To Those Blaming NATO or the United States For Russian Aggression

Published by PolisPandit on February 23, 2022February 23, 2022

Over the past few days, as Putin has ramped up his aggression and invaded Ukraine, I have read disturbing articles, comments, and tweets that do one or more of the following:

• Blame NATO and/or the United States for Russia’s aggression and invasion of Ukraine;
• Justify, excuse, and/or defend Putin’s actions; and 
• Highlight the United States’ history of wars, arguing it should not be the policeman of the world in defense of Ukrainian democracy

As with most geopolitical and foreign policy issues, history gives the necessary background and story to help make sense of the present and forecast the future.  Many of the statements referenced above – and addressed below in more detail – are devoid of or grossly misinformed about basic historical facts.  At times they read as headlines straight from Russia Today, the Kremlin’s state-controlled news network. 

It hasn’t helped that factions in the United States – namely, the GOP – have supported Putin, both tacitly and explicitly.  Trump even recently praised Putin’s “genius.” 

Let’s sort through the morass. 

Blaming NATO and/or the United States 

First, I want to be clear on one overarching point – NATO and the United States are not completely without blame.  NATO expansion in the late 1990s and early 2000s was ill-advised.  The Soviet Union had already collapsed.  The only reasonably foreseeable outcome of expansion was eventually antagonizing Russia.   

With that said, Putin at the time was not necessarily opposed to NATO expansion.  In fact, Putin and Russia were getting used to the idea that NATO could be a friend instead of an enemy.

Moreover, NATO is a defense alliance. While it is primarily designed to “to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent”, it is not offensive by nature.  It has not – and never will – attack Russia first.  NATO forces are intended for deterrence. 

In addition, NATO does not pose a credible national security threat to Russia.  Russia has both conventional and nuclear advantages along its borders.  NATO has significantly reduced conventional weapons along Russian borders since the Soviet era, bolstering the case that the Alliance is designed to deter, not attack.  

When NATO did expand in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Russia did not put up a major fight.  They acquiesced, and as noted above, even recognized the free choice that some of the post Soviet Republics like Lithuania and Estonia were making.  Perhaps it was North Macedonia’s 2020 entry into the Alliance the sent Putin over the top? 

While NATO has maintained a peaceful deterrence posture towards Russia, the same cannot be said about Putin.  As I have mentioned in previous articles, Putin has invaded countries like Georgia (2008), annexed others like Crimea (2014), orchestrated numerous offensive cyber attacks across borders, and poisoned and murdered Russian dissidents on NATO soil.  

Yet some still think NATO and the United States are the aggressors here.  An accurate reading of history – free from Kremlin controlled propaganda – suggests otherwise.     

Justifying, excusing, and/or defending Putin’s actions

I’m still trying to wrap my head around why so many people outside Russia have chosen to side with Putin to varying degrees.  Have they forgotten that Ukrainians have been fighting for democracy and freedom for much of the past decade?  Did they miss Putin’s past speeches and articles on how he has never viewed Ukraine as a “real country”?  That it is just a “colony of the west.”      

If you weren’t convinced by Putin’s NATO arguments, in his speech on Monday, he also alleged that Ukrainians were orchestrating a genocide of Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine – with no evidence – and that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons if allowed to join NATO – also with no evidence (and far-fetched).

How someone who brought 190,000 Russian troops to Ukraine’s border by land and sea is not the provocateur baffles me.  A soldier cannot be a “peacekeeper” if they cross a border uninvited.  And Ukrainians – on their own accord, not under duress from the west – have made it clear that they are not invited.  Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskiy has already started conscripting reservists in an effort to defend Ukrainian sovereignty.  

Even if NATO was too aggressive in expanding eastward over the decades, that still does not justify Putin’s actions today.  Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, and as noted earlier, NATO has never attacked Russia.  Given Putin’s inconsistent messaging on NATO in the past, the Russian aggression is less about NATO and more about the threat of an increasingly westernized liberal democracy flourishing on Russia’s front door.

None of Putin’s aggressions toward Ukraine should be justified, excused, or otherwise defended.  

The United States should not be the policeman of the world

As an American, I can’t say I am proud of our history of war.  Since World War II, the U.S. has stuck its nose into too many conflicts that it had no business entering (or starting).  There’s a reason why Trump’s isolationist foreign policy approach resonated with so many voters.  I agree that the United States should not be the policeman of the world.

But the past actions by the United States should not justify Putin’s actions today.  Yes, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was arguably under false pretenses and a completely unnecessary war, but I don’t see many people missing Saddam Hussein.

People can say what they want to about the United States in the post World War II era, but one thing they cannot deny is that the current world order of global alliances and partnerships – United Nations, NATO, etc. – have prevented world wars.  Prior to 1949, these wars were a fairly regular occurrence throughout Europe and Asia. 

So while I completely agree that the United States needs to mind its business more, I completely disagree that it should sit back and do nothing here in the case of Ukraine.  While the use of force should be a last resort, it should not be off the table for NATO.  The United States also has a unique ability to make sanctions against Russia more effective given the dollar’s dominance globally, its joint oversight of the SWIFT banking system, and the reach of its capital markets.   

Putin will say whatever fits his increasingly unhinged agenda

What does an autocrat do when he feels himself losing power at home?  Nobody needs to be a student of Orwell or Arendt to identify an autocrat lashing out, attempting at costs to cling to power.  Putin’s troop build up, the lawless decrees for regions in Eastern Ukraine, and the additional threats he’s lodged at Kyiv, are not expressions of might, but evidence of weakness. 

His ranting, emotional speech from Monday further illustrated his fear.  The identity of Russia as a global power is extremely important to him.  He is increasingly concerned for his legacy and wants to be known as someone who returned Russia to glory.  The last thing he wants Russia seen as is a “regional power” as Obama described in 2014.

Although it is hard for Russia to argue it is anything but, especially in the economic sense when its GDP is roughly on par with the U.S. state of Texas.  Which is why Putin needs to showcase expressions of strength on the world stage.  He needs to lash out, threaten, and blame others in order to fortify his authoritarian hold on Russia and its sphere of influence.

A democracy on Russia’s borders is an existential threat to Putin’s autocracy.  Which is why Putin has no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty.  Or as he said in his recent speech, “Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood.”  

Well, they might have, if only they had bent the knee.  Ukraine’s determination to democratize did not comport with Putin’s historical understanding of their “shared history.” 

“You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunization would mean for Ukraine.”  

– Vladimir Putin

It means autocracy.  Anything else undermines Putin’s authority at home.  And by Putin’s logic, the United Kingdom should have the right to invade and/or annex the United States because of our “shared history.”  In fact, no country should respect or recognize 21st century borders if contrary to “shared history.”  

The logical consequences of such a worldview are terrifying.     

Putin’s nationalist obsession shows how grievances against NATO and the west are merely a diversion, a ruse meant to deflect blame.  In the end, what Putin wants is Ukraine.  He wrote about it in July 2021, and he said it for the world to hear on Monday, February 21st. 

Blaming NATO or the United States for what is at its core a nationalistic attempt for power completely ignores the dynamics and history at play.  For Putin, it was never about NATO or even the United States.  It was always about returning Russia to glory and taking back what he views as historically belonging to the motherland.