Russia’s attack on Ukraine was unjustified, and it has drawn Moscow’s ire around the globe. Moscow’s brutal military attack on Ukraine is not justified by the fact that it had legitimate grievances about NATO and the U.S. There was no imminent threat that could be avoided. Russian President Vladimir Putin hadn’t exhausted other strategies. Putin made the decision to go to war and will always be held responsible for launching the two largest European countries into a devastating conflict.
The war will almost certainly be remembered as one the greatest military mistakes in history. Even a victory for Russia would not be cheap: Tens to thousands died, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, hundreds of thousand Russians exiled, and a youth shortage that harmed the country’s future. The majority of the economy is under strict Western sanctions and allied restrictions, which could make it difficult to grow high-tech. This conflict has also disrupted historic connections with the West, confirmed Moscow’s role as China’s junior partner, and undermined Russian influence in Central Asia. Moscow’s reputation worldwide has plummeted.
A combination of Russia’s evil intentions and the conflict’s disastrous consequences warrants some U.S., and even more, European assistance for Ukraine. While these are worthy goals, they are still limited. These goals should be balanced against the risks and costs, particularly from an escalated conflict rife with escalation. People who view America as a hegemon with unipolar strength tend to ignore Moscow’s possible use of nukes. However, it is rare that two major traditional powers possessing nuclear weapons have been so close in a conflict. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelesky has already tried to drag America into war by using his nation’s missile attack on Poland.
The West, brimming with hubris, sanctimony and ego, has tried to make the conflict more important than Russia and transform a regional conflict into a potentially devastating global conflagration. The invasion was not unprovoked. Ostentatiously the Allied officials lied about their plans for NATO expansion, violated promises made Moscow and ignored security concerns of Moscow, leading to numerous Russian complaints and threats . The ill effects of American and European hubris are almost certain. Washington’s moral and credibility have been further damaged by the two decades of unnecessary conflicts that destroyed several countries and killed over a million people.
It is absurd to claim that the ongoing struggle is between democracy and autocracy. The fact that there are few liberal democracies in the world is one reason why the Global South is not impressed by Washington’s sanctimonious statements on the matter. Nominal democracies like India are becoming increasingly unattractive for those who believe in individual liberty and limited government. Washington continues to bow to Saudi Arabia despite the endless biden administration boasting about its historical devotion to democracy. The Europeans, no matter how brutal the partner, have placed profit above principle when establishing business ties all over the globe.
Russia is not a threat to the world, and certainly not militarily. Moscow has traditionally
Russia and America have no notable territorial disputes. There is also no evidence that Putin, or any other serious person in Moscow, wants war with the U.S. Although it may not be popular to admit, Washington has been the most aggressive military power since the end of the Cold War, inflicting far more harm than any other state and killing far more people. Nothing Russia has done to America has been of any significance.
Despite his many flaws, Putin did not take any animus towards America into office. KGB officers were known for their cynicism, worldliness and not ideological loyalty. After 9/11, he was the first foreign leader who contacted President George W. Bush. He also gave a very accommodating address to Bundestag two weeks later. It was America’s behavior, NATO expansion, dismantlement and color revolutions at Russia’s borders, that most affected Putin’s views.
Uber-hawks propagate the absurd meme that Putin intends to reconstitute Soviet Union. He has been Russia’s ruler over two decades, but he has never pursued such an approach. Moscow was able to gain some control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008. They had been bitter against Georgian rule for a long time and Putin attacked Georgia after the Saakashvili government killed itself. He seized Crimea in 2014, likely as part the succession struggle following the death of Joseph Stalin. Russia supported separatism in Donbas areas, which some Ukrainians suggested later was worthless territory that should be left with Moscow. These are the foundations of a new Russian Empire?
Russian aggressions were also triggered by historical events. In an attempt to avoid being held responsible for their own reckless and foolish behavior, Western leaders often ignore history. The Bush administration demanded that NATO induct Tbilisi, Kiev in 2008. This caused Fiona Hill (later of the National Security Council ), to warn that such actions “would likely provoke preemptive Russian military action.” Washington also declared Georgia an ally, as the Saakashvili government was pushing hard for NATO membership.
Six years later, the U.S. supported crippling street protests against Ukraine’s corrupt, but duly elected, pro-Russian leader. American officials openly discussed the potential new government’s leader and reiterated their commitment to Kiev joining the transatlantic alliance. Washington would have been filled with wailing and grunting teeth if Russia had behaved similarly to North America. Contrary to the dominant assumption in the imperial capital, all actions have consequences, even those of Americans.
Russia is not a threat to Europe in any way. Russia is not a threat to Europe’s industrialized countries with a combined economy of more than ten times or more than three times Russia’s. The pitiful defense forces of the continent are a result of decades-old defense dependency on the U.S., which Washington encouraged and sometimes enforced. But necessity provides powerful incentives. The attack on Ukraine was a wake-up call for Europe. It should be strengthened by the U.S. to end the continent’s cheap military ride, rather than forever reassuring European government. Moscow has not shown any interest in moving westward towards the Atlantic. Russia’s failed war against Ukraine does not indicate that it can conquer and rule Europe. NATO’s best way to avoid conflict is to avoid military confrontation with Russia along its borders.
Russia is a bad actor but it’s held to the same standards as many other countries, including this one. et tutu is Moscow’s best answer to most of its alleged violations. Consider Russian interference in U.S. election. Remember that 1996 Times magazine cover praising American participation in the reelection of Boris Yeltsin. The U.S. has overthrown and undermined more foreign leaders than any other country, including democratically elected ones. Or Russian involvement with Syria? Moscow has been a long-standing ally with Syria, which is more geographically close to Russia than America. The Putin government did the same thing as the U.S.: it strengthened what it considered to be an important ally against the internal opposition. Although the Assad regime was terrible, so were the jihadists and the Al-Qaeda affiliate in the region, all of which were supported by Washington and its Mideast allies. Consider the Russian killings of dissidents overseas. Moscow has brutally and carelessly murdered critics as well as bystanders. The U.S. government has long considered murder an acceptable weapon and even targeted foreign leaders like Fidel Castro.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
While allied misbehavior doesn’t justify Russia, it is difficult to ignore Western hypocrisy or sanctimony. Despite being often outrageous, most of Moscow’s actions do not pose a threat to the U.S. It would be a good idea to denounce Russia’s actions and to avoid the same mistakes. For example, you could promise not to interfere with elections in other countries while insisting that American governments remain out of American politics.
The most dangerous argument for Western intervention in the current conflict is to weaken Russia, if possible, by overthrowing Putin and dismembering the country. These seem like national interests objectives until you consider the possible consequences. Putin’s successor would likely share his goals. He would prefer Jeffersonian liberals to succeed him, rather than hardline nationalists. It could lead to a permanent isolation of Russia and a massive North Korea with better weapons. A violent and messy breakup could be even worse, with thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons available for sale, numerous conventional arsenals available for looting, as well as civil war.
Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine is both morally and practically disastrous. Allies from the West have a right to support Ukraine. Washington’s primary duty is to the American people and not Europe or Kiev. The U.S. and European policies should aim to end the war, not fuel it. These extravagant claims about Ukraine’s importance to the global community, and that its future depends on the outcome, are absurd.
