Scott Tibbs
Ukraine, Russia and reckless NATO expansion
By Scott Tibbs, February 26, 2024
Imagine for a moment that the Soviet Union had invited Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact in the 1970s, and Mexico accepted. How do you think the United States government would have reacted to putting a Soviet Bloc country right on our southern border, just across the Rio Grande? Would we consider that a dangerous provocation? We do not need to speculate, because when the USSR put missiles in Cuba capable of striking the continental United States, President John F. Kennedy ordered a naval blockade of the Communist island nation. The tensions over the blockade nearly led to a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and these United States.
Vladimir Putin is an evil man. He is a thug who murders political dissidents for the "crime" of criticizing him, a tactic no doubt perfected when he was a KGB agent. When President George W. Bush was charmed by Putin, General Colin Powell warned him: "I looked into President Putin's eyes and I saw the KGB." Putin's invasion of Ukraine two years ago was and remains objectively immoral, a violation of another nation's sovereign territory, a threat to stability in Europe and a violation of international law.
But rightly condemning Russia's invasion does not mean that putting more NATO countries right on Russia's border is wise, nor does it mean that including former Soviet republicans in NATO was not an unnecessary provocation. NATO was an alliance set up to oppose the Soviet Union and has been opposed to the USSR and then Russia for nearly 80 years. Adding even more nations on Russia's border to an opposing military alliance is going to be seen as a threat by Russia, whether or not NATO actually has any intention of invading Russian territory. NATO has no such intent, but that is not how Russia sees it.
Historical context is important. Russia had been devastated by the Nazi invasion in World War II. The Warsaw Pact was made up of nations brutally oppressed under the Soviet Union's boot, and was also a buffer zone. Russia thought it was better to fight an invading force in Eastern European satellite states than on Russian soil. No, NATO never had any intent of invading Russia itself, but after the brutality of and trauma inflicted by the Nazi invasion it was not unreasonable for the USSR to fear such a thing.
No, it is not moral relativism to criticize putting NATO right on Russia's border. It actually is possible to fully condemn Russia - as I did above - while also recognizing that it is foolish to be needlessly provocative to a nuclear power. Expanding NATO does not justify Russia's war against Ukraine, and I have never once said that it does. But if Russian soldiers never stepped foot onto Ukrainian soil and Russia gave Crimea back to Ukraine, it still would have been a bad foreign policy move to further box in Russia.
Opposing additional NATO expansion and opposing Russia's invasion and
brutal treatment of a sovereign nation are not contradictory positions. Those claiming otherwise are engaged in pure tribalism. Our foreign policy decisions cannot be driven by tribal loyalties that do not recognize the complexities of international relations and how our policy decisions impact our relations with other world powers. While we need to project strength to deter our adversaries, we should not be openly antagonizing them either.
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
ConservaTibbs.com