guy that's crazy and insane because he's bad and mean" then we will find ourselves right back in the same place we are right now. We need to tame our hubris and realize that strategic concerns of authoritarians are just as valid as those of liberal democracies. This means, Kim Jong-un, the Iranians, and most of all Xi Jinping. This does not mean bending over to meet every desire some dictator might have, but understanding their positions will help Washington develop a more coherent strategy with a higher likelihood of avoiding disaster like the one currently playing out in Ukraine.
Comments