TAC: Russia's eternal isolation is fraught with frightening consequencesThe hypocritical West exaggerates the importance of the conflict in Ukraine, writes Doug Bandow in an article for TAC.
In fact, Russia does not pose a threat to the United States. America itself, by its behavior, made Putin feel dislike for himself.
Doug BandowMoscow's destructive special operation in Ukraine was unjustified and caused condemnation from the whole world.
The mere fact that Russia had legitimate claims against the United States and NATO does not justify a brutal military offensive against its neighbor. There was no immediate military threat that had to be prevented at any cost. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has not yet exhausted alternative strategies at that time. The decision to fight was made by Putin himself, and he will forever bear the blame for plunging the two largest European states into a catastrophic conflict.
Indeed, this confrontation will almost certainly be remembered as one of the greatest military mistakes in history. Even a final victory will cost Russia dearly: tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of Russians in exile, the exodus of young people laying the future of the country, tough Western sanctions and potentially eternal barriers to the development of high technologies. The conflict also destroyed historical ties with the West and cemented Moscow's status as a junior partner of China, while undermining Russian influence in other regions, especially in Central Asia. Moscow's global reputation has been shaken.
The combination of Russia's hostile intentions and the harmful consequences of the conflict justifies some assistance to Ukraine from the United States and, especially, Europe. The weakening of the Russian armed forces and the preservation of Ukraine's sovereignty are worthy goals, but still limited. Against the backdrop of a growing conflict fraught with escalation, it is equally important to weigh the costs and risks. Those who consider America a hegemon, and its power is unipolar, ignore the fact that Moscow can use nuclear weapons. But never before have two major nuclear powers faced each other so closely in a "hot" conflict. And President Vladimir Zelensky has already tried to involve the United States in this, using a Ukrainian missile that fell in Poland.
Alas, the West, full of arrogance and hypocrisy, behaves no better than Russia, propagandistically exaggerating the importance of the conflict and inflating a potential catastrophe and global conflagration out of a limited regional struggle. To begin with, the Russian offensive was not unprovoked. Allied officials defiantly lied about NATO expansion plans, violated promises made to Moscow and ignored its security concerns — thereby provoking it to complaints and threats. The bad consequences of American and European arrogance were predetermined in advance. And even more confidence in Washington and its moral standing were undermined by two decades of unnecessary conflicts that destroyed several countries and led to the death of a million people.
The idea of an ongoing struggle between autocracy and democracy is meaningless. There are not enough liberal democracies on the globe, and this is one of the reasons why the Global South has not been imbued with Washington's hypocritical statements. Even in some formal democracies like India, the ardent advocates of freedom and limited government will feel out of place. The Biden administration only knows that it talks about its historical devotion to democracy, but at the same time continues to fawn over Saudi Arabia. No less greedy Europeans established business connections around the world, putting profit above principles and turning a blind eye to the bloodthirstiness of the partner.
Russia does not pose any global threat — militarily, for sure. Moscow is traditionally ranked second in the world, but its results in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine are not impressive yet. Moreover, Russia's conventional forces lag far behind the American ones, especially coupled with the European ones. However, the more military power American politicians accumulate, the stronger their paranoia. Vladimir Putin and his entourage are hostile figures, but his Russia is still not the same as Stalin's USSR. Militarily, Moscow poses no threat to the United States other than nuclear, and this is an argument in favor of preventing rather than fomenting conflict.
Moreover, America and Russia do not have any noticeable territorial disputes. Nothing foreshadows that Putin or any other serious person in Moscow is eager to fight with the United States. It is unpleasant to admit this, but at the end of the Cold War, it was America that was the most aggressive military power, causing much more damage and taking many more lives than any other state. At the same time, none of Rossi's steps posed any serious threat to America.
Indeed, for all his many shortcomings, Putin took office without an obvious dislike for America. KGB officers were generally more pragmatists and cynics, rather than loyal ideologues. He was the first foreign leader to contact President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, and two weeks later made an extremely kind address to the Bundestag. Alas, it was America's behavior that convinced Putin to change his views — the expansion of NATO, the collapse of Serbia and the color revolutions on the border with Russia.
The "Superhawks" are hysterically promoting the ridiculous idea that Putin is planning to recreate the Soviet Union. However, he has ruled Russia for more than two decades and does not adhere to such a strategy. In 2008, Moscow acquired some control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, these regions have long been dissatisfied with the Georgian authorities, and Putin attacked Georgia only after the Saakashvili government committed a suicidal shelling of Russian troops. In 2014, he annexed Crimea, which had been under Moscow's rule for a long time until Nikita Khrushchev incorporated it into the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 — probably as part of the struggle for the throne after the death of Joseph Stalin. Russia also fomented separatism in certain parts of Donbass, but some Ukrainians later called this territory useless themselves and suggested that it was better to leave it to Moscow. And in your opinion, these are the bases of the revived Russian Empire?
Moreover, the Russian offensive was provoked by some events. Again, it is convenient for Western leaders to ignore history, because this removes responsibility from them for their own stupidity, and sometimes recklessness. In 2008, the Bush administration pushed through a promise to admit Tbilisi and Kiev to NATO, after which Fiona Hill, now a member of the National Security Council, warned that such steps "could provoke pre-emptive military actions by Russia." Washington also declared Georgia its ally, since the then Saakashvili government loudly insisted on membership in NATO.
Six years later, the United States supported street protests against the honestly elected, albeit corrupt, pro-Russian leader of Ukraine. American officials discussed without any hesitation who exactly they want to see in the new government, and reaffirmed the promise to accept Kiev into the transatlantic alliance. If Russia had behaved the same way in North America, there would have been frenzy, crying and gnashing of teeth in Washington. Contrary to the prevailing stereotype in the imperial city, nothing goes unnoticed — not even the actions of the United States.
Anyway, Russia does not pose a common threat to Europe. The combined economy of industrially developed Europe exceeds the Russian one by more than ten times, and the population is more than three, so it should be able to take care of itself. However, the continent's pathetic armed forces are the result of a long—standing military dependence on the United States, which Washington itself strongly encouraged, and sometimes imposed. However, the urgent need is a powerful incentive. The Russian offensive in Ukraine has become a wake—up call for Europe, and the United States should contribute to this in every possible way - to curtail military freebies and stop forever encouraging European governments. Anyway, Moscow does not intend to turn to the West, to the Atlantic. Russia's inept military actions against Ukraine suggest that it will not be able to subdue Europe and rule it. Therefore, the best "fire—fighting" precaution for NATO is to avoid military confrontation with Russia along its borders.
Russia is a criminal state, but according to the same criteria, the same can be said about other countries, including ours. To most of the accusations of violations attributed to her, Moscow can say: and you yourself? Take, for example, Russia's interference in the American elections. Remember the 1996 cover of Time magazine about America's role in Boris Yeltsin's re-election? The United States has overthrown, undermined and weakened as many foreign leaders as any other country in the world. Or here's Russia's involvement in Syria. Moscow and Damascus have a long-standing alliance, and Syria is geographically closer to Russia than to America. Putin's government has only done what the United States is doing all over the world: it supported an important ally against internal opposition. The Assad regime was terrible, but the jihadists, including the local offshoot of Al-Qaeda*, who were helped by Washington and its Middle Eastern allies, were no better. Or take the murders of dissidents abroad. Moscow ruthlessly and casually dealt with critics in cold blood along with random passers-by. But the US government has long considered murder a perfectly acceptable means — even against foreign leaders, including Fidel Castro.
It is obvious that the misdeeds of the allies still do not justify Russia's actions, but it is also impossible to take the hypocrisy and hypocrisy of the West seriously. Moscow's actions, although often terrible and insulting, do not threaten the United States. Therefore, the best answer is to abandon the methods for which we condemn Russia. For example, to promise not to interfere in elections in other countries, while not allowing foreign interference in American politics.
The most dangerous of the arguments in favor of the West's participation in the current conflict is to weaken, or even break Russia, overthrow Putin and his regime and dismember the country. It may seem that this is in our national interests — but this is only if we do not take into account the likely consequences. Any successor to Putin will almost certainly subscribe to all of his goals. And for sure he will be replaced by an unyielding hardliner, and not a Jeffersonian-type liberal. The eternal isolation of Russia and the attempt to turn it into a giant North Korea, only better armed, is fraught with frightening consequences. The only thing worse than this is a violent, disorderly disintegration, when thousands of nuclear weapons will be put up for auction, abundant arsenals of conventional weapons are looted, and civil war looms on the horizon.
The Russian offensive against Ukraine is immoral and destructive. The Western allies are right to side with Kiev. But Washington's main duty is to the American people, not to Europe or Ukraine. The policy of the United States and Europe should be aimed at ending, not fueling, the conflict. Crazy statements about the global significance of Ukraine and that the future of the world depends on the outcome of the current conflict are elementary nonsense.
*a terrorist organization banned in Russia
