Three Ways the US and the West Helped Create this Crisis
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a big ugly mess, and it could have been avoided.
Let me first state that I unequivocally condemn the invasion. It’s illegal / criminal, and will likely lead to the death and injury of thousands of people. I hope Ukrainians find peace as quickly as possible, maintain their sovereignty, and hold onto the power to choose their own government.
But the bulk of the analysis on Russia’s invasion that I have witnessed on the major news channels is nothing short of disingenuous. A lot of chest thumping from (largely Washington DC and London based) pundits about how Putin is “evil”, he committed a “strategic mistake”, or how he is increasingly “irrational”. However, the silence on the US and the West’s complicity in creating this situation is truly deafening.
Three factors helped to create this crisis:
- The treatment of Russia after the fall of the USSR
- The military adventurism of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The expansion of NATO
Dancing on the Grave of the Soviet Union
After the fall of the Soviet Union, where an entire political system disintegrated, the West proceeded to humiliate Russia.
Whereas Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WWII and after committing horrific war crimes, the territories of the former Soviet Union were given the opposite treatment. Instead of the robust support provided to Axis Powers to rebuild and become well functioning democracies, financial support for a failing Russia was tied to a wholesale program of deregulation and privatization, known as “shock therapy”. Mass unemployment, economic collapse and a breakdown of social norms ensued. As documented by economic historian John Gray, former Soviet states became what he called “anarcho-capitalist”, run by various mafia organizations and oligarchs, with little regulation and rule of law.
The reason why Germany and Japan were treated so differently was the experience and analysis of the aftermath of WWI. The Treatise of Versailles which was imposed on Germany in the aftermath of WWI, imposed severe reparations (money to be paid by Germany to the Allies) for Germany’s role in WWI. From the point of view of France and the UK, it was likely considered justified. But in Germany it created economic pain and was considered to be a humiliation. It created a great sense of resentment in Germany and became the cause célèbre that Hitler used as a populist strategy to gain popularity, railing against Germany’s oppressors. It was widely acknowledged by historians such as J.K. Galbraith that the harsh punishments imposed on Germany after WWI were some of the key ingredients that led to Germany’s rearming and aggression in WWII. Wanting to learn from history, and create a bulwark against socialism / communism, the West, especially the US through the Marshall Plan, opted to rebuild Germany, Italy and Japan in the aftermath of WWII.
So why was Russia treated so differently after the dissolution of the USSR? Russia had been an ally to France, the UK and US in both WWI and WWII. In WWI it was an ineffectual ally, but in WWII Russia did the bulk of the fighting against the Germans. The Russians were responsible for destroying the majority of German divisions, and did the lions share of sacrifice in human lives. This paved the way for an easier invasion of Normandy by the US, UK and French forces.
The US and USSR had been locked in an epic struggle through the Cold War. Through many decades of proxy war, attitudes and ideologies hardened. And the Soviet Union disintegrated at the apex of neoliberal economic doctrine. When the USSR imploded American diplomatic hawks considered themselves victors. If they were, they treated their Cold War enemy much differently than they did Germany and Japan, who were rebuilt after WWII.
With shock therapy in play, deregulation and privatization, a vast amount of public wealth was auctioned off. Corruption at the highest levels allowed a few individuals to quickly accumulate vast wealth. The rule of law made way for the mafia. A new system of oligarchs and mafias became how Russia and its former territories were run. Instead of having adequate institutions and capabilities built to create a functioning democracy and rule of law economy, Russia ended up with a people compromised by unemployment, fear, illegality, corruption, inequality. (One statistic is telling: the life expectancy of men during this period dropped by 8 whole years, from 65 years in 1987 to 57 years in 1994). Russia’s pride had been damaged and its people struggled.
From these ashes rose a former KGB officer that would become Russia’s strong man, who would tame and bring order to the oligarchs and bring pride back to his people. Does this story sound familiar?
The US in Iraq and Afghanistan
The Cold War framed the logic of geopolitical struggle in the 20th Century. The US supported and armed allies and “client states” as a bulwark against Socialism. The USSR supported and armed allies and “client states” to expand Socialism and create favourable conditions for itself. Tragically, proxy wars that were part of the Cold War are too numerous to list.
After the end of the Cold War the US and Russia were technically no longer enemies. When the US was attacked Sept 11th 2001, the US public began baying for blood. Al-Qaeda with its sleeper cells could be everywhere and nowhere. It was not an easy target. Osama Bin Laden was thought to be hiding in Afghanistan, and that became a concrete objective. But while the Taliban in Afghanistan tried to negotiate with Washington (arguing they would not support Bin Laden), as they knew they were no match for US military power, President George W. Bush’s administration was hell bent on invasion and occupation. Considered a retaliation for 9/11, it was a popular move with the US public.
But while the US had armed the Mujahideen (which Bin Laden fought with) against the USSR in the 80’s as part of a proxy war struggle (most notably with the highly potent stinger missiles that could take out aircraft), two decades later the Russian’s would not in any way arm the Taliban, on the run after the US invasion. In 2001 Russia and the US were rivals but not “enemies”. And, radical “jihadist” Islamic militias and organisations were considered to be a common enemy of both the US and Russia. It was hard to say in the short term whether the US occupation of Afghanistan could be consider effectual and a success, but over the long term, 20 years on, it has clearly been a veritable disaster, costing untold lives, untold wasted resources, and with Afghanistan in the grip of an humanitarian disaster today.
Two years later, in 2003, the US would embark on a truly imbecilic adventure, the Invasion of Iraq. Concocting a pre-tense for invasion, the Bush administration fabricated the lie that Saddam Hussein was developing “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD). The Bush inner circle drummed up the fear of WMDs using the typical news channels, with particular support from Fox News, despite the fact that the US’ own intelligence communities (CIA / NSA) were not going along for the ride. Colin Powell even went in front of the UN Security Council to make the claim they had evidence, even though that evidence was either flimsy or false. In the end, the US did not get the support of the UNSC, and their attack on Iraq was illegal, without any legal or justifiable mandate.
This is how Putin reacted to the imminent attack on Iraq:
“We stand for resolving the problem exclusively through peaceful means,” Putin said at a meeting with Muslim religious leaders at the Kremlin. “Any other option would be a mistake. It would be fraught with the gravest consequences. It will result in casualties and destabilize the international situation in general." (Source: Washington Post)
Putin was also considering the impacts of an Iraq invasion on his own country:
“Russia has a community of 20 million Muslims, and we cannot but take their opinion into account. I fully share their concerns,” Putin said at the meeting, which was scheduled to discuss an upcoming referendum in Russia’s predominantly Muslim breakaway republic of Chechnya. (Source: Washington Post)
This does not sound like an evil or irrational man who makes strategic mistakes. The mistake was on the side of the Americans, who would cost the lives of an estimated 1/2 million to 1 million Iraqi lives, and spend well over 3 Trillion dollars waging a war that would de-stabalize the region, and help give rise to Daesh / ISIS when Syria succumbed to war.
Over the past two decades the US has been a role model to both Russia and China. Actions can speak louder than words. Through its actions it has largely said, we don’t need to follow an international rule based system, if you are big enough you can get away with murder, and the criminal activity of our leaders will remain unpunished.
Over the last two decades the US has helped to foment a chaotic world geopolitical dynamic where great powers use force unaccountably within their spheres of influence.
The North Atlantic Treatise Organization (NATO)
It’s completely understandable that former Soviet client states such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, after experiencing the repression of Socialist / Communist dictatorship and totalitarianism, would want to ensure that it didn’t happen again. Joining NATO was a strong security measure for former countries of the Eastern Block. For existing members, NATO would also increased its size and security buffer zone with these new countries. It would take longer for aircraft, missiles and ground forces to reach Western nations and would be a greater deterrent to any attack.
In 1990 in the aftermath of glasnost and the end of the Iron Curtain, however, Russian leaders were asking for something different. NATO was seen as an historic threat to Russia. It was the historic alliance it had confronted during the Cold War on the European continent.
Declassified documents show that in the early days of glasnost, Gorbachev and Russian officials were given clear guarantees and assurances by US and Western representatives (George Bush, James Baker, etc.) that NATO would not expand Eastward. The expansion of NATO was a deal-stopper for the Russians. The US and the West wanted Russia to dismantle the Iron Curtain and retreat militarily from the Eastern Block, and Russia wanted guarantees that if they did, there would be no expansion of NATO. The documents, published by George Washington University, state:
Not once, but three times, [James] Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (Source: George Washington University archives)
Gorbachev, in addition to the non-expansion of NATO, wanted a broader European security framework that included Russia. This is made clear in the flowing quote from the declassified archives:
The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure — one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (Source: George Washington University archives)
Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first President, was also very clear with Western leaders that he wanted a common European security framework, even going so far as to tell Western leaders directly that in fact Russia wanted to join NATO. If Poland got to join and Russia didn’t, that would not be acceptable. If Poland joins and Russia also gets to join, that would be acceptable. In a letter to Western leaders, Yeltsin:
went on to remind Western leaders that Russia had also expressed an interest in joining the Atlantic alliance and to make clear that President Yeltsin would view the admission of Poland or the Czech Republic, without simultaneous NATO membership for Russia, as unacceptable. (Source: New York Times)
It’s also clear that, consistent with Russian’s desire for a dignified relationship within the European community, that even people as nationalistic as Putin considered joining NATO. Putin wanted to join NATO, is was reported, but “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner” (Source: The Guardian).
Three Russian leaders, all of them wanting to belong to a common security arrangement, wanting respect, and wanting security guarantees, either expressed an interest in joining NATO or in belonging to some different common European security framework. Gorbachev did not want NATO expansion, Yeltsin could accept NATO expansion if Russia was included, and Putin could accept joining NATO as an equal partner. How different things would be today if Western and US leaders had listened and responded.
Conclusion
The point of reviewing these factors is not to find blame, but in understanding how we got here, and therefore understanding ways of resolving the conflict. Talking about “enemies”, “evil” people and the like is an oversimplified characterization of reality. It gives people the false impression that they understand the issues, or gives people a sense of moral superiority. Chest thumping and moralizing can feel good. But understanding an issue means understanding the causes of an issue.
The arrogance and recklessness of Western and US leaders, the failure to support Russia in the aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, an unwillingness to listen to the desires and concerns of Russian leaders and an inability to follow up with promises about NATO, and the promotion of a lawless international geopolitical environment through US adventurism and exceptionalism, were all complicit in the current crisis. These factors, which played out over several decades, increased the likelihood of this outcome.
But complicity does not mean causality. Of course the West or US cannot be blamed for this. It was ultimately Putin’s decision, his military. He bears the ultimate responsibility, along with his inner circle. In addition to these factors he has his own reasons — which everyone is now speculating about. Ukraine, which has recently fought bravely against corruption and oligarchic power, is a shining example of the flourishing of democracy, which contrasts starkly with Russia’s sham democracy, where rival politicians are regularly jailed and journalists critical of the government are killed. It is possible Ukraine was a threat to Putin as an example of a functioning democracy and active civil society. Putin may also have struggled with popularity at home, as the economy struggled under both international sanctions and oligarchic anti-competitive dynamics that dampen economic growth. His go to playbook has been popular wars and Russian pride-redeeming expansion: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimean Peninsula/Sevastopol.
In the short term we are in what can be described as a meta-conflict. NATO nations are being drawn into knee jerk responses to arm Ukraine to fight off the Russians, even though we know any protracted war in Ukraine will cost many lives. If we are to truly rectify the situation we need to start with the core causes, dealing with and healing the mistakes of the past. From this brief analysis, there are three basic things that can help this situation in the medium to long term.
- Immediate: Promise to not expand NATO if Russia withdraws immediately, and begin developing a common European security framework that includes Russia and Ukraine. Create a dialog where multiple points of view can be aired, and common ground can be found. Ceasefire, de-escalate and get to the negotiating table with skilled conflict mediators;
- Medium term: Promote a rule based international geopolitical environment, through being an example of a rule follower. Do away with US exceptionalism and adventurism, condemn any breach of human rights by any country (e.g. Russia, China), and show that no country is an exception to a system of international law and accountability;
- Long term: Treat Russia as a fellow nation among the human family of nations. Remember that Russia has been an ally as well as an adversary. As Johan Galtung argues, create integrated solutions where unity and autonomy are both possible for Ukraine and surrounding regions. Promote development in Russia. Don’t turn Russia into the enemy. Begin healing the scars of history and building a planetary culture where we see each other as brothers and sisters with common needs and challenges.
