Recently I watched ‘Central Intelligence’. In the movie, there's a scene that is depicted three times: once from the perspective of Bob Stone, once from the perspective of Phil Stanton, and finally from Pam Harris’s perspective. While all three flashbacks show the same event, only one perspective correctly interprets the facts. The history of relations between Russia and NATO (or America/West/Jews/Global Elites/etc.) exhibits the same phenomenon. Two sides are exposed to the same fact pattern, yet they come to drastically different interpretations. One side believes that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a response to NATO expansion. The other side views Russian aggression as a response to its lost imperial claims. Like with ‘Central Intelligence’, only one can be right.
The “NATO is at fault” Timeline
For NATO blamers, history is straightforward. It began in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. In the years that followed, Russia attempted to join the triumphant Western world and repudiated its past aggressive endeavors. This rehabilitation was repaid with three rounds of aggression. First, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. Second, when seven more former Soviet Republics and Soviet satellite states in Eastern and Central Europe accessed to NATO in 2004. And finally, NATO not closing the door on future Ukrainian and Georgian membership in 2008. To be clear, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans. All they did was say membership would be possible after some undefined criteria were met after an undefined time had passed.
In response to this supposed aggression, Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. Yet NATO did not expand into Georgia. The invasion did not follow any actual round of expansion. And, most importantly, the actual rounds of expansion did not trigger any responses from Russia. The temporal relationship here is, at best, a stretch.
The temporal stretch is further expanded in the subsequent years. Two additional countries joined NATO in 2009, yet Russia's response remained relatively subdued. In fact, one could think that history took an extended hiatus until early 2014 when Russia had to seize the entire Crimean peninsula, incited civil unrest throughout Ukraine, resourced an 8-year-long conflict, and ultimately invaded all of Ukraine to defend itself from NATO. The precise nature of the threat posed by NATO vis-à-vis Ukraine remains unclear, but this will be explored further.
Russia Revanchism
The flaw with the above timeline is that the NATO blamers can’t explain the ins and outs of history as it relates to Russia’s use of force; consequently, they often choose to overlook it altogether. While I could delve into a lengthy tirade, drawing inspiration from Vladimir Putin himself, the aim of this blog is brevity. A 40-minute tirade would be anything but concise. Instead, let's commence our discussion from the widely accepted starting point of modern international politics: the aftermath of World War 2.
For the sake of brevity, I’ll simply construct a timeline of Moscow’s use of military force to prevent nations under its control from breaking free.
1953, Soviet troops deployed to East Germany killing dozens
1956, Soviet troops deployed to Hungary killing hundreds
1968, Soviet troops deployed to Czechoslovakia killing hundreds
1981, Moscow considered using military force to bring Poland back into line. It only opted not due to its own internal weakness.
1988, Moscow helped stoke a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia
1989, Soviet troops killed 21 Georgians suppressing their independence movement
1990, Moscow helped stoke a civil war in Moldova
1990, Soviet troops massacred hundreds of Azerbaijani independence protestors
Late 1990 - early 1991, Soviet troops attacked newly created Lithuania border posts
1991, Soviet troops attacked Vilnius and Riga forcing Lithuanians and Latvian civilians to defend their cities
1991, Moscow helped stoke a civil war in Georgia
Until 1999, NATO did not expand into a single newly independent country in Eastern or Central Europe. Yet thousands were dead in attempts to maintain Russian dominance over Eastern and Central Europe. Russian revanchism did slow down until 2008 with its invasion of Georgia, but this was because of the limitations of Russian power.
I’ve already stated my view that the idea that NATO caused Georgia to invade Russia is silly. No country had joined NATO in over four years. No country in Georgia’s region of the world had joined NATO at all. The only supposed act of aggression was the 2008 Bucharest Summit. But all the summit did was leave the door open to Georgia joining. It gave no timeline. It gave no commitment. Given that the casus belli of the war was Mikheil Saakashvili’s attempt to end the frozen civil war in his country, it is entirely likely that the war would have happened even if the 2008 Bucharest Summit hadn’t happened. But, while the general temporal relationship is weak, there is at least a clear shot and chaser here: 2008 Bucharest Summit → Russia invades Georgia
There is no such relationship with Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Their conflict started in November 2013. Not because Ukraine was about to join NATO, but because Ukraine and the EU were going to enter into a trade deal. It had popular support. Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian President, was going to sign it. Then Putin personally demanded the deal be trashed. It was the possibility that Ukraine might become less dependent on Russia (and therefore harder to control) that caused Russia to force Ukraine back into line.
But Ukrainians did not take Russian meddling lying down. In Kyiv, protestors came to the main square to advocate for the trade deal and general reforms. The Yanukovych government's brutal and inhumane response sparked national outrage. While the protests started in Kyiv, they spread throughout the country within weeks— including to supposedly pro-Russian cities like Odesa, Kharkiv, and Donetsk. Two facts demonstrate the magnitude of this development:
After fleeing Kyiv, Yanukovych sought refuge in Kharkiv, his historical political base (think New York for Barack Obama). When he got there he had so little local support that he decided to keep moving.
“But Mykhalo V. Dobkin, a Party of Regions baron who had for years worked closely with Mr. Yanukovych… “He called and said, ‘I’m coming, either tonight or tomorrow,' ” Mr. Dobkin recalled, adding that Mr. Yanukovych presented his proposed trip east as just another presidential inspection tour and was desperate to “make it look like he wasn’t running away.” To keep up appearances, he asked Mr. Dobkin to “ ‘pick out a few factories for me to visit.’
Mr. Dobkin tried to set something up at a Kharkiv turbine factory, Turboatom, but the director, who would previously have jumped at a chance to meet the president, now wanted nothing to do with Mr. Yanukovych. The director, said Mr. Dobkin, declined even to take his call…
He did not realize, Mr. Dobkin said, that rather than securing his future, the deal, which provided for early elections and other concessions, only sent a signal to Mr. Yanukovych’s allies that it was time to change sides.”
Yanukovych’s own political party controlled parliament when it voted on impeachment. There was not one vote against his impeachment.
NATO blamers argue that NATO orchestrated a coup, yet there are no facts to support that claim. Rather, Yanukovych lost all his political support. Still, these events caused Russia to begin the military phase of the conflict. Their armed forces seized Crimea from Ukraine. They incited violence throughout the country by sending arms to local criminals and losers— including the heavy weapons that shot down MH17. They shelled Ukrainian troops, sent in special forces, and, eventually, their regular troops when lesser actions were failing to do the job.
Much like with Central Intelligence, the conflicting stories are not totally mutually exclusive. Many of the facts between the two stories are not in dispute, rather the dispute is over the relative importance and interpretations. I don’t disagree that Poland joining NATO agitated Russia. I freely concede that. But why did Poland joining NATO agitate Russia? Because its former colony broke free, and it did not have the military might to stop it. Yes, Ukraine wanting to join NATO does “provoke” Russia. But so did Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia wanting to be independent. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan wanting their independence “provoked” Russia. Ukraine wanting to move more goods to France provoked Russia. What unites these events isn’t NATO, but revanchism.
The explanation for the intricacies of the aforementioned history lies not in NATO, but in the relative power dynamics of Russia. Russia has historically maintained total dominance over Ukraine, as 2014 and 2015 showed. But that dominance diminished as we approached 2022. Ukraine demonstrated a combat-capable drone force, began developing its own missiles, sought to professionalize its army, and developed a cohesive national identity. These developments “provoked” Russia because they threatened Moscow’s ability to impose its will on Ukraine— as the last two years showed.
Elsewhere in History
Russia was not the world’s first empire to lose its imperial holdings to local nationalist movements. Much like Great Britain and France, they responded with violent outbursts. Yet, we don’t blame some third party for France’s war to maintain control of Algeria.
Curtain call
In response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, NATO did change its behavior towards Russia. For the first time, the alliance forward deployed troops into states that joined after 1991. 2017 was the birth of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence. In 2018 Ukaine was added to NATO’s Aspirations List— an action which was nothing more than a formal documentation of what was known for years. Two more countries were added. And, in 2021, the Bucharest Summit’s deceleration was reaffirmed. Ukraine and Georgia would be allowed to join NATO after some undefined criteria were met after an undefined time had passed. I guess these events are provocative towards Russia. After all, anything that undermines Moscow’s control over what it thinks are its colonies “provokes” Russia.
Exit quote
"...the bandit’s den at Bakhmut is taken and destroyed, and the inhabitants have been slaughtered.” -A Russian commander... in 1708