Press "Enter" to skip to content

It’s not NATO threatening Russia – Democracy is

After weeks of Russia amassing troops on its eastern border with Ukraine, the United States’ warning of an imminent attack on Ukraine, and Putin continuously denying any such plans, it turns out that the warnings were justified. The western world watched in awe as Putin first recognised the independence of two eastern Ukrainian regions, Donetsk and Luhansk, where Russian-backed separatists had been fighting Ukrainian forces for years, and when he then launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine territory in the early morning hours of February 24. 

Stay up to Date – Subscribe to our newsletter.

As the world was closely following what was happening in Ukraine, people began contemplating the motivations for Russia’s attack. In particular, discussions about Putin’s acclaimed reasons for the invasion and the Russian propaganda ensued. 

According to Putin, the aim is to “demilitarise” and “de-nazify” Ukraine, a claim which is not only outrageous but also incredibly unfounded given that the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish himself. 

In addition, Putin, over the years, repeatedly claimed that NATO is a threat to Russian security – even though neither were any NATO troops ever stationed in Ukraine nor was the alliance openly threatening Russia. Also, NATO did not plan on admitting Ukraine any time soon. 

The claim that Putin feels threatened by NATO was not only argued by political scientist Mearsheimer in 2014 – falsely justifying Russian aggression towards its neighbour – it has also been picked up and replicated by Russian propaganda. As stated in this article in The Hill: “Putin wants you to believe it’s because NATO expansion to Ukraine threatens the Russian people and Russia’s security. He doesn’t genuinely believe this. It’s propaganda.”

All in all, Putin’s claims are not only absurd and lack evidence, but they also provide a breeding ground for propaganda and serve as wild justification for this attack and the violation of international law. 

Yet, Mearsheimer continues to claim in a 2022 interview with the New Yorker that Putin’s main reason for invading Ukraine is that he feels threatened by NATO and that the war in Ukraine is the West’s fault. In his opinion, a neutral, independent Ukraine would appease Putin. However, this argument is ill-conceived – for two main reasons. 

First, as I have also laid down in a previous article, the argument that Russia’s attack on Ukraine is the West’s fault is wrong because the West and, in particular, NATO never threatened Russia as a state. If anything, it is the West’s fault because we have never sanctioned Putin hard enough for his behaviour, especially not after the annexation of Crimea, the poisoning of his political opponents and many other gross violations of our principles. We have not shown him clearly enough what the consequences of his continuous dangerous and erratic behaviour would be. 

Aside from that, it is also apparent that, even if Ukraine promises to remain a neutral state and not join any military alliance, Putin will continue his assault on Ukraine: because he denies Ukrainian statehood and its right to existence. 

That being said, there is a second argument for why Mearsheimer and others who replicate his opinion are wrong in the assumption that it is NATO threatening Russia. Rather, it is the prospect of liberal democracy, the rule of law and Ukraine’s orientation towards the West and Western ideals that is threatening Putin. This line of argumentation has also been presented by various scholars and experts on the region, such as Anne Applebaum, who argues that Putin wants democracy to fail around the world but in particular in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood. 

Democracy is a threat to Putin and his power because ordinary Russians may realise that their leader is not acting in their best interest. And, it is a threat because Russians may aspire and start fighting for democracy too – which would pose an imminent threat to Putin’s power and presidency as well as to his cronies’ wealth and influence. 

For the same reason, Putin has oppressed, and poisoned political opponents in the past, supported authoritarian governments in his neighbourhood and beyond in suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations, rolled troops into countries in his “sphere of influence” to clamp down on peaceful protests, and supported right-wing parties all across Europe. Putin fears democracy and how democracy and liberalism in his close neighbourhood could harm his power in Russia – because Russians might strive for the same. 

It is naive to think that taking NATO membership off the table for Ukraine would make Putin stop this war. It will not. Putin will continue to topple democracies and violate neighbouring countries’ sovereignty. He does not tolerate flourishing democracies in his neighbourhood and in what he sees as Russia’s historic “sphere of influence”. And his invasion of Ukraine is just another tragic example of that. 

Sources

AlJazeera (2022): Russian-backed separatists evacuate residents from east Ukraine, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/18/russian-backed-separatists-announce-evacuation-from-east-ukraine 

Applebaum, A. (2022): The Reason Putin Would Risk War, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukraine-democracy/621465/ 

Chotiner, I. (2022): Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine, The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

Person, R. & McFaul, M. (2022): What Putin Fears Most, Journal of Democracy, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/what-putin-fears-most/

Tafuri, D. (2022): Putin doesn’t fear NATO or Ukraine — he fears democracy, The Hill, https://thehill.com/opinion/international/593627-putin-doesnt-fear-nato-or-ukraine-he-fears-democracy 

China in the Pacific: How is Beijing flexing its power in the region

The Pacific Islands and their vast expanse of ocean have never been a major source of traditional military threats. The post-World War Two security architecture of the Pacific has historically been dominated by the United States. Yet today, China’s diplomatic and economic push into the Pacific is incrementally reshaping the strategic landscape. While its presence in the region is not new, Beijing has capitalised on the dissonance between Washington and the Pacific Island nations by steadily and significantly expanding its commercial and geopolitical clout. As a result, ten of the fourteen Pacific Island nations now recognise the One China policy, which warrants considerable attention from the United States and other regional actors such as Australia.

Is the specter of populism and racism looming over Sweden?

In the past few years, Europe has witnessed an upsurge of populist trends through several far-right and far-left parties sweeping around the continent. Sometimes with milder, sometimes with harsher manifestos, countries like Hungary, Greece, France, and Italy have been frequently in the spotlight. Currently, attention has been drawn to Italy and Sweden due to the September elections.

The UK’s tilt to the Indo-Pacific: what concrete implications for Australia?

50 years after the then UK defence secretary Denis Healey announced Britain’s retreat from the Indo-Pacific in 1968, the UK is once again drawn into the geoeconomic and geostrategic challenges of the maritime region. This desire to extend Britain's strategic horizon was accelerated by the vote to leave the EU in 2016. In particular, the decision to leave the European single market has forced Downing Street to strengthen its trading relationships with partners beyond the EU - a considerable number of which reside in the Indo-Pacific region.

Germany and the sovereign debt crisis: How Angela Merkel’s initial reluctance towards Greece turned into her support

After 16 years as German Chancellor, Angela Merkel will not stand again in the German federal elections. This means that not only Germany but also the EU is losing one of its most experienced politicians. From the sovereign debt crisis to the migration crisis and the current impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Merkel has most of the time managed to maintain her reputation as a crisis manager. Some 10 years after her "first" crisis, the sovereign debt crisis in the EU, it is time to look at her decisions and especially the handling of Greece: Why did the German government initially resist financial support for Greece but eventually (and reluctantly) agreed to it?

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *