West Used Ukraine to Threaten Russia
February 26, 2022
"The United States and its European
allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis.
The taproot of
the trouble is NATO enlargement,
the central element of a larger
strategy
to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit
and integrate it into the
West.
"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked,"
"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked,"
--John Mearsheimer
The final straw was President Zelensky's declaration of intent to restore Ukraine as a nuclear power.
The final straw was President Zelensky's declaration of intent to restore Ukraine as a nuclear power.
This, they say, sealed the invasion.
Although this article was written more than seven years ago, it could have been written yesterday.
Although this article was written more than seven years ago, it could have been written yesterday.
Professor John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished
Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago,
where he has taught since 1982
Foreign Affairs September/October 2014 Issue
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault
By John J. Mearsheimer
(Excerpts by henrymakow.com)Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault
By John J. Mearsheimer
...For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected and pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych in February 22 2014 -- (the eight-year anniversary of current invasion) -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.
Putin's push back should have come as no surprise....
Putin's push back should have come as no surprise....
THE WESTERN AFFRONT
As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand...
As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand...
Putin maintained that admitting those Georgia and Ukraine into NATO would represent a "direct threat" to Russia. One Russian newspaper reported that Putin, while speaking with Bush, "very transparently hinted that if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist." ...
Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves." As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED's president, Carl Gershman, has called that country "the biggest prize." After Yanukovych won Ukraine's presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country's democratic institutions.
When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents." He added: "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ...
THE DIAGNOSIS
...The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.
Most liberals, on the other hand, favored enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, post-national order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe. The United States was not only the "indispensable nation," as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like western Europe. [...]
In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would "say that we always told you that is how the Russians are." As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament. ...
This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who supported NATO expansion were not doing so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force. Putin's actions in Crimea took them by complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovych's ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind.
Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people -- one-third of Ukraine's population -- live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation. Furthermore, Russia's mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscow is also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions.
But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it would still probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine. One need only consider the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.
A WAY OUT
...There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria's position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.
To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO's expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the United States -- a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine. It is time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution. Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine to respect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers. ...
The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process -- a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.
---
When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents." He added: "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ...
THE DIAGNOSIS
...The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.
Most liberals, on the other hand, favored enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, post-national order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe. The United States was not only the "indispensable nation," as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like western Europe. [...]In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would "say that we always told you that is how the Russians are." As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament. ...
This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who supported NATO expansion were not doing so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force. Putin's actions in Crimea took them by complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovych's ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind.
Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people -- one-third of Ukraine's population -- live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation. Furthermore, Russia's mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscow is also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions.
But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it would still probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine. One need only consider the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.
A WAY OUT
...There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria's position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.
To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO's expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the United States -- a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine. It is time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution. Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine to respect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers. ...
The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process -- a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.
---
Thanks to Peter Myers
--
Related-
Mearsheimer videos: The Situation in Ukraine Feb 15
First Comment by Geoff Moore (on social media)
On Thursday at 8am I turned on the BBC news to hear of an invasion by Russia into Ukraine. Being the suspicious sort, I immediately looked online at arrivals at Kiev airport. As expected all international flights were marked as cancelled, but I was surprised to see that almost no domestic flights were thus marked. Aviation authorities would have lots of reasons to ground all civil flights if they believed that their country had just been invaded by enemy ground and air forces. And as the crisis had been building for weeks they would have been prepared, with contingency plans.
The following morning, which is the time of writing, there is a departure scheduled to fly to Minsk, which the BBC suggests is involved on the side of Russia. There are arrivals from Riyadh and Sharm el-Sheikh, which is just a giant tourist resort. Strange.
The BBC repeatedly showed what is claimed to be a building that has been hit by a shell with white smoke pouring out of a few windows and firemen spraying water on it. There was neither sight nor sound of the BBC crew. This must be the first building hit by a shell in history which shows no structural damage. When you view film clips of burning buildings the smoke is usually black or grey. Smoke generators usually emit white smoke.
This building is obviously a block of flats under construction and just the concrete shell is completed so far. Later the BBC showed a clip filmed by someone entering a room in the building, probably with a smartphone camera. We saw furniture smashed to pieces, lots of dust, and a big clothes rail miraculously still standing with a few items hanging from it. Why would a building under construction have a room full of furniture? And any normal person wouldn't enter a bombed building due to the danger of unexploded ordnance or building collapse.
There was footage purporting to show panicked civilians on their way to bomb shelters. As the attack reportedly began at 5am Kiev time, most of the citizens would have received the news while watching breakfast TV. Strangely, most of them had found the time and inclination to grab and don their masks while rushing out of their homes. I would have grabbed passports, food and water, warm clothes and blankets.
We saw footage of a large group of primary school-aged children all perfectly wearing their masks in a supposed bomb shelter. Few if any Ukrainian mothers would have sent their children to school if they'd seen news of an invasion.
BBC reporters are frequently shown with the city of Kiev as a background saying 'this city is under attack'. Yet none are wearing body armour or helmets. There are no distant columns of black smoke as we saw in the London riots of 2011.
The only footage I've seen of actual ordnance flying through the air and landing with an explosion appears to be similar to a cruise missile. It's interesting that at the start of the clip you see a large van with decals written in our alphabet, not written in cyrillic as you'd expect from that part of the world.
As already mentioned the attack reportedly began at 5am Kiev time. At the moment sunrise there is at 6.50 am. It's odd that all the footage of the first day broadcast by the BBC between 6am and 9am UK time was filmed in daylight.
Finally, one or more gas pipelines leave Russia and enter Ukraine, some of the gas being for Ukraine's domestic use. Yet the BBC reports that neither side has thought to shut down or sabotage these pipelines.
Strangest invasion of a country I've ever seen. Just saying.
-----
The following morning, which is the time of writing, there is a departure scheduled to fly to Minsk, which the BBC suggests is involved on the side of Russia. There are arrivals from Riyadh and Sharm el-Sheikh, which is just a giant tourist resort. Strange.
The BBC repeatedly showed what is claimed to be a building that has been hit by a shell with white smoke pouring out of a few windows and firemen spraying water on it. There was neither sight nor sound of the BBC crew. This must be the first building hit by a shell in history which shows no structural damage. When you view film clips of burning buildings the smoke is usually black or grey. Smoke generators usually emit white smoke.
This building is obviously a block of flats under construction and just the concrete shell is completed so far. Later the BBC showed a clip filmed by someone entering a room in the building, probably with a smartphone camera. We saw furniture smashed to pieces, lots of dust, and a big clothes rail miraculously still standing with a few items hanging from it. Why would a building under construction have a room full of furniture? And any normal person wouldn't enter a bombed building due to the danger of unexploded ordnance or building collapse.
There was footage purporting to show panicked civilians on their way to bomb shelters. As the attack reportedly began at 5am Kiev time, most of the citizens would have received the news while watching breakfast TV. Strangely, most of them had found the time and inclination to grab and don their masks while rushing out of their homes. I would have grabbed passports, food and water, warm clothes and blankets.
We saw footage of a large group of primary school-aged children all perfectly wearing their masks in a supposed bomb shelter. Few if any Ukrainian mothers would have sent their children to school if they'd seen news of an invasion.
BBC reporters are frequently shown with the city of Kiev as a background saying 'this city is under attack'. Yet none are wearing body armour or helmets. There are no distant columns of black smoke as we saw in the London riots of 2011.
The only footage I've seen of actual ordnance flying through the air and landing with an explosion appears to be similar to a cruise missile. It's interesting that at the start of the clip you see a large van with decals written in our alphabet, not written in cyrillic as you'd expect from that part of the world.
As already mentioned the attack reportedly began at 5am Kiev time. At the moment sunrise there is at 6.50 am. It's odd that all the footage of the first day broadcast by the BBC between 6am and 9am UK time was filmed in daylight.
Finally, one or more gas pipelines leave Russia and enter Ukraine, some of the gas being for Ukraine's domestic use. Yet the BBC reports that neither side has thought to shut down or sabotage these pipelines.
Strangest invasion of a country I've ever seen. Just saying.
-----
