Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
NATO and Russia: A False Equivalence
One popular argument about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is that Ukraine “had it coming” because of NATO expansion. This is not a moral justification, and not a reason to consider Russia’s actions excusable or even reasonable. This argument and its antecedents rest on a flawed equivalence between NATO and Russia, the “neo-USSR”.
The specifics of “not one inch eastward” are from a phone call between then-Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, and in a different context. Even Gorbachev has said that this was not a binding agreement. Naturally, Putin rejects this fact, as it is inconvenient to him. So let us dispense with this “broken promise” rhetoric and focus on the qualitative difference between NATO, a voluntary defensive alliance against Russian expansion, and Russia, the expansive inheritor of the Soviet coercive prison-state. There is no moral equivalence between the two systems, and forgetting that fact will lead to moral failures.
NATO
Not one country has ever been invaded by NATO and forced to join the alliance. NATO is not some menace that moves about. West Germany was not shoved hundreds of miles closer to Moscow overnight, leading to an understandably shaken Gorbachev. Instead, it is a collection of countries that joined right where they were, by the consent of their respective governed. NATO is of course heavily influenced by American priorities, and America in turn draws much of her cultural make-up from Western European ideals. This is a wide cultural unity that underpins the NATO project.
Say what you want about American interventionism, but consider this: even in our bad moments, we go places ostensibly to smash bad guys, and then we leave. What we pointedly do not do is invade neighboring countries one after another, breaking off pieces for keeps or simply gobbling them up whole. Call our approach at times economic hegemony, coercion, or similar, and I won’t even argue. I’ll just point out that this is fundamentally different from the Russian approach of kicking down your neighbors’ door, beating them senseless, kidnapping a child, and then moving your fence further into their yard. NATO does not expand by annexing countries.
USSR, RUSSIA, USSR
The USSR no longer exists on paper, but the core remains, of course, and that is Russia. The authoritarian leadership in Moscow is merely diminished, not different, and is now resurgent. Rampant corruption is the system now as it always was — meet the new boss. Modern Russian leaders, of whom there have been approximately one, co-opt the corruption to a mutually acceptable degree. They have less power over the non-governmental corruption than the Soviet leaders did, and so the balance yields more power to the corruption than before. This comes at the expense of government’s ability to do basic things with any efficiency, if they even wanted to. The Soviet Union was a dangerous rogue state so large that we didn’t say “rogue” — we said Evil Empire, and we were right. Now Russia is an Evil Empire (slight return) that faces crippling demographics and other systemic problems. Russia the system is dying and taking Russia the people with it, and now Russia wishes to consume other, better countries to rejuvenate itself, to re-constitute the rightfully defeated USSR under so-called new management — literally a KGB officer.
Putin attempts to draw parallels between US interventions of the last thirty years and his current conquest. Of course, he does. He would like to make very different things look similar because the difference shows him to be just another dictator with an appetite for Europe.
DIFFERENT
These different approaches, invitation vs conquest, arise from different systems. The West, from which I exclude Russia, may be in simply appalling condition these days, but it remains head, shoulders, and torso above the Putinocracy. Russia was in for a hard road recovering from a century of communist intrigue and domination, which they have now handled poorly, with poor results. Their elections are shams, their free speech is a sham, their economy is a sham, and now it may turn out that even their military is a sham. Time will tell. The one thing which could arguably have been said in Putin’s favor was that he was “good for Russia” in some way, and now that is gone too. We are alarmed in the West about our diminishing freedoms and distrusted institutions precisely because we do not want to become Russia. Russia is the nightmare that the West has actively avoided for a century.
NATO and in particular the United States spent decades fighting against an evil, predatory system of conquest and gulags, poverty, and nuclear terror. This was the product of the communist bloc, and in particular Russia. It is unobjectionable to point out that NATO and the neo-Soviets are two systems composed of nation-states, each of which in Realpolitik parlance “seeks to enhance its own power and security.” It is a moral failure, however, to argue that because of that similarity, Russia has the same right to invade Ukraine as NATO does to invite Ukraine to join. Similarly, it may be practical to point out that Ukraine has taken actions that Russia did not like, and which they clearly warned against, but again, this practicality does not justify blaming Ukraine (or NATO) for its own invasion by a hostile Russia. That is a moral failure, and any course of action or inaction predicated on it is wrong, even if the early steps are unobjectionable.
Ignoring the difference between NATO and the neo-USSR is an error. It may not be a moral issue to mistake or forget the differences between these opposed and incompatible systems, but that simple failure will cause moral failures downstream.
IGNORING THE DIFFERENCE
What happens when it is pointed out that Poland joined after NATO (as Putin alleges) promised that this would not happen? Will we then forsake Poland? We will if we do not get to the bottom of the NATO/USSR moral difference underlying the history and meaning of what is happening now. And did NATO “gobble up” East Germany? Shall that country be restored to the map, and to the neo-Soviet empire? These are gradations of the argument used to ignore the differences between NATO and Russia.
Some people seem to be adjusting their principles to resolve a moral dissonance — if I support NATO and Ukraine and I oppose the neo-USSR, don’t I have to argue for sending US troops to fight in Ukraine? Those are different things. They are close, and may be connected, but different. I think that some people are deciding that they do not support NATO or Ukraine in order to provide cover for their preference that we not put boots on the ground outside of NATO in easternmost eastern Europe. I share that preference, but deciding as a result that Russia is somehow justified in its assault is just an unworthy surrender of any moral position.
What exactly “we” should do is a rich topic, and will not be addressed here. Whatever we do, including nothing, must be informed by a moral position. Our stance, from which we may act or not, fight or not, sanction or not, must be both moral and practical, and there is no equivalence between NATO and the neo-Soviets. Let Russia’s pleas, excuses, misrepresentations, and threats fall on deaf ears. Their brutal invasion of Ukraine tells the story worth hearing.
PAST AS OVERTURE
I grew up in the cold war. I still resent living under the threat of nuclear war. Who did these Soviet gangsters think they were? Generation X is the last cohort with any meaningful memory of that permanent background of dread. The Russians ran a totalitarian prison commune and regularly threatened to vaporize or conquer anybody who interfered with their stated goal of world domination. In the 1980s, I saw a Camaro in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker, “[screw] Russia.” I thought that was the coolest neighbor ever, and I’d be hard-pressed to argue now. Communism itself is bad, but it’s not the only bad thing. In fact, it’s just one variety of totalitarian expansion and internal subjugation. The Cold War was a meaningful and deadly contest between two opposed moral systems, and that difference is still with us.
Some will point out that both the US and the USSR have infiltrated, instigated, agitated, and overthrown for their own interests. To focus too closely on sometimes similar means is to lose sight of the differing morality of the two systems. If there was no meaning to the Cold War, then was there meaning to the Second World War? Who are we to tell Mr. Putin how to manage his affairs in Europe? Well, just who were we to tell Mr. Hitler how to manage his affairs in Europe?
This qualitative moral difference between NATO on the one hand and the series of USSR / Russia /neo-USSR on the other hand is important. To draw an equivalence is to undeservedly elevate Soviet Communism to a place of honor, or to faithlessly debase our own seven-decade fight for freedom in the Cold War.
NOW, NEVER, AND FOREVER
A moral stance will never find epistemological closure, an airtight case for why a thing is right and good, without reference to principles. We have principles, they have principles, and those principles differ in a meaningful way. Now that push has come to shove, let us not take an easy off-ramp from moral responsibility. Being right and moral is easy when it costs nothing. Now it costs something, and even well-intended friends can be deterred by the cost.
Perhaps the greatest service that Generation X and the Boomers can render to those coming after is to clarify and preserve, to interpret for a new millennium, the moral difference still in play. We will be gone, but the current youth and those who follow will still confront the timeless evils the world has to offer. This may or may not become the global fight of their generation. It may blow up, or it may blow over. Either way, it is a duty upon us to ARM the next generation with the moral clarity to see the fight for what it is. We have failed them in many respects. We have stolen their money and eroded their Republic. The military and civilian leadership seem equally worthless right now, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, the army will go to war with the country and the leadership it has, not necessarily the leadership it wants. Or needs.
Eastern Europeans join or wish to join NATO due not only to our prosperity, better management, and superior moral position, but primarily as a defense against the re-animated threat of being invaded, conquered, subjugated by the USSR. Or Russia. It’s all the same. Once again, a powerful dictator is marching on Europe. If Russia’s neighbors are sufficiently worried that a thug like Putin will gobble them up, this is not moral justification for Russia gobbling them up anyway, and to suggest this is obscene. Yet this is the core of the argument made by those who say that NATO expansion bought Ukraine for Russia. Rather, Ukraine’s now-realized fear means that what was true decades ago remains true today — that there is a qualitative difference between NATO and this neo-Soviet bloc. The relevant similarity is not between NATO and Russia, nor between Poland and Ukraine, but between Russia and the USSR. Blink and that fleeting difference goes away. We were right to oppose the Soviets then, and we are right to oppose Russia now. Those who come after us will need to know this for a fact in their own fight.
Published in General
Good one BD. Clear the real threat to Europe is not the Russian infantry but the reliance on their oil and gas. Maybe they will figure it out. If only Biden would help. Does not seem likely. Not a conspiracy theorist but starting to look like the greens have really set us up.
Yes, yes, yes! A great essay. And you are completely correct.
It’s not a matter of Ukraine ‘had it coming’ because it wanted to join Nato. It is a matter of trying to avoid an unnecessary conflict which many in the US were trying to egg on. Remember Mitt Romney’s idiotic statement during the debate that Russia was the main threat to the US? It was an idiotic statement in 2012 and still is when there is a fast-growing nation of 1.5 billion people with a communist regime. But with all the business and political cronies trying to get rich in China and screwing ordinary Americans, it makes sense.
And nice wording on Nato doesn’t invade and keep other countries. No, Nato just bombs the hell out of them or occupies them for 20 years. But no need to worry. It’s just a defensive alliance. Russia need not worry.
As for the sham elections, well. . . .
People have their war with Russia now. They have managed to align China, Russia, India, and Pakistan. Transferring jets is coming so we are well down the path to direct involvement. No fly zone will be a week or two away. Because Nato is a defensive alliance. What a laugh.
So saying Russia is a problem 12 years ago is a problem when Russia is shelling civilians?
I trust and hope we do not get more involved than we already are.
I am surprised that Russia did this at all. They can’t afford it.
I disagree with the argument and “reasonable” agree and agree.
Clearly nothing is moral in regards to this invasion, a specious argument from amoralists.
Now reasonable comes down to, “What did you expect to happen?” Given the history of Russia what exactly did Western leaders expect to happen when they teased a NATO membership to Ukraine they never intended to give? Did the genius of the State Department say to themselves, “This is a valuable strategic partnership, worth the high risk. Let us make certain to have effective deterrence in place, preparations for repercussions and a diplomatic solution in mind for all parties.” Still waiting.
Foggy Bottom at its’ most brilliant just one more time.
Incompetence now is not moral equivalence, it is just incompetence.
He didn’t say ‘a’ problem. He said in effect ‘the’ problem.
Sadly, accurate.
Can’t argue.
? Sounds weird. When have India and Pakistan ever been in an alliance?
They’re not; India has been either prudent or opportunistic, depending on one’s perspective or interpretation, but they are not in some Eurasian alliance with Pakistan and China.
As for the OP, while I mostly agree, I think that moral considerations only apply in the sense of actions one is unwilling to take under practically any circumstances, and national interest is the key lens through which to view the situation. And I can’t see any national interests based on realistic options and facts on the ground which would justify not supporting the Ukrainian resistance. Whatever the wisdom of brushing off eastern Europe and pursuing a pro-Russian policy from the beginning might have been (and I’m highly skeptical about that), its all ‘sunk costs’ now; Russia is hostile to ourselves and our allies, and effectively an ally of China, and there are no concrete indicators that they will be otherwise for the foreseeable future, regardless of any accommodation which might be attempted.
Well done BDB.
It is?
Who is saying that?
I don’t think this post is all wrong, but I am not seeing this. Nowhere have I seen ” Had it coming”.
Now, personally, I think placing American existence on the line for a corrupt nation like Ukraine to be foolish and stupid. That is what membership in NATO means.
A subtle and under-appreciated point.
India gives signs of being on the way there. India gets about 3/4 of its weapons from Russia. Russia and India have had deep ties for 70 years. China will provide an alternative to Swift and try to provide a reserve currency to the dollar. India will probably participate in both when the time comes.
India has also had decades of border disputes, as well as recent border altercations, with China, and have no strategic reason to advance an alternative to the dollar standard until they are in a position to be both the world’s most populous country and its biggest aggregate economy, at which point they would logically advance their own currency, not that of their historic enemy.
Yes, their decision to abstain from the UN vote is not a great sign, but there are rational (as well as irrational, but mostly harmless) reasons why they might have done so; there is not currently a reason to panic on that account, though the situation bears watching.
I bet that this is a great comfort to the families of dead Ukrainian civilians.
It was crystal clear that the Russians thought that Ukrainian NATO membership was a security threat to Russia. But they were wrong, you see. We’re the good guys and we never attack anyone.
It was very predictable that the Russians would use military force to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. This was not completely certain, but they sure did it in Georgia in 2008, to make their point. But they’re bad guys when they do this.
We’re the good guys.
So yeah, Ukrainians, we enticed you into seeking NATO membership, and the predictable result was that the Russians invaded, and all of those Ukrainian women and children got killed, and more are going to get killed.
That’s completely, totally, 100% Putin’s fault, you see. We’re the good guys.
Don’t worry, we’re going to help! Well, no, not with troops, and not with our air power. We’re going to destroy the Russian economy, killing Russian civilians through deprivation. It usually affects the poorest and least powerful, like it did in Iran and North Korea. Our sanctions invariably cause dictatorial strongmen to fall, just like they did in Iran and North Korea . . . um, hey! Did I mention that we’re the good guys?
Really, have hope, brave Ukrainians! Things aren’t going as well as Putin expected, and our sanctions are really going to hurt him. Well, no, we’re not going to sanction his oil and gas exports. That would hurt us, you know. But you should see the nasty things that we’re saying about him on Twitter, and we all know that when brutal tyrannical dictators suffer battlefield reversals and we say mean things about them, they always give up and withdraw their troops voluntarily. Such dictators never, ever double down when they get desperate. Putin’s going to withdraw with his tail between his legs, just like Hitler did the last time Kiev was conquered . . . um, hey! Did I mention that we’re the good guys?
Expansion of NATO is expanding the promise for America to destroy herself in nuclear fire in order to defend the members of NATO. Right now, I think we should kick out Turkey, but that would be hard since they won’t let our forces out with grace. (Granted, I think we could paste the crap out of them for that, but that is another issue).
I don’t want to see my nation wiped out for a nation as corrupt as Ukraine, where the current president has jailed many political opponents, who’s military has shelled civilians of different ethnicity.
You may need to wipe the spittle from your monitor after that.
Satirical or sarcastic comments have their place.
The argument is not that NATO and Russia are morally equivalent.
The argument is that the actions of NATO result in predictable reactions from Russia.
Whether NATO’s actions are morally justified is not the question.
The question is whether NATO’s actions are strategically worthwhile.
Well one key difference is Russia pays for its own military. NATO is basically a scheme by which American taxpayers foot the cost of defending Western Europe.
I think the Russian readiness problems might suggest to India that they might not want to continue on that path.
They also did it in Ukraine in 2014. So there was no need to invade Ukraine in 2022.
They are the bad guys in both cases.
What did NATO do, exactly?
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-03-08/biden-to-block-russian-oil-imports-in-latest-round-of-sanctions-on-kremlin
Would you like to revise your statement, counselor?
I wonder what some of these people thought about Libya’s “Line of Death”, and our response.
If we put medium-range nukes in Poland (or Ukraine), I could see Putin demanding this and that. There would be negotiations. As there have been in the past.
Putin doesn’t get to enforce who does or does not join NATO, no matter how it’s dressed up.
Right now, I’m wondering why Kaliningrad is still there. Who thought that was a good idea?
Will you go on the record that you are for the USA risking destruction over Ukraine?
Is the last part of this statement referring to a fact? If so, total incompetence is indicated. Many have thought that Putin has long had intentions to get Ukraine back under Russian influence sphere but none could say this with certainty. But that should be considered when taunting him. Particularly when stories bandied about that Putin has strong feelings about preserving the Slavic culture. Reminds one of Hitler. Maybe the West needs some better diplomats unless the one we have are acting with purpose, then we have a different problem.
At the end of the day, Ukraine will not sustain or fall because one side is good and the other bad.
Separate topic, not in this post. Here’s the closest it gets:
Please remember that every day of the Cold War we “risked destruction” and much of that time featured the left urging the US to unilaterally disarm, to dissolve “provocative” NATO, and so forth. They believed that the USSR was the aggrieved party, that the US was reckless, and they took the Soviets at their word, just as Chamberlain and others had with Hitler, about how limited their goals were.
I recall a CNN (international) ad that featured a twelve-year-old girl saying “I don’t think anything is worth fighting a war over.” That is a beautiful sentiment — for a twelve-year old girl.
Two weeks ago, it looked like Putin was out to slice off the two most heavily Russian counties (or whatever) of Ukraine. I wrote about it then. And now Putin has besieged the whole country (in effect, if not by square inches), stunning just about everybody. Remember, two weeks ago, I was saying that Putin was at least good for Russia, and that anyway, our busted dysfunctional country had bigger fish to fry at home.
We still have problems — nothingness made flesh is still our President, and despite our national infirmity, WWIII has just started knocking. Underlying our most significant opportunities to fail is an unprincipled acceptance of a dictator knocking over countries in Europe.
I agree with you on many things. I think that you and others have this issue badly cross-threaded. I do have my own dissonances, which I am trying to work through by reference to principles, to counter being dominated by fears. So I’ll counter your off-topic question with the on-topic version:
Will you go on the record as supporting Putin’s claim to veto others’ alliances?