The battle for the narrative of Russo-Ukrainian war one year in: Part 3 (USA)
The global juggernaut and it's intentional role in precipitating yet another crisis
In my previous two articles, I wrote on the situation in Ukraine prior to the invasion including it’s ethnic fault lines and the Russian response to it along multiple dimensions. This article would be my most controversial (and final) of this series- focusing on US (and NATO)- as a lot of people in the West insist US is not an active participant. Even among those who acknowledge US/NATO provoking, they blame US for not taking Russian redlines seriously enough. Here I will investigate the long road after Soviet dissolution across US Presidents beyond just ignoring Russian redlines, but actively attempting to subvert it- with the intention of containing Russia, ensuring the preservation of unipolar moment and preventing the rise of more regional powers. In order to understand the primary actions undertaken by US/NATO, they are highlighted under the section “heightended security threat from NATO” in the previous article:
The focus of this article is largely to examine the intent and doctrines from US perspective using a long range of documented evidence, alongside also diving deeper into some topics raised previously- such as funding for color revolutions across Eastern Europe, or meddling within Russia.
Given I analyzed Russian perspective through multiple lens, I will do the same for US:
Geopolitical power competition: Preservation of unipolarity
Threat of Russian expansion and destabilizing home front
Genuine concern for democratic values as professed
Clash of civilizations
By and large, I will focus on the first one.
Unipolar moment and it’s preservation
"We can’t let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat” - GHW Bush to Kohl
“No organization would “replace NATO as the guarantor of Western security and stability,” he told France's François Mitterrand,
The fall of Berlin Wall marked an important chapter in 20th century history. Even though Soviet Union hadn’t yet collapsed, the once mighty rival to the US stood by and rather than use military troops (which were stationed in East Germany) Gorbachev criticized East Germany for being too slow to enact democratic reforms. While he voiced concerns on German unification, he agreed not just because of James Baker’s verbal commitment to not expand NATO on which a lot has been written, but also because he saw Soviet as a stakeholder in collective security of Europe collaborating with NATO to ensure democratic unified Europe leading to German unification including full gradual withdrawal of Soviet troops. However despite Gorbachev’s hopes, President GW Bush was giving assurances to his counterparts in West Germany (Kohl) and France (Mitterand) that Soviet will have at best a nominal role and can’t be allowed to revamp, and only NATO would continue to be the dominant player in Europe. The sentiment in US foreign policy elites was best captured by the iconic article “The Unipolar Moment” by political commentator Charles Krauthammer lavishing in a new world order without any rivals, and encouraging global hegemony through pre-emptive interventions to spread “American values” and prevent emergence of new rivals, and lamented the challenges as pacifism domestically (sometimes known as “Vietnam syndrome” derisively).
“The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is an unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies… The unipolar moment means that with the close of the century’s three great Northern civil wars (World War I, World War II and the Cold War) an ideologically pacified North seeks security and order by aligning its foreign policy behind that of the United States. The unipolar moment means that America has a unique responsibility to act as the world’s policeman. It can do so not only by deterrence but by intervention. The United States has a rare chance to exercise its benign hegemony over much of the world.
The American hegemon has no great power enemies, an historical oddity of the first order. Yet it does face a serious threat to its dominance, indeed to its essential security. It comes not from abroad but from within. The danger is not that America will be too present in world affairs but that it will withdraw prematurely or capriciously.”-The Unipolar Moment in Foreign Affairs, 1990
While this wasn’t official policy doctrine, it heavily influenced US elites and was deployed in action in Iraq (1991) but soon it was followed by actual policy documents codifying some of these realpolitik aims of US as a new global hegemon in the “Defense Planning Guidance of 1992” by then under-secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (thus becoming known as Wolfowitz Doctrine)
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others... We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.
As this was a leaked draft the final published work was modified to remove the realpolitik language and use words like democracy & human rights. However Wolfowitz would go on to have a long notorious career (one of key architects of Iraq 2003 invasion) serving under GW Bush too, where finally “Bush doctrine” (published as part of National Security Strategy 2002 document and later Quadrennial Defense Review of 2006) was more openly applied to contain overt hawkish language reflecting the earlier doctrine with core tenets being identified as preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting “democratic” regime change.
So while the documents were publicly formalized in the 2000s, the groundwork for US foreign policy had already been laid out in the immediate aftermath of fall of Berlin Wall, even before the dissolution of Soviet Union as an extension of the same principle from Cold War against Soviet known as “containment”. Notably this policy was to be applied equally elsewhere in Middle East or East Asia too to prevent rise of other regional powers. The simplest way to do that was to surround the countries (specially Russia) with military bases and even missiles.
Moreover this era also saw the formation and coalescing of multiple neoconservative organizations as “think-tanks” in Washington such as Project for the New American Century by hawks like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, who introduced themselves in Foreign Affairs advocating “America should pursue a vision of benevolent hegemony as bold as Reagan's in the 1970s and wield its authority unabashedly” in the abstract itself. A large portion of that coalition joined Bush administration, and oversaw multiple military interventions (advocating for invading Iraq as early as 1998) and massive expansion of domestic surveillance state. Most of these cast rotate from one think tank to another, advocate for every war, are highly-connected in political establishment and get featured on mainstream US media interviews constantly.
In the book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics", “realist” author Professor John Mearsheimer diagnoses in depth US foreign policy through a pragmatic lens, examines the US desire to prevent the rise of any potential rival in Europe, including Russia, to maintain its hegemonic influence in the region. Mind you, he is not criticizing the strategy and is no pacifist. He just like many “realists” prefer talking about foreign policy openly as a geopolitical chessboard rather than some convoluted ideals, and believe US should focus on containing China than Russia.
A lot of critics of the US role in “provocation” to Russia have posited that US “didn’t do enough” to pay attention to legitimate Russian national security concerns. However the containment doctrine above, alongside statements from a lot of prominent officials over the years shows that US not only just “ignored” the concerns, but was very intentional in further undermining those concerns and to an extent sees the Russian escalation into Ukraine as an opportunity to finally expedite it’s project to weaken Russia. As noted earlier, the best place to get an insight into the actual actions undertaken would be the previous article in the last section.
One notable book highlighting this is “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” (1997) by past National Security Advisor (1976-80) Zbignew Zbreinski- one of the architects of successfully bogging down Soviet in Afghanistan- where he talks at length on the importance of maintaining a favorable balance of power to avoid any single state from exerting hegemonic control over the Eurasian landmass, thus helping preserve US pre-eminence. He asserted the importance of containing Russian power by supporting it’s neighbors in Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan. On Ukraine, he mentioned:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."
There are many further comments from various elected officials, political commentators, think-tanks, security officials reflecting a combination of disdain for Russian concerns, as well as desires to see the country cornered and weakened as well as submit to Western domination.
Here are some examples, from 1997 from then senator, Joe Biden:
"I had one interesting comment, conversation with Zyuganov... They talked about they don't want this NATO expansion. They know it's not in their security interests, and on and on, and said, well, if you do that, we may have to look to China. And I couldn't help using the colloquial expression from my state by saying to Zyuganov lots of luck in your senior year. You know, good luck. And if that doesn't work, try Iran. I am serious. I said that to them, and they know I knew they knew. Everybody knows that is not an option. And everybody knows, every one of those leaders acknowledges and needs, and they resent it. But they need to look West."
- Exact video which is part of Biden’s larger talk in NATO Atlantic Council, 1997
Further in 2009 when Biden was Vice President, he penned an op-ed asserting a “weakened Russia will bend to US” (also dismissing Russia’s redlines around Georgia or Ukraine) explaining his rationale as:
“The reality is, the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable. with its population base shrinking and the economy "withering", would have to make accommodations to the West on a wide range of national-security issues”
Robert Kagan (one of the founders of the above think-tanks) wrote a book “The Return of History and the End of Dreams” (2008) where he asserted:
As long as Russia remains strong, stable, and cohesive, no American alliance system in Europe will be possible. It is that simple.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted in 2011, claiming economic integration and union initiated by Russia was re-Sovietization and needs to be stopped (with that logic, of course EU let alone NATO would be Pax Americana or even Britannica).
“There is a move to re-Sovietize the region, It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”
The “Council on Foreign Relations” published a book called “Containing Russia” in 2018 recommending sanctions, cyber warfare, encircling Russia further in Europe (Ukrainian PM Yulia Tomashenko penned article with the same title in 2007)
During Trump’s first impeachment hearings (2019), Adam Schiff- head of House Intelligence Committee quoted:
“The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here”.
In the aftermath of Russian invasion in 2022, more of the veneer has been dropped at instances with Biden (now President) asserting Putin cannot remain in power, signaling regime change, in 2023 Republican Senator Lindsay Graham suggesting assassination of Putin as a method. 2012 Republican Presidential nominee and current US senator Mitt Romney similarly admitted in a video, while trying to rationalize spending on Ukraine to his constituents:
Russia is a geopolitical adversary, and the U.S. is helping to deplete the Russian military through its aid to Ukraine. He says Russia is China’s only real ally, so weakening Russia is also an effective way to weaken China.
More recently Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was crisp on US goals too admitting to weakening Russia, while Anthony Blinken (US Secretary of State) reiterated it stating “I think the secretary said it very well”.
“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. Russia should not have the capability to very quickly reproduce the forces and equipment that had been lost in Ukraine.”
Republican Senator and 2024 Presidential Candidate Tim Scott said in an interview:
America’s vital interest is degrading the Russian military. When we do that, we make sure our home front is safer. This means evaluating threats to home front to our country- the most immediate military threat that could happen is Russia. You look at their sixth generation Jets, you look at their Hypersonic weapons, you look at their nuclear arsenal. Everything that we do that degrades the Russian military is good for America.
-Tim Scott in Turning Point interview with Tucker Carlson
While these are hawkish elected officials still dropping the mask, and signaling real intent some other adjacent think-tanks have been even more explicit.
Here is “commentator” Matt Yigeslias saying the quiet part out loud:
this is actually a really good deal for us. Basically, NATO equipment + Ukrainian lives are being traded for Russian equipment + Russian lives, which leaves NATO coming out ahead. That's doubly true because NATO is much richer than Russia, so we win a long-term game of "everyone explode their weapons as fast as they can make them."
Richard Hanania from a “think-tank” wrote:
There’s no good ending for the Russian people that doesn’t recognize their entire culture and civilizational model has failed, and the country has to be remade along Western lines. Tough pill to swallow but every other path is towards certain disaster.
However the actions have gone beyond rhetoric and willingness to admit the intentions with actual on-the-ground effort to not just seek more combat and not peace, but actually go out of their way to sabotage peace negotiations. First, this was reported when Boris Johnson (then Prime Minister of UK) urged Zelensky to not sign a peace-agreement saying “West” wouldn’t sign on to a “bad peace”. Putin revealed the negotiation documents from Istanbul last year in a meeting with African leaders- signed by Russian and Ukrainian delegation, before it was skirted by Boris Johnson. Instead Johnson insisted this should be used as an opportunity to “press” Putin.
Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.
Similarly Israeli PM at the time Naftali Bennett admitted in an interview that he was trying to broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine, including directly having reached out to Zelensky and Putin but US, Germany and France stopped the deal because they believed it was essential to “keep striking Putin”.
More recently, when China proposed a plan to negotiate between Russia and Ukraine, US officials immediately expressed skepticism of any ceasefire being signed with National Security Council Spokeperson John Kirby stating:
“A ceasefire now is effectively the ratification of Russian conquest and would, in effect, recognize Russia’s gains and its attempt to conquer its neighbors territory by force…We do not believe that this is a step towards a just and durable peace.”
There are countless other similar statements- often disguised in language around democracy and human rights- which add context to the often cited “provocation” to suggest it didn’t just happen to be US wanting to add countries to an expanding military alliance out of charitable goals, but as mentioned in the above doctrines and pronouncements of high-level State officials and think tanks, the goal has been to contain Russia to continue the preservation of unipolar moment and US as “benevolent hegemony”. The above however just focuses on US desire to explicitly admit at times to contain Russia (and other powers) which led to expanding NATO alliance, but the project of containment went beyond - by funding color revolutions and regime changes in neighboring countries to bring staunchly anti-Russian candidates to office and even attempt to do so in Russia at multiple times.
Color revolutions to cause regime change
Beyond expanding NATO, there was another methodology which became more pervasive and the major source of Russian anxiety- interfering in Russia domestically, and funding protesters in neighboring countries with the goal of replacing the regime there with one much more hostile to Russia. This culminated with the 2014 overthrow of democratically elected Viktor Yanyukovych in Ukraine.
The first successful template for this was in Serbia, where few months after NATO bombing of Yugoslavia an unpopular Slobodan Milosevic was overthrown by a lot of protesters. A lot of civic society groups came together in Bulldozer Revolution, but there was a lot of funding by US “NGOs” such as Open Society Foundations (OSF) run by billionaire George Soros, as well as covert funding from US State Dept/ NED. One key figure here was the US Ambassador in Belgrade, Richard Miles. Soon after, he left to serve as US Ambassador in Georgia, and with the help of same funders (OSF, State Dept, NED) helped in the successful overthrow of Soviet-era leader Eduard Shevardnadze in Rose Revolution (2003) by funding activist organizations and students.
A similar attempt was financed in Belarus to overthrow Lukashenko- where US installed as ambassador Michael Kozak, well-known for having conducted similar regime change operations in multiple Latin American countries- but didn’t succeed. Meanwhile it did succeed in “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (2005). US leaders made no secret in all these instances of their choices either, loudly advocating for the existing regime to be toppled and advocating for their replacements often in the name of “democracy and human rights”. While in all the three above examples, there was some credence, the most irksome meddling happened in Ukraine (2004) when the results of the elections were challenged, the protesters in Orange Revolution funded, prominent US politicians expressed desire to have Yushchenko as the winner and OCSE interfered calling the elections rigged, thus causing another round of elections where the favored candidate did indeed win after losing initially.
2000-4 overthrew of multiple regimes in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
Read detailed articles by
in deep details of some of color revolutions.
Besides there were some attempts to interfere within Russia too. In 1996, US helped Yeltsin win the election. Despite that there was a lot of criticism and pressure leveled at Russia especially after Second Chechen War erupted in 1999. When Yelstin retired in 1999, US made it clear they didn’t support the election of Vladimir Putin. Moreover they continuously criticized Putin’s election in 2004 onwards from JohnMcCain, George Bush, Madeleine Albright, Biden. “Snow Revolution” in Russia was one of the pivotal turning points within Russia- 3 years of protests following 2011 Russian legislative elections- and there were many allegations of funding and instigating protests including by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it was indisputable that leading Western organizations made statements supporting protesters, opposition increasing the fury of Russian elite.
So while there was constant incursions into Russia’s own process as well as supporting regime change in neighboring countries, the straw which broke the camel’s back was 2014 overthrow of Yanyukovych. Ukraine had seen him lose in 2004 with results overturned, then win in 2010 reflecting the wishes of pro-Russian Ukrainians but then toppled by force. What was worse- the US left it’s imprints all over- from sanctions on previous government, to top-level US officials joining protesters calling for the overthrow of the government, to helping decide the successor and even deciding which prosecutors to fire. The post-Maidan government was intent on de-Russification from the early stages and here the threat started moving beyond losing influence to actual threats on Russian soil, with Ukraine’s proximity, historic value and having it flooded with high-grade US weapons.
While there are better pieces which go in much more detail on US involvement in 2014 overthrow, I will highlight some of the core points and the events preceding it:
When Yanyukovych took office, he halted the process of Ukraine seeking NATO stating “there is no urgency to join the group” in 2011. Polls showed popular opinion till 2013 showed only 20% support for NATO, with 60% against.
However he was still very interested in joining the EU customs union, but European Commission President Jose Manuel Barrosso made it clear: “one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union. This is not possible”
When Russia realized EU had forced an option for Ukraine, they started using their own pressure tactics such as increased customs checks causing damage to Ukrainian economy being the country’s largest trading partner.
Moreover, EU imposed a lot of conditions on Ukrainian parliament which didn’t pass. Yanyukovych suspended EU customs union, which precipitated the multi-months protests by Euromaidan protesters.
Senators John Mc Cain and Chris Murphy of US visited Kiev during this period, and sided with protesters. They applied crippling sanctions on Ukraine too, which according to Murphy agreed was a key factor in helping him be toppled.
The head of National Endowment of Democracy (NED, funded by US State Dept.) was remarking how US should “stand up to Russia” and Ukraine will be the “biggest prize” with the aim of containing Russia due to it’s “large population, a strategic location, and a history of cultural and political ties with both Russia and Europe” and will be “historic moment that will change the balance of power in the region and challenge Russia’s dominance”.
The undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland remarked $5 billion was spent to "promote democracy and institutions in Ukraine since 1991” to help join NATO.
CIA chief John Brennan visited Kiev in the immediate aftermath of overthrow.
Most importantly, the leaked tapes between Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt showed discussion of who to install as the next President of Ukraine- and that indeed turned out to be true.
While Germany and France held multiple rounds of talks with Russia and Ukraine to broke ceasefire in Minsk accords, since leaving office German chancellor Angela Merkel has remarked: “At the time, it brought calm and gave Ukraine, for example, a lot of time, seven years, to develop into what it is today." Similarly French President at the time Francoise Hollande admitted in 2022:
“The Minsk Agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while… Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture.Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity”
Moreover in a dubious call with a Russian prankster posing as ex-Ukrainian President Poroshenko, Hollande admitted to using the Minsk agreements to buy time, and somewhat of influence in helping overthrow of Yanyukovych.
US Presidential Candidate and Senator John McCain “stood” with protesters during the peak, leading to overthrow of elected government soon after
The above set of events paint a pretty grim picture of US and other Western powers involvement where not only did they create initial pressure on Yanyukovych, but then funded and aided protesters, and when the government was overthrown using deployment of various tactics helped architect the new government as well as the negotiations for ceasefire- not with the intention of ceasing hostilities, but with the aim of “buying time” for Ukraine and helping it be more ready and militarized with US weapons when the time eventually comes to face off Russia. These events in addition to the doctrines described above signal the intent to create hostile neighbors to encircle perceived adversaries and use them as well-militarized launchpads.
What is the end goal for all this?
One of the reasonable questions out of this would be- why go through all these machinations, expenditures over multiple years? What is the end game? One simple observation would be- to just have a compliant Russia willing to work together rather than opposed. However that claim is not strong enough as US had Soviet and Russian leaders willing to work together- Gorbachev, Yeltsin and even Putin in early years. So what was it which necessitated the extra effort when Soviet/Russia had leaders willing to work together? The answer can be understood through the above doctrines.
It’s not just sufficient to have leaders willing to work together, but also to prevent the rise of alternate regional powers. Soviet, and then Russia- even though weak in late 80s and 90s- given sufficient time could rebuild itself to be a regional power, assert military dominance and re-militarize. (Russia already interfered in Moldova and Georgia in early 90s). What would be worse is if Russia was able to develop deep relationships with the rest of Europe and one day possibly create a powerful alternative in the European continent, not necessitating the presence of US troops and possibly undermining US business interests (one of the main reasons Nordstrom pipeline had irked US leaders so much). The surest way of implementing the doctrine to avoid a resurgent Russia was a de-militarization similar to how US/UK did to Germany after WW1 (preventing them from producing/ importing weapons, war materials or conscription in Treaty of Versailles) or Japan after WW2.
However given Soviet was still a nuclear power, there were more constraints on imposing such restrictions overtly. Thus a strategy of continued containment was necessary by expanding military alliance closer to Russia- and here the best template to follow was Soviet getting bogged down in Afghanistan in 1979 in a 10-year quagmire leading to bleeding the country, causing internal strife and eventual collapse of Soviet Union into 15 republics. While US never fired a shot directly at Soviet during this entire period, it’s funding of rebels in Pakistan/Afghanistan was successful to get Soviet bogged down in a war of attrition, with sophisticated US weapons finally being able to be used directly on Soviet soldiers through Mujahideen fighters- which was the plan all along as per Brzezinski, Carter’s NSA. Moreover it isolated Soviet Union, with it’s Chinese alliance collapsed and losing all support in Islamic World thus appropriately dubbed Soviet’s Vietnam War.
U.S. Department of Defense representative Walter B. Slocombe "asked if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, 'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire?'" When asked to clarify this remark, Slocombe explained: "Well, the whole idea was that if the Soviets decided to strike at this tar baby [Afghanistan] we had every interest in making sure that they got stuck." A memo from National Intelligence Officer warned: "Covert action would raise the costs to the Soviets and inflame Moslem opinion against them in many countries. The risk was that a substantial U.S. covert aid program could raise the stakes and induce the Soviets to intervene more directly and vigorously than otherwise intended."
Thus after years of regime changes in Russian neighbors, expanding NATO and installing missiles in Romania and Czech, the escalation in Ukraine after Russian invasion in 2022 has provided the perfect opportunity. Not only is NATO able to flood a neighbor with high-grade weapons and utilize all it’s advanced weapons on Russian military targets and bog it down in another war of attrition but it also allows to isolate Russia completely in the Western world, thus preventing any overtures between Russia and Germany. Further a solidification of the “Western alliance” also reduces the independent negotiating leverage of European nations with China- US’s prime adversary in terms of influence. Within Russia, the hope is the economic damage caused by the sanctions would allow factions within Russia to help overthrow Putin, and ideally install with a pro-Western puppet (not Wagner), or alternately the nation would just disintegrate into further republics as a repeat of the 1979 war. This helps in the complete destruction of war-making capability, destruction of infrastructure and in the case of a collapse a weak compliant puppet government.
Semblance of concern for human rights and democracy
Similar to taking Russian concerns for the rights of Eastern Ukrainians (which legitimately have suffered especially since 2014), I would extend the same courtesy to US in actually taking their concerns regarding democracy, human rights and sovereignty at face value. After all, I don’t dispute the assertion that nations in former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union did feel legitimate sense of threat from the big neighbor- Russia. The question is- was there any legitimate concern on the part of US, UK etc. about plight of citizens or was it just a pawn towards containment?
Exhibit A- NATO was legitimately being expanded to promote democracy/stability
One way to make a charitable interpretation of NATO’s concern for democracy could be made by analyzing the pre-requisites to entry for nations included tackling corruption internally and “promoting democracy”. This was in addition to “opening up” the countries economically with loans from IMF and World Bank, in theory freeing resources from hands of state to potentially allowing countries to thrive under capitalistic reforms. Economic integration with the EU including the visa-free travel between certain Eastern European countries has helped alleviate poverty in these countries, with Poland and Czech Republic being prominent examples.
While these are fair points, the skepticism to these claims would be similar to the ones US espouses for Chinese loans under One-Belt-One-Road initiative as “debt trap diplomacy”. Namely, the growth which comes from the development doesn’t accrue as much to the local population as to US contractors such as Bechtel, Fluor for construction companies, oil companies such as Chevron, Exxon for “oil and gas exploration” and finance institutions like JP Morgan for “aid”, and these local winners are replaced by government authorities to hand-picked oligarchs by US. When debt repayments fail, it leads to “austerity measures” (dubbed as “economic shock therapy”) and often contracting out natural resources and military bases (similar legitimate criticisms for Chinese debts). While these criticisms are true, it’s also very true that these countries seek these reforms of their own accord, and despite gains being unequal it does improve the GDP and overall quality-of-living. So if economics was the parameter, one can even make a legitimate argument for concern of economic well-being of citizens in these countries through integration into EU. However it’s worth remembering NATO is not an economic alliance, but a military alliance so it’s worth also analyzing whether installing bases, sponsoring regime changes and invading countries was also borne out of possible goodwill.
Exhibit B- US legitimately cared about human rights in Eastern Europe
Now that I have analyzed the potential charitable intentions behind NATO enlargement, I want to assess if a similar charitable interpretation stands to scrutiny to multiple US or NATO funded or backed invasions and regime changes in the area after Cold War- namely in Bosnia (1995), Serbia (1999), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004/14). Of course multiple books have been written analyzing US’s global meddling in other countries and whether advertised standards of democracy, human rights are legitimate. One only has to look at blatant examples in Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel) and a bloody history in Latin America and East Asia to have skepticism on the advertised reasons, but rather than delve into larger US global role I will focus on the specific set of countries and interventions mentioned.
Let’s start with the controversial ones- NATO bombing of Sprska (1995) and Yugoslavia (1999) where one can agree that rights of Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians were infringed upon, including the murder of civilians (Srebrenica). Firstly I will reiterate that in both situations NATO targeted Serbian population (first when it was the rebel group fighting for independence against Bosniak majority and in the second time, when Kosovar rebels were fighting for independence from Serbians) which itself is questionable- without even going into recently declassified documents discussing secret role of US top-level officials working with Bosniaks to skid negotiations. However if the rights of minorities were somehow a legitimate concern for NATO, the double-standard gets exposed in Ukraine itself, where after 2014 not only has the organization looked away but actively funded the suppression of rights and even killings of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in East. Bringing attention to plight of these people has been maligned as “Kremlin agents”. Moreover US showed no interest at all in negotiating for Minsk agreements- specially the clauses which spoke about an autonomous Donbas with it’s linguistic rights enshrined. In a similar vein concerns around Yanyukovych firing on protesters and being corrupt while true seem less genuine compared to US indifference to Poroshenko’s semi-authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe, corruption charges leveled at him or Zelensky’s own corruption.
Similarly for the concerns and funding of Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003) one can be somewhat sympathetic about lack of democracy in Georgia under Eduard Shevardnadze (given he was a Soviet-era leader who obtained power through a coup overthrowing the dissident Soviet leader), who had his position maintained in the early years with the help of Russian troops before winning democratic elections (with allegations of rigging). However his successor after the overthrow- pro Western Mikhail Saakashvilli (who would also go on to be Governor of Odessa in Ukraine) also engaged in corruption, crackdown on protesters and was sentenced to six years in prison. Despite expressing concerns, US continued backing him and criticized his trial. Moreover the similar funding of 2004 Orange Revolution fails the smell test completely unlike the Georgian case, as there the predecessor Kuchma won elections democratically and just claims of rigged elections by one party doesn’t warrant foreign interference. (except in US didn’t want Party of Regions to win)
So while it’s perfectly possible even in this small sample set to justify every time US criticizes someone as corrupt and authoritarian as actually violating human rights irrespective of whether they were democratically elected, and criticize every pro-Western leader who was prosecuted for corruption and deny their human-right violations, at one point to an observer who is not part of the bubble, it becomes evident that actions mirror much more of a geopolitical containment strategy as opposed to any legitimate concern about human rights. Thus to reiterate my view on humanitarian interventions- irrespective of who says it, I barely put stock into it as the legitimate cause of conflicts, as it’s always superseded by geopolitical ambitions.
Threat of domestic interference
While I am dismissive of human right concerns as justification for conducting international covert operations, I don’t treat legitimate national security threats in the same bucket. That’s why I deeply looked at Russian concerns at being cornered and surrounded by Western missiles. So while one can dismiss the legitimacy of US concerns about Eastern Europeans feeling the constant pull of Russia, it’s worth examining whether US legitimately felt threat on it’s homeland from Russia.
Just like there was celebration of Unipolar Moment in US, one of the most prominent authors in Russia was Alexander Dugin, writing “Foundations of Geopolitics” advocating for “neo-Eurasianism”, Russian revanchism to rebuild empire through alliances and conquest to defeat the “Atlanticist Empire”. This wasn’t a fringe view either, as even though crushed by Yeltsin in 1993 Constitutional crisis, the hawks were a significant portion of the Duma, and were favorites to win 1996 elections before US intervened to help Yeltsin’s election campaign. Moreover independent Russia had already asserted itself as the savior for Russian people outside it’s borders by intervening in Moldovan and Georgian Civil Wars, as well as leading bombing campaign in Chechnya domestically to subdue separatism. So while they weren’t indicating an attack on US directly, they were in essence attacking “US interests” (of being the dominant player in Europe) by willing to expand it’s sphere-of-influence and be willing to use military means occasionally.
However there were also incidents which could have increased suspicion about Russian motives and reach when Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanson were discovered as spies who had infiltrated US spy ranks for multiple years giving information to Russia and working from FSB days in Soviet Union. Few years later, “Illegals Program” was uncovered by FBI as a Russian spy ring convicting 10 Russian nationals. Furthermore Russia undermined US’s ability to extradite Edward Snowden (which though immoral US saw as “national interest” issue) after leaks by granting him asylum. Putin government also prevented US’s ability to conduct regime change operations in Syria by confronting US-funded rebels head-on when Russia intervened militarily in Syrian Civil War. The final irreversible decline happened in the aftermath of allegations of interference in 2016 elections by US intelligence agencies, when US perception of Russia interfering in it’s domestic process (although there is a lot to be said on the whole Russiagate saga) brought US on a collision course and intent to weaken Russian regime further (although arguably by then all the major hostile events had already taken place, including fateful overthrow in Ukraine in 2014).
Clash of Civilizations
One of the less talked interpretations of the broader 100+ year war which escalated at the fall of Russian Empire in 1917 with Bolshevik Revolution is the rivalry between US and Soviet (and now Russia) is a continuation of the Great Game which had just ended 10 years back in 1907 with Anglo-Russian convention. For those unfamiliar, Great Game was a century-long proxy battle between British and Russian Empires mostly in the 19th century for influence in various parts of the world, primarily in Asia using countries there as their playground. So when WW1 ended and US emerged as one of the most powerful winners, US took on the mantle of defender of Anglo Empire and interests, but in a less overt way rather feuding over ideologies and by instilling puppet regimes as opposed to outright conquest. While it might sound surprising today, even British Empire portrayed the conflict as a clash of values defender of Western civilization, democracy, free trade, and human rights against a despotic, expansionist, and backward power (Russian Empire) that threatened the stability and security of Asia and Europe. This is of course as an aside to the colonial history under the auspices of White Man’s Burden as a “civilizing mission” for other countries.
This hasn’t been discussed a lot, until after end of Cold War most prominently by Samuel Huntington in his book “Clash of Civilizations” in 1994. He surmised that future wars after fall of Soviet Union won’t be much about nation states, but rather between religions and cultures. One of the fundamental differences was coated under terms like non-Western civilizations (his primary focus was on Islam and China) being at odds with Western civilization’s emphasis on “human rights, freedom and democracy”. He bucketed Russia as a part of “Orthodox” civilization distinct from Western civilization with different values and leading to conflicts down the line including internal ones within Ukraine. None of this is new philosophy. However by saying the quiet part out loud, he coined the term which has been used since time immemorial across cultures as battles have changing pretexts from religion, culture to some supposed principles or ideologies.
And this is where the historic and contemporary battle with Russia- first the Great Game, followed by Cold War and now post-Cold War containment- finds the least talked about explanation, which however has a sufficiently long history- the resentment to having a “semi-Asiatic backwater” become a dominant power in Europe- cradle of Western civilization- of all places. There is a very long history to this, which might be the subject of its own post- but in a nutshell, it all goes back to the fall of Kievan Rus to the Mongols in 12th century, and subsequent 300-year rule by Golden Horde on Russian lands. Multiple prominent European and US leaders have openly voiced disdain for Russians along ethnic lines of being “Asiatic”, Mongol and undeserving of equal status, ranging from French leaders like Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle, British PMs Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Winston Churchill to Nazi leaders like Goebbels who boldly proclaimed Slavs as Untermenschen. Famously George Patton in 1945 said while stating an intent to invade Soviet.
“ I have difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Asiatic characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all-out son of bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk.”
As recently as 2013, John McCain voiced a similar sentiment:
“There's no doubt that Ukraine is of vital importance to Putin. I think it was Kissinger, I'm not sure, said that Russia, without Ukraine it's an eastern power, with Ukraine it's a western power. This is the beginning of Russia, right here in Kiev. ”
So while there was non-trivial acknowledgment of some reporters saying the quiet-part-out-loud in the aftermath of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and shedding tears over the “different” nature of the crime with “blonde and blue eyed” people, as opposed to “uncivilized” nations, the part which hasn’t got sufficient acknowledgment is this conception which has existed over centuries, and is mostly sugar-coated under grand odes to democracy and human rights is the part where Western powers have seen Russia as a non-European power, and perceive Kiev to be the border of “pure” Europe . Thus adding to the indignation is the sense of an “Asiatic” power invading a European country.
Recent articles like “Russia turns to its Asian past” leave no room for speculation on a prominent way the Western elites still perceive the world for “non pure Westerners”.
These are few offhand examples to reflect a trope which has been forever been at the back of a lot of the “democracy and human rights” tropes distinguish Russia as being on the wrong side of the border of European civilization, and it’s insistence on trying to negotiate with historic European powers on equal terms has irked them for a while. That said I want to clarify, while I feel this might be a dimension by far the largest dimension is simple geopolitics- looking out for strategic goals and national security interests to preserve global hegemony and avoid the rise of regional powers.
Conclusions:
The situation within Ukraine wasn’t idyllic before the Russian invasion. There was an ethnic fault line, which manifested in various elections and finally in 2014 overthrow of Yanyukovych started a one-way descent of the rights of ethnic Russians and an ongoing civil war in Donbas. Thus in a way it’s not too separate from the civil wars in Middle East followed by intervention by larger players by picking a side in internal conflict.
That said, Russia does bear significant culpability for it’s actions and suffering on Ukrainian nationals after a large-scale escalation to the conflict. Not only has Russia seen Ukraine and Belarus consistently as part of it’s indivisible sphere of influence, but prominent leaders have continued downplaying Ukrainian identity including calling for it’s outright destruction during the war.
Despite the above, a series of bilateral disputes around gas, Black Sea Naval fleet, Crimea and War in Donbas, Russia tried a lot of diplomatic means and get regional autonomy for Donbas. However none of this stopped 30-year onslaught of NATO- especially US- carrying out unilateral actions, funding overthrow of governments willing to work with Russia and inching closer to convert Ukraine into an anti-Russia neighbor state to be used as a missile launchpad.
The lack of caring about Russian interests was no accident, and containing Russia was a strategic US goal to prevent the rise of Russia as a regional power. While one can argue there are goals varying from benevolent to promote democracy to genuine concerns on Russian intervention to sinister around perceived incompatibility with rise of “Asiatic” powers, the chief goal by far documented over a long period has been plain old containment to prevent any challenge to global hegemony and rise of alternate power centers. This created an uncomfortable dynamic for Russia initially trying to be a partner to NATO, only to realize there were limits to US’s willingness to pay any heed to their concerns and then find themselves at the receiving end of being cornered much beyond they ever were at the height of Cold War, with adding neighboring countries to a hostile alliance (willing to back it up with constant warfare) and promoting regime change whenever it didn’t happen organically. Eventually after Biden’s re-election and an escalation, trends started seeming irreversible towards Ukraine being a full-fledged anti-Russia state with any domestic dissent suppressed, and unable to succeed with diplomatic means and proxy warfare, Russia invaded in the hopes of overthrowing Zelensky regime, and when incapable of doing that to “liberate” more land in Donbas as independent to improve negotiating position with NATO. Unfortunately for them NATO has shown no appetite for negotiation as US is content with “fighting Russia in Ukraine than in US”, thus bleeding it and using this war to galvanize it’s alliance with EU to be used against China too in the future (different post)