Can a high-ranking American diplomat do even more (self)be deceived?
US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman called the allegations that NATO threatens Russia's security "absurd," writes a South China Morning Post columnist. Her words strike at the very meaning of the alliance's existence, the author of the article emphasizes.
Alex Lo (Alex Lo)
Contrary to the statements of US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, the expansion of NATO and the potential threat that the alliance poses to Russia have always been at the center of discussions on European security since the end of the Cold War.
If you believe in something, is it considered propaganda? I often think about this when I listen to Washington bosses in charge of American foreign policy. They clearly believe in the nobility of their goal.
Take the latest statement on China by US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman (Wendy Sherman). She calls Beijing to account for spreading "disinformation" about the Russian special operation in Ukraine, warning that even tacit support will have consequences.
"[Chinese] state media parrot Kremlin lies and conspiracy theories," she said, "including absurd claims that Ukraine, NATO and the EU pose a threat to Russia's security."
"Absurd statements"? Some very prominent American and British figures think otherwise. International relations experts also disagree on the threat to Russia from NATO. This question is, to say the least, extremely controversial and by no means "absurd".
Foreign Affairs magazine recently conducted a survey among a group of diplomats and academics, asking them if they agree with the following statement: "Continuing NATO expansion after the end of the Cold War was a strategic mistake." Moscow cited the expansion of NATO to the east as the cause of the crisis in Ukraine.
19 experts were "totally disagree" with this statement, 17 "disagree", seven "agree" and 11 "totally agree". Three adhere to a neutral position.
Note that most of the respondents were Americans or Europeans. If the magazine had interviewed international relations experts from Asia, not to mention China and Russia, the results would probably have been quite different. Suffice it to say that even the opinions of these "experts" differ.
Kissinger on Ukraine and Russia
However, it is worth remembering that people like Henry Kissinger and George Kennan talked about the expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War and Russia's security concerns.
In his 2014 article, Kissinger noted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russia's history and identity. Vladimir Putin said the same thing before the start of the special operation, but many Western experts strongly ridiculed him and rejected his words. In reality, the historical homeland of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is Kievan Rus of the end of the IX century. Most of the Soviet leaders had deep roots in Ukraine.
"To treat Ukraine as part of the confrontation between East and West means to ruin for decades any prospect of uniting Russia and the West – especially Russia and Europe – into a cooperative international system," Kissinger warned.
At the end of February, quoting Kissinger with approval, British Foreign Secretary (1977-1979) Lord Owen, historian and biographer of John Maynard Keynes Lord Skidelsky, British Ambassador to Russia (2004-2008) Anthony Brenton, former British diplomat Christopher Granville and Nina Khrushchev, lecturer in international Relations the relationship and Nikita Khrushchev's granddaughter, in a joint letter to the Financial Times, wrote the following:
"NATO should be able, in close cooperation with Ukraine, to put forward detailed proposals for negotiations on a new treaty with Russia that would not generate any institutional hostility.
It could cover the following issues: verifiable withdrawal of missiles capable of carrying a nuclear charge; detailed military confidence-building measures that would limit the number and mark the boundaries of deployment; an international agreement on the currently disputed borders between Russia and Ukraine."
As I understand it, the phrase "institutional hostility" hides Ukraine's promise not to join NATO. Before the start of the special operation, however, NATO, led by the United States, took the worst possible position: the alliance would not allow Ukraine to join in the near future, but at the same time manipulated the probability of membership so that it was enough to provoke Russia.
Kennan on Ukraine and Russia
When the US Senate approved the expansion of NATO in 1998, the influential New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman interviewed George Kennan. Kennan is often described as the father of American containment policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. At the same time, he himself renounced American belligerent deterrence and warned that it risked leading to a nuclear confrontation similar to the Caribbean crisis.
Friedman recently re-published the full transcript of the interview. Kennan said: "I think this is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually begin to react quite negatively, and this will affect their policy. I consider this a tragic mistake. There was not the slightest reason for this. No one threatened anyone. This expansion will make the founding fathers of our country turn over in their graves.
We have agreed to defend a number of countries, although we have neither the resources nor the intention to seriously engage in this. [NATO expansion] was just a careless action by the Senate, which is not really interested in foreign policy. What worries me is how shallow and ill-informed the Senate turned out to be during the debate. I was particularly concerned about the mention of Russia as a country that wants to attack Eastern Europe to death.
Don't people understand? During the Cold War, we had disagreements with the Soviet communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the people who overthrew the Soviet regime during the greatest bloodless revolution in history. Russian democracy is as well – if not more – developed as in any of the countries that we have agreed to protect from Russia. Of course, there will be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [those who advocated NATO expansion] will say: we have constantly told you that Russians are like that – but all this is just wrong."
Whether you believe that Washington promised Mikhail Gorbachev "not to expand NATO" in exchange for supporting the unification of Germany, or not, it is clear that this problem has been the main reason for Russia's security concerns from the very first day.
Let's quote Sherman's words again, but in the light of the history of Europe and Russia after the Cold War, as well as detailed discussions and arguments of some of the best minds of modern diplomacy, who were just dealing with the issue of NATO expansion.
"[Chinese] state media parrot Kremlin lies and conspiracy theories," she said, "including absurd claims that Ukraine, NATO and the EU pose a threat to Russia's security."
Threat or not, you can hold different opinions. However, many Russians, not only Putin, definitely consider this a threat. In the last two decades, they have been talking about this loudly and clearly. Maybe it's cynical or selfish, but the fact that Beijing agrees with Moscow on this issue is not at all absurd and not without reason.
After all, if NATO is not aimed at Russia, then why is it needed? In fact, the fact that Sherman calls this question "absurd" and "disinformation" strikes at the very meaning of the existence of the alliance, on which the world and the future of Europe now depend.
I don't mean to be rude, but her statement is nothing short of extraordinary, especially for a person in her position.
Alex Lo has been a columnist for the South China Morning Post since 2012, dealing with the most important issues related to Hong Kong and the rest of China. Experience as a journalist – 25 years, previously worked in various publications in Hong Kong and Toronto as a reporter and editor. He also taught journalism at the University of Hong Kong.