Vladimir Putin. Illustrated Getty Images, iStock
Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine has sparked a heated debate over NATO that erupted in the Senate last week. Some say NATO’s eastward expansion has accelerated the conflict, threatening Russian security. Others say that because the alliance is purely defensive, the only “threat” it posed was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s irredentist aspirations.
The last argument is wrong. Whether NATO threatens Russia or not, Putin believed so, and that belief justified his decision to invade. In addition, Putin’s fears were predictable, and the war could have been averted if Washington had taken them seriously.
On the eve of the invasion, the White House declined to discuss NATO enlargement with Moscow. Senior official Derek Cholet defended the refusal. “NATO is a defense alliance. “NATO is not a threat to Russia,” he said, suggesting that the issue was not Russia’s business.
Showing the same, Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO from 2009-2013, said the organization “is a defense alliance, not just in theory; in fact, it is in fact a defense union. “
But years earlier, in 1999, Daalder had authored a report “reflecting on the evolution of NATO from a collective defense alliance to a crisis management organization.” He reflected on the conditions for using force for this new, evolving NATO: “The traditional criterion of self-defense against armed attack on the homeland of any of its members is too narrow.”
Daalder noted that NATO has used military force in Bosnia and Kosovo, “although the Article 5 collective defense commitment is not directly at stake.” He said there was “no doubt” that the alliance could initiate a force and concluded that NATO should emphasize “its readiness in principle to participate in the full range of possible military missions”. A few weeks later, NATO began bombing Serbia to punish human rights abuses.
The story continues
In 2011, NATO again used military force outside the scope of Article 5, this time against Libya. The NATO-imposed no-fly zone enjoyed UN support, but turned into a regime change operation. “The Libyan people are getting rid of the dictator,” then-Vice President Biden said hours after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was assassinated. “NATO has understood correctly … This is more of a recipe for how to deal with the world as we move forward.”
Even if NATO were a “defense alliance”, Ukraine’s accession would affect Russian security. Prior to the invasion, Putin clarified why he thought Ukraine would be an immediate threat to NATO: since the West does not recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, he speculated that any conflict there could be seen as a Russian attack on Ukraine, triggering Article 5.
These were not the words of a “crazy man.” In 2008, Russia’s ambassador and current CIA director, William Burns, said that “Ukraine’s entry into NATO is the brightest of all the red lines for Russia’s elite (not just Putin).” In two and a half years of talks with hardliners, liberals and everyone in between, Burns failed to “find someone who sees Ukraine in NATO as something other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests.”
Back in Washington, intelligence analyst Fiona Hill advised President George W. Bush not to invite Ukraine to NATO. “So you’re telling me you’re against freedom and democracy,” said Vice President Dick Cheney.
Bush sided with Cheney. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Bush pressured reluctant European leaders to welcome Ukraine into the Membership Action Plan (MAP), a program that prepares nations for membership. NATO did not go that far, but announced that Ukraine would one day join the alliance. Putin then warned, not for the first time, that Moscow would view Ukraine in NATO as a “direct threat.”
Unable to make Ukraine a member of NATO, the United States has turned it into a NATO outpost, providing billions of military aid, conducting joint military exercises, conducting secret paramilitary training programs, exchanging intelligence and even engaging in cyber operations against the Russian government. The United States has created the worst of all worlds for Ukraine – a provocative NATO representative on Russia’s doorstep, but without the NATO security umbrella.
Putin is guilty of his criminal attack on Ukraine. But the prospect of Ukraine in NATO has heightened Moscow’s perception of the threat and made a geopolitical explosion more likely. The fact that the United States has refused to discuss the issue with Russia is particularly mystifying, given that Western leaders have privately told Kyiv that “you will not be a member of NATO.” A more rational diplomatic strategy would be to advertise that NATO will not bring Ukraine into the MAP unless and until Russia attacks.
We will never know whether serious diplomacy could prevent war, but it can still solve the crisis. The Biden administration must work with the European allies to mediate an agreement that makes Ukraine a neutral state. Formal neutrality is much better than being a battlefield of great powers – and it cuts both directions. If Russia withdraws all military forces and stops interfering with its smaller neighbor, NATO’s door must remain closed to Ukraine.
You may like more
The United States is allowing Ukraine to test mysterious new Phoenix Ghost drones
Ukraine says it destroyed Russia’s Izyum command center, killing 200, but simply missed Russia’s top general
3 explosive political consequences of Roe’s overthrow
Add Comment