JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER
Aug 05, 2024
BLUF
(Bottom Line Up Front)
Το ποιος φέρει την ευθύνη για αυτήν την καταστροφή είναι ένα ερώτημα που δεν θα εξαφανιστεί σύντομα και αν κάτι είναι πιθανό αυτό είναι, να γίνει ακόμη πιο εμφανές καθώς η έκταση της καταστροφής γίνεται πιο γνωστή/ απτή σε περισσότερους ανθρώπους!
[Who bears responsibility for this disaster is a question that will not go away anytime soon and if anything is likely to become more prominent as the extent of the disaster becomes more apparent to more people]
We have to deal with a preventive war
Η φύση και ο σκοπός αυτού του πολέμου, μπορεί να κατηγοριοποιηθεί ως ΠΡΟΛΗΠΤΙΚΟΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΣ (preventive war)
MEARSHEIMER’s aim here is to provide a primer, which lays out the key points that support the view that Putin invaded Ukraine not because he was an imperialist bent on making Ukraine part of a greater Russia, but mainly because of NATO expansion and the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a Western stronghold on Russia’s border
Probably the best evidence that Putin was not seen as a serious threat during his first fourteen years in office is that he was an invited guest at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, which is where the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members
hardly anyone in the West argued that Putin had imperial ambitions from the time he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukraine crisis started on 22 February 2014.
At that point, he suddenly became an imperial aggressor. Why?
Because Western leaders needed a reason to blame him for causing the crisis
It is obvious from Russia’s negotiating position at Istanbul as well as Putin’s comments on ending the war in his 14 June 2014 address that he is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine and making it part of a greater Russia.
a. The question of who is responsible for causing the Ukraine war has been a deeply contentious issue since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
b. The answer to this question matters enormously because the war has been a disaster for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that Ukraine has effectively been wrecked.
It has lost a substantial amount of its territory and is likely to lose more, its economy is in tatters, huge numbers of Ukrainians are internally displaced or have fled the country, and it has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Of course, Russia has paid a significant blood price as well.
c. On the strategic level, relations between Russia and Europe, not to mention Russia and Ukraine, have been poisoned for the foreseeable future, which means that the threat of a major war in Europe will be with us well after the Ukraine war turns into a frozen conflict.
c. Who bears responsibility for this disaster is a question that will not go away anytime soon and if anything is likely to become more prominent as the extent of the disaster becomes more apparent to more people
d. The conventional wisdom in the West is that Vladimir Putin is responsible for causing the Ukraine war.
e. The invasion aimed at conquering all of Ukraine and making it part of a greater Russia, so the argument goes.
f. Once that goal was achieved, the Russians would move to create an empire in eastern Europe, much like the Soviet Union did after World War II.
g. Thus, Putin is ultimately a threat to the West and must be dealt with forcefully. In short, Putin is an imperialist with a master plan who fits neatly into a rich Russian tradition.
h. The alternative argument, which I identify with, and which is clearly the minority view in the West, is that the United States and its allies provoked the war.
i. The principal cause of the conflict is the NATO decision to bring Ukraine into the alliance, which virtually all Russian leaders see as an existential threat that must be eliminated. NATO expansion, however, is part of a broader strategy that is designed to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Bringing Kyiv into the European Union (EU) and promoting a color revolution in Ukraine – turning it into pro-Western liberal democracy – are the other two prongs of the policy. Russia leaders fear all three prongs, but they fear NATO expansion the most. To deal with this threat, Russia launched a preventive war on 24 February 2022
k. The debate about who caused the Ukraine war recently heated up when two prominent Western leaders – former President Donald Trump and prominent British MP Nigel Farage – made the argument that NATO expansion was the driving force behind the conflict. Unsurprisingly, their comments were met with a ferocious counterattack from defenders of the conventional wisdom. It is also worth noting that the outgoing Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said twice over the past year that “President Putin started this war because he wanted to close NATO’s door and deny Ukraine the right to choose its own path.” Hardly anyone in the West challenged this remarkable admission by NATO’s head and he did not retract it.
l. My aim here is to provide a primer, which lays out the key points that support the view that Putin invaded Ukraine not because he was an imperialist bent on making Ukraine part of a greater Russia, but mainly because of NATO expansion and the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a Western stronghold on Russia’s border.
m. SEVEN MAIN REASONS to reject the conventional wisdom
(1) FIRST, there is simply no evidence from before 24 February 2022 that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia. Proponents of the conventional wisdom cannot point to anything Putin wrote or said that indicates he was bent on conquering Ukraine.
(2) SECOND, there is no evidence that Putin was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia
(3) THIRD, Putin did not have anywhere near enough troops to conquer Ukraine
(4) FOURTH, in the months before the war started, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the brewing crisis
(5) FIFTH, immediately after the war began, Russia reached out to Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war and work out a modus vivendi between the two countries
(6) SIXTH, putting Ukraine aside, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Putin was contemplating conquering any other countries in eastern Europe
(7) SEVENTH, hardly anyone in the West argued that Putin had imperial ambitions from the time he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukraine crisis started on 22 February 2014.
At that point, he suddenly became an imperial aggressor. Why? Because Western leaders needed a reason to blame him for causing the crisis
n. THREE MAIN REASONS to think that NATO expansion was the principal cause of the Ukraine war.
(1) FIRST, Russian leaders across the board said repeatedly before the war started that they considered NATO expansion into Ukraine to be an existential threat that had to be eliminated
(2) SECOND, a substantial number of influential and highly regarded individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion – especially into Ukraine – would be seen by Russian leaders as a mortal threat and eventually lead to disaster
(3) THIRD, the centrality of Russia’s profound fear of Ukraine joining NATO is illustrated by two developments that have occurred since the war began
Συνελόντι ειπείν, “it is obvious from Russia’s negotiating position at Istanbul as well as Putin’s comments on ending the war in his 14 June 2014 address that he is not interested in conquering all of Ukraine and making it part of a greater Russia”.
