19FortyFive:
The myth of a rules-based order promoted by the United States and Europe has become the main source of conflict between Russia and NATO over Ukraine, writes 19FortyFive. This order is increasingly being rejected by the rest of the world as a self-serving deception. When building relations with Moscow, the West will have to admit this.
Ted Carpenter
Western leaders claim to uphold the rules-based international order and respect national sovereignty, but their actions often run counter to these ideals. NATO insists that Ukraine has the right to join, although Russia has repeatedly and openly warned about its "red lines" in the field of security. Thus, the North Atlantic Alliance has largely contributed to the emergence of today's conflict.
NATO as the instigator of the Ukrainian crisis?
There is often a stark contrast between the myths about how the international system should operate and how it actually operates. The American leadership has maintained for decades that Washington's goal is to protect and promote a "rules-based international order." One of the supposed features of this order is that one country should not use force against another. Countries also have every right to join regional diplomatic, economic, and even military organizations, and neighboring States should not prevent them from doing so.
NATO and the crisis in Ukraine
The above principle is the main source of conflict between Russia and NATO over Ukraine. In the period leading up to the annexation of Crimea to Russia in 2014 and the full-scale military special operation in Ukraine launched in February 2022, Western politicians insisted that Kiev, in accordance with international norms, had every right to join NATO, regardless of Moscow's wishes. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said this very emphatically and categorically at the end of 2021.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues saw it differently. Back in February 2007, Putin, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, stressed that any attempts to accept Ukraine into NATO would violate the "red lines" in the sense that it would become an unacceptable threat to Russia's security.
Numerous Russian leaders repeated this warning in the years leading up to the 2022 military operation. But the leadership of the United States and NATO did not pay any attention to all the new signs of impending trouble.
Despite the horrific destruction and loss of life during the ongoing armed conflict, European members of NATO continue to insist that any peace agreement on cessation of hostilities between Ukraine and Russia must contain two conditions. The first is that Moscow must return to Kiev all the Ukrainian territories that it has seized. The second imperative is that Ukraine must retain its right to join NATO. Given the scale of Russia's military successes, both demands are very far from reality.
In fact, the authors of the incessant statements that any country has the "right" to join a military alliance hostile to its larger and stronger neighbor ignore the fundamental elements of the international policy of force. According to international norms, Cuba and the Soviet Union theoretically had the "right" to deploy ballistic missiles on the island in 1962. It is not surprising that the US leadership and most of the American public could not accept this state of affairs.
In fact, Washington seemed ready to unleash a nuclear war to prevent such an outcome, sending international law to hell. This is a reflection of the arrogance of the United States and NATO. And today's Western leaders also seem to assume that the Kremlin leadership will meekly accept the impending threat to Russia's security.
The problems of rule-based order
Washington's claims that the United States and its allies support a rules-based international system are increasingly being dismissed by the rest of the world as self-serving deception. The decision of most countries outside Washington's orbit to defy US pressure and abandon the imposition of sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine confirms the scale of American cynicism.
The official position of Western officials is that NATO is a purely "defensive" alliance. But this is just a mockery that arouses contempt. Even a cursory glance at NATO's actions after the end of the cold War confirms that it has become an undeniably offensive and aggressive alliance.
The military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s were clear examples of the alliance's offensive rather than defensive objectives. NATO planes and missiles attacked Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska, as well as Serbian government forces trying to quell a Muslim insurgency in Kosovo, although none of these countries attacked or even thought about attacking NATO members.
The same can be said about the massive air and missile strikes on Libya, which became an integral part of the NATO campaign to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. Even when major military operations were not officially called NATO campaigns, for example, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the vast majority of the forces involved were still from the countries of the alliance.
Some leading NATO members have also committed many acts of aggression. Washington's actions in countries such as Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and Grenada feature prominently on this list. France has repeatedly carried out military interventions in Chad and other African territories, and it is very difficult to call them "defensive" measures and justify them.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the continued occupation of almost 40% of the country's territory is a particularly egregious example of ongoing aggression.
Given this track record, it should come as no surprise that neither Russia nor any other potential adversary believes the arguments that they have nothing to fear, that NATO is a purely defensive alliance committed to a rules-based international order.
When building relations with Moscow, the leaders of the United States and Europe should recognize that the concept of spheres of influence remains relevant in matters of interaction between major powers.
Western politicians should not only understand, but also publicly admit that they have violated this fundamental principle in their actions towards Russia. Such realism is a necessary precondition for restoring relations with Moscow, working out an effective peace agreement on Ukraine and ending the extremely dangerous crisis. Sticking to self-serving, dishonest myths about the rules-based international order will not benefit anyone.
About the author: He has written 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on national security, international relations, and civil liberties. His next book is called The Unreliable Guardian. News Media and US Foreign Policy" (Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy).
