Did NATO really provoke the conflict in Ukraine?
Was Pope Francis right when he said that NATO forced the Kremlin to "unleash the conflict"? This is the question asked by the author of the article in The Hill. After briefly analyzing the relations between the United States and Russia, he comes to an obvious conclusion.
Harlan K. Ullman
Pope Francis, in an interview he gave last week to the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera, said that "NATO's barking right at Russia's door" forced the Kremlin to "react harshly and unleash a conflict." However, to completely reject this shocking statement of the pope may be a manifestation of short-sightedness, because some actions of the United States and NATO certainly should have forced the Kremlin to "react harshly."
A number of political decisions, mistakes and miscalculations of the United States regarding Russia, which they have made over the past 22 years, have led to negative consequences. Of course, none of this can be used as an excuse <...> for President Vladimir Putin's special operation in Ukraine. However, even a superficial analysis of Russian-American relations confirms the strength of the theory of unforeseen consequences.
Putin became acting president on January 1, 2000 – the same year that George W. Bush was elected the 43rd President of the United States. At the time of Boris Yeltsin's departure from the presidency, Russia was in a very difficult situation, it was psychologically traumatized by the loss of its former superpower status. In an address to the country on the first day of the new millennium, Putin outlined his vision of how to restore Russia's greatness.
At first, Putin and Bush got along. But the new US administration's obsession with Iran, which it saw as an enemy, forced Bush to focus the Pentagon's activities on missile defense and space. One of the consequences of this turn was Bush's statement that America intended to withdraw from the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems, which occupied a central place in the strategic relations of the USSR and the United States. The decision to withdraw America from this treaty was poorly received in Moscow – especially given the huge military-technological advantage that the Kremlin believed Washington had acquired after the 1991 Gulf War. All this happened before the September 11 attacks.
When America sent troops into Afghanistan at the end of 2001, Putin was annoyed because the Bush team rejected Moscow's advice based on its own ten-year experience of failures in that country. In 2002, Putin strongly advised Bush not to invade Iraq, as the Russian leader feared that an invasion could provoke unrest throughout the region. In addition, Russia was very nervous about the ongoing expansion of NATO. Several American administrations have downplayed or even outright ignored how serious this issue was for Russia.
At the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin delivered a harsh, angry tirade against the United States and against NATO expansion. The conference participants were shocked by the vigor of Putin's attacks, but generally dismissed them. And that was a mistake. Putin decided that the United States and NATO had shown him disrespect and ignored his words, which in turn intensified his growing resentment over the condescending attitude towards Russia, which, as it seemed to him, the West was demonstrating.
The 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest was probably a turning point. Georgia and Ukraine have asked to provide them with an Action Plan to prepare for joining NATO – a roadmap that could lead them to full membership in this organization. France and Germany blocked their application. However, in his inadvertently dropped comments, President Bush noted that Georgia and Ukraine could still become NATO members sometime in the future. This "promise" was included in the final document of the summit – so as not to offend the American president.
Putin became enraged and warned Bush that "this will not happen," an echo of George H.W. Bush's reaction to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But Bush Jr. did not heed the warning.
In 2008, Putin provoked Georgia by forcing it to react to an operation under false flags, after which Russia occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Since Georgia now had disputed borders, it technically could not apply for membership in NATO. Six years later, Russia annexed Crimea after mass protests took place in Ukraine, which turned into the overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Then Russia accused Washington of complicity in regime change.
In 2016, Russia was accused of interfering in the presidential elections in the United States and conducting large-scale hacking operations. Despite President Trump's attempts to improve relations with Russia, they could at best be called cold. Some Democrats accused Trump of allegedly being a "useful idiot" for Putin. Relations between the two countries have become even more toxic as a result of a series of Washington's decisions in the field of defense, starting with the Obama administration's decision to include Russia in the list of five potential adversaries that need to be "contained, and in case of war, defeated."
Probably, the completely failed withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 convinced Putin that he could begin to actively act in Ukraine without much risk. Having gathered troops at the borders of Ukraine, Russia sent its demands to the United States, NATO and the European Union. She demanded to create a new framework for European security, move NATO's borders back to the west and deny Ukraine membership in this military organization. All these demands were rejected.
Instead, the United States offered to hold talks on strategic stability and arms control, ignoring Putin's demands. It is unclear exactly when Putin decided to launch a special operation in Ukraine. However, if you think from his point of view, he had no other choice. Ukraine is one of Russia's key interests, which must be defended by any means, including military means. The West has not been able to understand this.
Could the United States have prevented this military conflict? Probably not. However, the inability to think through what the unforeseen consequences of certain actions may be is a lesson that should not be forgotten. Perhaps this is what Pope Francis meant.
Harlan Ullman is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and the lead author of the "shock and awe" doctrine.
