When we look at the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many would argue that it was inevitable. Russia has been looking to expand their power into former USSR countries, and as we see with war, proximity is always prioritized. Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, it proved that Russia was ready to expand its power in neighboring countries. We saw their involvement in Georgia and Ukraine, in 2008 and 2014, respectively, allying themselves with separatists movements to then uphold their power in these countries. However, in “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault,” by John. J Mearsheimer, the blame is placed on the United States and the EU. I agree with this analysis, that the U.S and the EU’s lack of intervention in the annexation of Crimea, allowed Putin to believe he could also take Ukraine.
The EU failed to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, to weaken the Russian influence in the separatist movements. This was crucial in the current ongoing war, as Russian troops entered from Donetsk and Luhansk, and said they recognized these regions as independent from Ukraine. They then used this to continue to invade Ukraine, and attempt to take Kyiv. If the EU allowed Ukraine to join NATO, while we cannot deny that Russia would interfere to stop this like it did with Georgia, it would’ve brought more protection than if Russia invaded Ukraine without their ever being even an attempt. All they did was provoke Russia by talking about Ukraine joining NATO. They also provoked Russia by its constant expansion into neighboring countries in the region. We know that in war, proximity is prioritized and when NATO began to expand, it was a threat to Russia and its former Soviet empire which they were desperate to rebuild.
Mearsheimer also points out that Russia would never standby as the US interfered in Ukraine with its National Endowment for Democracy. The government began pumping money to Ukraine to prompt democracy which angered the Russians. It’s not illogical to be angry that countries that oppose you are expanding their power in nations that surround you. However, I believe that the US should’ve finished what they started and when Russia took Crimea, took steps to militarily intervene when it came to Russia’s expansion. They interfered, along with the EU and NATO, but never took real steps to protect Ukraine, leading to Russia’s inevitable devastating carnage of Ukraine. They talked a big storm but never took steps to weaken Russia’s hold in that country, in the separatist movements, and in their military presence.
History repeats itself, Hitler took Czechoslovakia and then began to invade the rest of Europe. You cannot allow a country to exceed its power into another sovereign nation and then think that will be it. We allowed Russia to annex Crimea and therefore should’ve expected the war in Ukraine. Historians have said Putins’ attempt to take Ukraine would happen again sooner or later, and it happened 8 years after their annexation of Crimea.
One reply on “Week 3”
Nailah,
I liked the way you presented your argument in this blog post. Russia has historically always been preoccupied with maintaining a defensive buffer on their western border–what they call the “Near Abroad.” So, when NATO started expanding into those very countries (e.g., Poland, Hungary, etc.), this only increased their paranoia. Indeed, this has become the principal rationale for the Russian invasion–i.e., that Ukraine’s alliance with the West represents a security threat on Russia’s western border.
There are some problems with Mearsheimer’s argument, which we will discuss in class. But it probably is true, with the benefit of historical hindsight, that NATO eastward expansion and the promise of admitting Ukraine in the future was too much for the Russians to tolerate. Certainly this was/is true for Vladimir Putin, who is a Russian nationalist and dreams of restoring the power and glory of the old Soviet empire. –Professor Wallerstein