05 September 2014

Who Is to Blame for the Ukraine Crisis?

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Gangale
@ThomasGangale

This article is written in response to "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin," by John J. Mearsheimer.


*     *     *

John J. Mearsheimer refers to himself as an offensive realist. Although I have never found him to be particularly offensive, I must say that in this article he is not very real. He blames the Ukraine crisis on the West.
First of all, it has been ten years since NATO last expanded eastward. In 2002, Vladimir Putin viewed the upcoming accession of eastern European states, including the former Soviet Baltic states, as "no tragedy," (and a Russian ought to know something about tragedy). To state this as the cause for Putin's aggression in 2014 fails the "giggle test."
Secondly, NATO has never invited Ukraine to become a member. Such invitations are arrived at by consensus, and both France and Germany objected because it might provoke Russia. Well, something else has provoked Russia, but it wasn't that.
Third, what business is it of Russia's if the Ukrainian people want to join the European Union rather than lash themselves to a creaking, corrupt and oppressive reconstitution the Russian Empire? If asked to accept "blame" for supporting Ukraine's right to determine its own future, yeah, cuff me and Mirandize me now!
I realize that Mearsheimer is trying to get into Putin's head with regard to geopolitical thinking. He points out, "A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia." If this is Putin's concern, it's an outmoded one in an era where B-2s can take off from Missouri and nuke Moscow without being detected (yes, Vladimir, we have some as well, let's not go there). International relations scholars have been pointing out the decline in the concept of "strategic depth" since the advent of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950s. Add to this the fact that the US is researching the ability to strike ground targets from orbit, and it becomes obvious that it no longer matters how large your territory is. It's two-dimensional thinking in a three-dimensional universe.
It's good to try to understand your adversary's thinking. Seeing the flaws in his logic may provide opportunities that can be exploited. Sun Tzu still rocks.
Now, let's get real, and what hell, even offensive. Putin is to blame for the crisis.
Being trapped in the contradictions of his autocratic regime, he set in motion a series of events. Because the Russian economy is increasingly mired in the corruption that his regime inevitably fosters, Putin had to lean on Viktor Yanukovych to reject a deal with the European Union. If the Russian economy were more transparent and its politics more open, Ukrainians might have willingly joined a Eurasian Union free trade area, but we'll never know. When Yanukovych knuckled under to Putin's pressure, his own people rose up and overthrew him. Now, under a newly-elected government, Ukrainian integration with the EU is back on track. That's tough for Putin, but it is the will of the Ukrainian people, and it is certainly not the fault of the West.
Nor did the fall of Yanukovich mean that Ukrainian entry into NATO was imminent. Putin apologists claim that he was worried that Russian naval bases in Crimea would become NATO bases. Again, Ukrainian membership in NATO wasn't in the cards any time soon. It was to happen someday when France and Germany were warm and cozy that it would be acceptible to Russia, which might be the Twelfth of Never or on the Greek Kalends. That was a silly thing over which to soil his shorts, but to cover up the stink and the stain, Putin sent his "little green men" to invade Crimea and fomented insurrection in eastern Ukraine. Here's a guy who likes to look tough, but in reality, Putin just flat out lost his nerve.
None of this has improved his hand; rather, it has only made it worse. NATO had no desire to move its forces closer to Russia; now it has no choice but to do so if Article 5 is to have any credibility in Eastern Europe. Nothing could convince Ukrainians that they need to be under NATO's umbrella than this year's events. Finland, which remained neutral during the Cold War, and which shares a long border with Russia, is considering NATO membership in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine; guess how much Putin is going to like it when his home town of Saint Petersburg is a short drive from NATO territory. Even Sweden, which hasn't joined any alliance for more than a century, is taking a look at NATO now. Whose fault is it that Putin has trouble making friends and playing well with others?
Meanwhile, international sanctions are choking off a Russian economy that was not very healthy to begin with, being riddled with the diseases of corruption, oligopoly, and underdeveloped contract law. The last thing any of Russia's neighbors will want is to join a Eurasian Union that Putin is driving into a ditch, pedal to the metal.
That's the tragedy that a once-great power has inflicted on itself. No one else is to blame.
As melodramatic as it was, could anyone have said it better than Princess Leia? "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

No comments: