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
We actually make that offer to a number of countries, not just NATO. It is called “Extended Deterrence“
There is a lot of room under the “nuclear umbrella”.
There is no provision in the NATO treaty to “kick someone out”.
Now about Ukraine “deserving it”
Jerry, apparently. I guess you read it here first, despite him saying similar things elsewhere.
Non-sequitur.
Well, if you add the words “at war” after ‘good’ and ‘bad’ above then the outcome becomes clear.
Personally I always viewed it as key jangling, an empty promise used merely to motivate Ukraine to make certain internal reforms.
That is not a serious proposal.
Why? What happens in Ukraine seems like a core issue.
It is weird to invoke this point. Big difference between a very aggressive “We are going to bury you” USSR and a much diminished Russia. Nor, have I made any of these points.
Not sure of the point you are making here. I have not held that sentiment.
We still do.
Since you are 100% unwilling to answer my question, it takes some cheek to ask me to answer yours. It is the return of Fred, I think. He did that a lot. You want to talk about expanding NATO and principle. Fine. Then the idea of risking destruction for Ukraine is on the table. That cannot be separated.
I have no idea what you mean by “badly cross-threaded”. I an certainly not being dominated by fears. I am not the one talking about WWIII, you are.
Since this has started, anyone saying anything less than Putin Bad, Ukraine Good, has been smeared as a Putin lover or Russian apologist or something worse. And we see arguments being made along the “So what you are saying is…” line.
Your whole approach in this thread was to set up a straw man and argue against it. I see no one, no one, who has claimed that NATO and Russia are equivalent. Jerry has not said that. I have not said that. No one has. I can say this, categorically they are not. NATO is an alliance. Russia is a, dare I say it, sovereign state. Depending on how you look it it, that has more significance than an alliance.
Russia, as a sovereign nation has a right to secure itself. It has a right to complain about an nuclear alliance being pushed right up against it. Does that mean it gets a “veto”? I don’t even know what that would mean. Russia is not part of NATO, they don’t get a vote.
And
There are consequences to actions. Russia was clear it did not want the Ukraine to join NATO. The West has played foolishly and here we are. It is like WWII in that respect: The West looked weak and the Axis powers acted on that poor messaging.
So, there, I have answered your question, for the record, even when you refused to answer mine.
and
… but earlier …
and
Perhaps you are talking about some metaphorical destruction — the loss of Lileks’ collection of antique street signs or something.
I could go on, but you are talking out of both sides of your head. Your trivial explanation that Russia is a country whereas NATO is an alliance brushes away the very real equivalence that you and Jerry make — it does not seem to bother you that Russia and Belarus (dare we call that more than a single country?) have invaded a sovereign (that sounded important to you a minute ago) country because they wish to exercise power of its foreign policy — and ours. You argue for us to understand poor Russia’s point of view about undesirable neighbors while they brutally sack a neighbor.
Dress it up however you like — yes, you and Jerry grant Russia the same moral footing as NATO, and your tiresome complaints are at least eighty years old. You and Jerry are sold on this idea that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is NATO’s or Ukraine’s fault. It is not. And it’s not “odd that I bring it up” — we have seen this movie before.
If you are unable to follow your own argument, don’t be surprised when you are unable to follow mine, nothing Fred about it. I worried that I was overly repetitive in this post, but I let it go because I didn’t want to have to point to the one place where I thought the point was made — that always feels like I should have been more direct, more repetitive.
If there’s anything Fred or Sea Lion about this conversation, it’s your manufacture through hostile re-phrasing of a point that I did not make — a view that I do not hold. More specifically, you say that two overlapping things are in fact identical, so that opposition to any part of one is in fact support for all of the other.
I don’t expect you to follow that either. Not because you can’t — you just don’t want to.
So maybe take a look at the last two paragraphs of Gary McVey’s excellent piece: https://ricochet.com/1201263/the-don-and-the-donbass/
In short: Saying Russia has a point of view makes me a Russia lover.
And we are the ones arguing in bad faith?
Heh.
Lots of words you are putting in my mouth.
Note, you still refuse to answer me question.
Stay classy.
… but …
etc
… yet …
Thank you. I will.
Bravo.
I doubt they could afford it in the Trump era, when oil was trading at $35-$40 a barrel. Biden’s been enriching Putin ever since he meandered into the White House (TBPC when it comes to pronoun reference, I mean Biden, not Putin, there.) He (Biden) may have changed his tune a bit today, but I believe that’s only because he’s listening to Rahm Emmanuel on the subject of never letting a crisis go to waste.
When you can blame Russia Russia Russia, and the oil companies for the high cost of gasoline, you might as well. Right?
Is that really the case? After all, several former Warsaw Pact countries now belong to NATO. And it seems to me that accidents of geography (But, but, but, Your Honor! Their country borders on mine!!!) is a pretty poor excuse for objecting at this point.
Thus removing their own sense of agency over their country’s future. Yep. Because it’s not like they–unlike so many other Warsaw Pact countries, could–perchance–see that their options might be better by throwing their lot in with the West…
Remember when you said that Russia’s greatest legitimate fear was of its own invasion (you were proved right slightly less that two weeks ago when–dammit–Ukraine rode tanks into Moscow). Or at about the same time, when you said that Putin was most likely only interested in holding on to the regions of Ukraine that it had already secured.
Strike three! Perhaps it’s time to stop digging and make good on your post from just a few weeks ago:
Thanks for the memories. Opening sentence:
Or, perhaps it’s time to let us know why you’ve-apparently-changed your mind. TBPC, I’m not trying to drive you off. I’ve had my own dark nights of the soul here, and moments when I swore I was done. When I’ve been embarrassed and humiliated beyond reason. When I’ve been assailed as thin-skinned, emotional, a fantasist detached from reality, a bitch, a coward, a bully, and Lord knows what else. And I’ve about thrown in the towel more than once.
But when I do throw in the towel, I shan’t precede the event by writing a post about my dilemma in the hope that I’ll garner enough support to convince me that I should stay. (Moderators who served with me will recognize this as what I used to call “Leaving as Performance Art.”)
No. When I leave, I’ll just be gone. And if anyone misses me, he or she can write a post saying so. I probably won’t see it.
Me neither. Ummm….
In what context? That Russia is led by a thug? I’d like to be on record as objecting to the idea that standing up to our adversaries may result in thuggish or inexcusable behavior on their parts. We may elect not to fight. But we should stand.
NATO used words. Words are offensive. Words are violence. Please try to keep up.
This.
Not a question that was addressed to me, but, No. I will not.
Well, except that Russia kept the USSR’s nukes; some of them acquired after the Budapest memorandum years after the dissolution of the USSR.
ummm. I think that is the very point Jerry was making with his whole we are the good guys and they are the bad guys and Ukraine brought this upon itself rhetoric.
That was his point, exactly.
I can see the violence inherent in the system.
Wow, I guess we are really reading from different pages. Since I did a whole post on how I did not think Good Guy/Bad Guy was the best way to look at things, that is how I read that.
I willing to accept all of them as bad guys.
Did you not catch Jerry’s sarcasm? <– straight-up question.
Jerry was poking me for my saying that NATO is the good guys and the neo-USSR (Russia and its little dog Belarus) are the bad guys. I’m glad that we’re talking about a moral equivalence between NATO and Russia, because that is the singular point of this post. Not where do we go from here, not what actions are recommended. Just the moral question.
And I didn’t say NATO was Christ-like in its diligence. Let’s not shave this fish too finely. My point is that there is a fundamental difference honored by our fathers and wielded by Ronald Reagan. Much has changed since then, but much has also stayed the same. See also — the OP.
The natural gas deposits that were recently projected around Crimea and the Donbas, however, were far more immediate concerns for Russia.
Sure, and Russia could have had them, practically gratis, with just the Russians on the border and what they took in 2014.
Instead the Russians invaded and placed even those modest gains in jeopardy.
My point is that was the real reason they invaded in 2014, and denying Ukraine those resources was more important than exploiting them themselves-and far more important than hollow possibilities of NATO membership in about 20 years.
Afterwards, there was also the matter of low intensity attacks across the illegal borders, water deprivation in Crimea, and annoying (though hardly crippling) international sanctions….though I suspect there was some hidden factor motivating them risking a ‘short, victorious war’ that we are not fully aware of, providing a greater motivation for invasion at this time than any theoretical possibility of NATO membership after maybe another decade of good behavior and reaching development goals.
Click thru for the full thread.
I think that the whole “Sanctions don’t cause leaders to be overthrown, therefore they don’t work” line is the dumbest criticism of sanctions that one can make. I can think of at least three reasons for this, with historical examples,
Excellent and well argued! I agree.
a) Fine, but just a don’t expect the hostile country’s people to rise up against their leaders. That’s something lots of Internet pundits keep expecting to happen to Putin because the invasion has been “such a disaster”. It ain’t gonna happen if every action on the part of the West improves Putin’s popularity.
b) I don’t see how the WWI example is a good argument in favour of sanctions considering how long and bloody that war ended up being. Also, just how dependent is the Russian war machine on cutting edge electronics? The invasion so far has seemed like a very low tech affair.
c) In both the WWI and WWII examples, “we” were already at war with Germany. In this case, we’re trying to avoid war with Russia. Wouldn’t a better example be Japan prior to Pearl Harbor?
We’re not the good guys.
Good guys don’t destroy their domestic energy production, thereby forcing their own citizens (except the Ruling Class and their pals) into poverty.
America is over. We’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic now.
America isn’t over. Biden is over. The Democrats are over.
The US sanctions were enacted in the 1930’s. They were very tough after Kristallnacht.
I imagine that most modern vehicles require semiconductors. This is true for modern consumer vehicles.
I think that the WWI example does help the argument. They helped grind down the enemy while battlefield successes eventually caused collapse. The sanctions themselves in WWI harmed Germany’s ability to make war. German civil authorities had to compete with the military for food. Oftentimes, trains headed for the front and trains headed between the cities delivering food would clog the railroad network. The mere presence of the problems caused by the blockade did not allow German authorities to concentrate on other issues.
If Ukraine is going to dress slutty and go slinking around Eastern Europe it’s no surprise what happened. You can’t blame Russia for going with its instincts.
And the Republicans will save us. Yay.
Note my lack of enthusiasm.
This is much bigger than Democrat/Republican. Neither party has the cojones to set us on the right course. Not when their palms can be greased so easily by globalists (for whom the idea of “we the people” is anathema).
Take all of the black pills, folks! We are finished.
Consumer vehicles, especially in the US, have to meet various government safety and fuel-efficiency mandates, as well as buyer- and passenger-expected comfort, etc. Tanks and such don’t have any of that.