Blog

On the responsibilities of the West (and especially the US and NATO) on the war in Ukraine

Dr. Evita Dionysiou*

March 25 2022

Introduction

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a military attack on Ukraine. With these military actions, it committed a flagrant violation of international law, undermining European - and international - security and stability. Since then, much ink has been spilled in an attempt to analyze the causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In this context, the view has become popular that NATO bears the main responsibility for the war, because by announcing its expansion to the East, it provoked Russia, violating its red lines. However, to what extent is this claim valid and what are the implications of accepting it?

This article attempts to explain why the claim of NATO's culpability not only stems from a superficial reading of the facts, but can also become extremely dangerous.

The view that NATO is to blame for the Russian attack on Ukraine

The debate about the responsibilities of the US and NATO began with an article by Professor John Mearsheimer, a representative of the realist school of thought, which was published in the journal EconomistIn this article, the view is expressed that the West - and in particular the US and NATO - bear the main responsibility for the war in Ukraine.

According to John Mearsheimer, it all started in April 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, when the then US administration pushed the North Atlantic Alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.” In doing so, the US and NATO ignored Russia’s red lines, leading to its logical and expected reaction. This move by NATO triggered a series of hostilities, which led to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and, ultimately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

So, it's all NATO's fault, which violated Russia's red lines and limited its "living space" (Living Space) needed to breathe[1]As for Ukraine, it was simply the unfortunate one in history, which should accept that it cannot develop closer ties with the West nor identify itself as a Western country, so as not to irritate the Russian "bear" (therefore, the Ukrainian people are deprived of the fundamental right of self-determination!).

This view seemed attractive to those seeking an easy and potentially popular interpretation of events (according to the well-known generalization “America is to blame for everything”), but also to those seeking a pretext to attack the West. However, upon second reading, the view of US and NATO culpability reveals its superficial and – above all – dangerous nature.

The superficial nature of the view that NATO is to blame for the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Supporters of NATO's culpability emphasize that the alternative interpretation of events implies that the responsibility lies solely with Vladimir Putin. Which, in their view, is not true, because it is based on the assumption of the Russian leader's insanity, constituting an oversimplification.

However, the above argument is weak, since Putin's moves should not be interpreted from the perspective of Western logic, but should take into account the completely different temperament of Russia. So, if we put Western thinking aside, we will find that Putin's actions are not necessarily interpreted as the actions of a madman. On the contrary, upon closer inspection, they reveal a very specific plan of the Russian President and a very specific "reading" of the balance of power in the international system.

Initially, it should be emphasized that Putin never hid his dissatisfaction with the post-war order and the post-war professional status quo, and he also never hid his revisionist aspirations. In a series of his articles and speeches, he repeatedly stated the position that Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians are one people, which belongs to historical Russia (a position that some analysts insist on ignoring to this day, considering that it is formulated solely for reasons of internal consumption).

The question, therefore, is not why Putin developed an aggressive policy against Ukraine (although the scale of the attack is still shocking). The question is why he chose to implement his revisionist project at the present time. It is estimated that the choice of the given moment is related to Putin’s “reading” of the international system, who diagnosed that the West had entered a stage of decline, giving him the impression that, in the event of the implementation of a Russian expansionist plan, the main actors of the West (the USA, NATO and the European Union) would not be able and/or would not have the will to react.

Specifically, as far as the US is concerned, it has been in a phase of self-restraint and introversion for years, showing that it was unable and/or no longer wished to maintain the reins of the free world. This policy of withdrawal had begun under Barack Obama, became particularly evident during Donald Trump's four-year term and, to some extent, continued under Joe Biden's presidency. In addition, in terms of foreign policy, the US had turned its attention to Asia (and not to Europe), in order to face the challenge of China. All of this created the impression that the US had withdrawn from the old continent and had now turned its attention either to its multiple internal issues or to China (which was its main rival). The humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan further supported the position of US international weakness.

Regarding NATO, as Emmanuel Macron aptly observed in 2019, it was a “brain-dead” alliance, characterized by a lack of strategic clarity. The French President still uses the example of Turkey (a NATO member state) threatening Greece (another NATO member state) to demonstrate the weakness of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Furthermore, the European Union was extremely weak in terms of foreign policy and security and defense policy, often failing to draw a common line on critical issues. Its overall weakness was exacerbated by the fact that for the first time in its history it was faced with the activation of Article 50 TEU and the withdrawal of an important member state, the United Kingdom (Brexit). But also at the level of the Union's member states, illiberal forces had begun to emerge, not favorable to the project of European integration. To all this, one should add the European Union's energy dependence on Russia, which made its reluctance to get involved in a Russian-Ukrainian conflict possible.

It is estimated that the above created in Putin the feeling that the West was in a state of lethargy and that the situation was favorable for the implementation of his revisionist goals (which, as we mentioned above, he had made clear a long time ago).

From this perspective, the war in Ukraine was not the logical consequence of NATO's actions. Even if we accept John Mearsheimer's working hypothesis that NATO is responsible for the decision to expand eastward, this decision can only be interpreted as a cause that led to further tension in relations between the two sides. However, in no case can it be interpreted as the cause of Russia's military invasion of an independent state.

The claim of NATO's culpability, moreover, runs counter to the fact that, when Putin decided to attack, the West seemed to have already accepted that expanding the alliance to Ukraine was extremely difficult (if not impossible).

To take our thinking even further, the argument about NATO's culpability completely disregards the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and their expressed will for closer relations with the West.

From this perspective, the war in Ukraine was not a logical consequence of NATO's eastward expansion moves. Nor did it stem from the irrationality of a deranged leader. On the contrary, the war in Ukraine is part of the implementation of a very specific plan by Putin, which was based on a prima facie logical "reading" of the international system and the balance of power.

The dangerous implications that accepting the above view can have

The above explains why the argument about NATO's culpability is superficial. However, the main issue with this claim lies not so much in the superficial reading of the facts on which it is based, but in the fact that its use can be extremely dangerous.

Specifically, if we decide to blame the US and NATO for Russia's military invasion of Ukraine, then by the same logic, an excuse will be found for future revisionist moves by other states that are equally dissatisfied with the current situation. professional status quoOne can understand how negative this would be for Greece, given Turkey's revisionist and expansionist ambitions.

Moreover, if we go so far as to characterize Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a logical and expected reaction to NATO's moves, then, by the same logic, we could justify Hitler's heinous crimes as a logical and expected reaction of Germany to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles! However, the burning situation in which Europe has currently found itself requires the meticulous filtering of every position, before it is formulated, taking into account any implications that its adoption could have.

Military invasion as a boomerang for Russia

Despite the fact that the choice of this specific time period for the implementation of Russia's expansionist ambitions was based on the assumption that the West was in decline, this move backfired for Putin, as it led to an unprecedented reaction and rallying of the Western world.

In particular, the US realized that it could no longer focus its foreign policy solely on China and distance itself from what was happening on the old continent. The “brain-dead” NATO was awakened from its slumber, with its member states increasing their defense spending. The European Union, for its part, realized the urgent need for geopolitical and strategic adulthood, managing - in a very short time - to rally and draw a common, dynamic line against the Russian attack on Ukraine (an event which creates hopes for further unification in the crucial areas of foreign policy and security and defense policy).

From this perspective, the Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to have strengthened the very actors and institutions it sought to dismantle.

Conclusions

The above analysis in no way seeks to offer an exhaustive explanation of the causes of the war in Ukraine. After all, such an explanation would be premature while the war is raging. The aim of this article is to provide an initial approach and interpretation, focusing mainly on the refutation of certain superficial and potentially dangerous views.

In conclusion, then, the war in Ukraine cannot be interpreted as a logical consequence of NATO's eastward expansion moves. Does this mean that the West has not made mistakes? It has, but in no case should they be treated as the genesis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Furthermore, the war in Ukraine should not be interpreted as the result of the irrationality of a mad leader. On the contrary, the military invasion of Ukraine is part of the implementation of a very specific plan by Putin, which was based on a seemingly logical “reading” of the international system and the balance of power: the West was in decline and the timing seemed ideal for the implementation of the Russian President’s goals.

In any case, regardless of its underlying causes, Russia's military invasion of Ukraine constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and is directed against democracy itself and its fundamental principles and values. To use the words of the President of the European Council Charles Michel: "THE Putin sees democracy as a pandemic. A pandemic from which he fears infection.”.

It is the duty of the entire democratic world, therefore, to stand by Ukraine and condemn - without asterisks and offsets, without "yes, buts" - Russia's unjustified invasion of an independent state. It must also not attempt to shift the responsibility for the war to any other actor than Russia, because such a thing could prove extremely dangerous.

It would be good, therefore, to keep in mind that the stance we take today towards the flagrant violation of international law and the principles and values ​​of democracy defines our limits towards possible future expansionist moves by other states - with all that this implies for Greece - that question not only the current professional status quo, but also democracy itself and the values ​​of the West.

Ms. Evita Dionysiou holds a PhD in International Economic Law/European Law. She is Professor of European Law at the Hellenic Police Officers' School. She also teaches a series of courses at postgraduate and undergraduate level at the Metropolitan College, in collaboration with British Universities. She is a member of the Hellenic Institute for Strategic Studies.

ELISMES' NOTE

"The opinions of the columnists whose work is posted on our page do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Institute.”