1.
Switzer: A Spectre once
again haunts Europe, the specter of a new Cold War. Relations between Russia
and the West have dramatically soured since Ukraine’s Janokowitcsch’s Government
fell a year ago, and Moscow jumped in to seise part of Ukraine. Just this week,
the Obama Administration threatened to send in defensive Weapons to bolster
Ukrainian Forces. Washington and Brussels are extending Sanctions against
Moscow. And meanwhile, in Russia,
anti-Americanism has reached new highs while Putin has never been more popular. What’s behind this crisis, and how
will it play out? Now I’ve argued we need to understand what caused this Crisis
to have any Hope of trying to solve it, but let’s hear now from two
distinguished voices in this filed. John Mearsheimer is []. Timothy Snyder is [].
Unfortunately, icy conditions in Connecticut mean Tim is joining us on a
slightly scratchy line, but let’s start this Discussion with what’s led to this
Crisis in Ukraine.
John Mearsheimer, you
argue that NATO and EU Expansion upset Russia’s strategic sensitivities and
that the West has failed to understand how such policies would provoke Russia,
but in Venice, didn’t the Nations in this Region, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, the Baltics, weren’t they clamouring for this NATO Expansion?
2.
Mearsheimer: There’s no
question about that. I think today most
Ukrainians would like very much to be part of NATO and to be part of the EU,
but the fact is that the Russians won’t tolerate a situation where Ukraine
becomes a Western bulwark on its Border. The Russians have made it clear that if Ukraine continues to
pursue this policy of trying to align itself with the West, that the end result
will be that Russia will go to great lengths to wreck Ukraine as a functioning Society.
I believe that that’s exactly what’s happening now.
What I find so amazing is
that the West doesn’t understand this. After all, the United States has
something called the Monroe Doctrine. According to the Monroe Doctrine, no Great
Power from either Europe or Asia is allowed into the Western Hemisphere with
its military Forces. We consider it completely
unacceptable for any distant Great Power to march up to our Borders. That’s
basically what’s going on here. The Russians are saying, There’s no way that
NATO and the EU can march up to our Borders, we just won’t accept this. If the
West continues to pursue this policy, what we will do is in effect destroy
Ukraine. As I said, that’s what they’re doing.
3.
Switzer: Tim Snyder, does
the West, as John suggests, bear Responsibility for causing this Crisis, or is
it just really all Putin’s fault that he’s bent on creating a new Russian Empire?
4.
Snyder: I think contrary
to appearances, what John has done is overestimated the West quite
considerably. There wasn’t a Western policy towards Ukraine in 2013 which would
have brought this about. There wasn’t support in Ukraine itself for NATO Enlargement.
All the polls showed that Ukrainians were against it until they were invaded by
Russia. The question of NATO Enlargement
is only a real one after the Russian Invasion rather than before it. I think
the crucial think when Americans discussed this, and we have two Americans here
now, is to remember that we actually are not at the center of this story. The People
who started this were the Ukrainians who were protesting for domestic reasons.
The reason the crisis turned into a change of Government is that the Russian Government
tried to pay off the Ukrainian Government to silence the protesters, which led
to mass shooting. Then the other thing which we
underestimate, and I think we fail to notice at times as Americans, is that
NATO is not actually the story here. The US is not the story here. That’s the
Russian Propaganda, but the actual Russian policy which has developed since the
summer of 2013 is to weaken and disintegrate the European Union. They’ve been quite open about that.
For them, the Ukraine is not about United States or NATO. For them, Ukraine is
about getting in the European Union and making European Union fall apart. That’s
the thing which I think everybody from Washington to Brussels has a hard time
getting their head around.
5.
Switzer: Tim, you
mentioned this Russian Propaganda, which sounds like a fair point, but wasn’t
NATO expansion in the ‘90s and in the 2000s. Couldn’t you argue that it was a
repudiation of those implicit Agreements between President Gorbachev, President
Bush Senior, [inaudible 00:04:34] that the quid pro quo for a unified Germany’s
inclusion in NATO in the early 1990s was that the West would not extend Security
guarantees to those former Warsaw Pact Countries, an Area that Russia had long
deemed its sphere of influence?
6.
Snyder: As far as I know, no one
has ever turned up any document in any archive from any Country which has
confirmed that there was such an understanding. Mark Kramer, who is one of the historians on this
subject, has written a long article which demonstrates, I think, that that didn’t
take place. But I think what’s more interesting is that it couldn’t have taken
place because in 1990, when the conversations you’re referring to were supposed
to have taken place, the Soviet Union had not yet fallen apart. Some of the Countries
in Eastern Europe were not yet sovereign Countries. The idea that Washington
and Moscow in 1990 could have been making sovereign choices for Countries which
were not yet sovereign doesn’t really make sense.
Again, I think we miss the
point when we concentrate too much on the History of NATO, because the present
Russian offensive is not about NATO. The present Russian offensive is about
weakening the European Union.
7.
Switzer: John Mearsheimer.
8.
Mearsheimer: I think that
it’s very important to understand that up until this present Crisis, Tim is
correct that there was sentiment in Ukraine not to join NATO, but the point is that NATO itself was
continuing to pursue Expansion eastward. After the April 2008 Summit in
Bucharest, NATO said explicitly that eventually Ukraine and Georgia would be
included in NATO, and the Russians made it
clear at the time from top to bottom that this was categorically unacceptable.
NATO Expansion was still on the table from the West perspective. Second point I
would make is it’s not just NATO Expansion that bothered the Russians greatly.
It’s also EU Expansion and our efforts at Democracy-promotion, because what Democracy-promotion
is really all about is putting into Power leaders in Ukraine, and maybe even
ultimately Russia, who are pro-Western. It was the February 22 Coup d’État in
Kiev that actually precipitated the present Crisis. In a very important way,
NATO Expansion and EU Expansion were background factors. It was the Coup d’État
in Ukraine that really tripped Things off. What’s happened as a Consequence is
that the Russians have taken the Crimea, and they have made it clear that
unless the West backs off, which it shows no interest in doing, what is going
to happen is that Russia will wreck Ukraine.
9.
Switzer: If you’ve just
joined us, this is Between the Lines on ABC RN. I’m Tom Switzer, and I’m
discussing the Ukraine Crisis with John Mearsheimer [] and Timothy Snyder [].
Let’s talk about the
Ukrainians themselves now. It seems to me that the Ukrainians are exerting a
form of Nationalism, if you like. They want to determine their own destiny, they
see themselves as a sovereign, independent State. Nationalism, as John I think
you’ve argued, is the most powerful Force that has been unleashed on the World
in the Modern Era. Is this Nationalism the Force that’s carrying the day here?
If that’s the case, what on earth can the United States or Russia do about it?
John?
10.
Mearsheimer: I think that
what’s going on here is that the Ukrainians believe and People in the West
believe in self-determination. Self-determination is at the heart of Nationalism
for sure, and it’s also at the heart of Democracy. The argument in the West and
again in Ukraine is that the if the Ukrainian People what to side with the West,
given that they’re a sovereign state, they have a Right to do this. I believe this is a foolish way to think about
international Politics. States that live next to Great Powers don’t have the Right
to pursue any Foreign Policy they want. Cuba did
not have a Right in the Cold War, at least from the Americans’ point of view, to
form a military Alliance with the Soviet Union, and invite the Soviet Union to
put missiles and naval and ground forces in Cuba. We
were enraged that they did that. Taiwan today does not have the Right to declare its Independence. China
would not tolerate that, and the United States goes along with China on this
point. The fact is Ukraine is going to end up
destroying itself, if it continues to act as if it has the Right to join Forces
with the West. What the West is in effect doing is leading the Ukrainians down
the primrose path by encouraging them to pursue this foolish policy when the
West has no interest whatsoever in coming in to back up the Ukrainians as they
get into more and more trouble.
11.
Switzer: Tim Snyder.
12.
Snyder: I think Nationalism
is a problem, but I think we have to be clear about what our terms are when we
talk about Nationalism. The normal desire for you to live in Australia or for me to live in
the United States, I wouldn’t call that Nationalism. The Idea that People are Citizens
and Borders are Borders is pretty standard. John is certainly Right that it matters what your [Region] is in,
but I think we have a real difference here about what kind of system leads to Peace
and Stability. It seems to me that the European system [the Grand Strategy] has
done a pretty good job after the Second World War in precisely preventing War.
It’s the largest Zone of Peace and prosperity in the History of the World. What Russia is doing is not reacting
to some Threat from Europe, what Russia is doing is initiating a Threat to
Europe. In so far as Nationalism is a problem in small Countries, it’s a much,
much bigger problem in big Countries. When Russia says, for example, that it has the Right to protect People
who speak Russian around the World or that it has a Right to expand Russian Civilisation,
it’s breaking precisely the Rules of Sovereignty in a way which History shows
is very dangerous. The turn to the Right
since we’re talking about Nationalism in Russia is far more pronounced. It’s on
the scale of very Bad things in the 1920s and the 1930s. There has been no turn
to the Right in Ukraine. Ukraine is governed by a chocolatier and an accountant.
13.
Switzer: Let’s look at
how the West is or at least should be responding to this crisis. In a very
important article in Foreign Affairs late last year, John Mearsheimer argued
that Ukraine should in a sense become a buffer neutral State, akin to Austria
during the Cold War, but you could argue that from the time of its Independence
in late ‘91, early ‘92 until 2013 when this crisis was about to brew, Ukraine
was essentially a buffer state. The Russians, Tim Snyder, showed no interest in
invading Ukraine. What’s changed in the last year?
14.
Snyder: I think that’s a brilliant question
because what’s changed in the last year has very little to do with Ukraine, and very little to do with
the West, and a lot to do with Russia. In the summer of 2013, and this is very important, the chronology
is very important. In the summer of 2013, Russian Foreign Policy took a very
substantial turn against the European Union. It categorized the European Union
for the first time as an adversary. In Russian Propaganda, Europe was defined
as decadent, where decadent means something that is falling apart. Europe is
supposed to represent a dying part of Civilisation, which Russia is going to
preserve. All of this is happening in the summer of 2013. It’s followed in the
fall of 2013 by something called the Eurasian Project, which is meant Ideologically,
politically and eventually militarily to replace and supplant the European
Union as an alternative from Portugal to Vladivostok. What’s changed in 2013, and we can ask
why, but what changed in 2013 was Russia’s Foreign Policy orientation. Unfortunately, Ukraine is a side
effect of this. There is no way therefore to settle this War inside Ukraine.
The only way for this to be settled is some kind of deal with Russia and the
European Union.
15.
Switzer: Tim, John’s
argument would be that Putin’s calculations in the last year are really based
on an old truth of Power Politics, that Great Powers will fight tooth and nail
when their vital strategic Interests are at stake. This is unfortunate, it’s
sad, but isn’t that the way the World works and always has?
16.
Snyder: In a way, I wish
both Washington and Moscow were as rational as John suggests they are. Unfortunately, Putin is not
a great strategist. If he had been a great strategist, he would have acted in
such a way as to keep the Leaders in Ukraine who were pro-Russian in Power.
[That’s quite a statement.] Instead, he made a series
of mistakes beginning with opposing the Association Agreement with the European
Union and concluding with funding the Ukrainian Government to shoot its own People.
What Russia has done the last year has weakened its position catastrophically.
Strategically, what Russia had the whole time was a balance between the
European Union and China. They’ve tossed that away for Crimea, and now they’re
on the way to becoming a junior Satellite of China. We can’t save them from
that unfortunately. These are decisions that they’ve made by themselves.
17.
Switzer: John Mearsheimer.
18.
Mearsheimer: Tim says
that the Crisis started in the Summer of 2013, and that’s when Russian Foreign
Policy began to change. I don’t believe that’s the case. Russian Foreign Policy
changed drastically after the February 22 Coup d’État where, with the help from the West,
the Government in Kiev, which was pro-Russian, was overthrown. You want to remember
that the Russians took Crimea in March 2014, not in the summer of 2014. The
trouble in Ukraine started in March 2014, not in the summer of 2014. This was
all done in response to the fact that NATO and the European Union were
encroaching on Russia’s Border. The Russians had long made it clear that that
was categorically unacceptable.
19.
Switzer: Tim Snyder, you’ve argued that a free
and independent Ukraine is a critical US interest and test and that by “helping Ukraine, we’re
helping People who share our Values and want nothing more than to be like us.” That’s your line in the New Republic
last year, but is it really prudent
to pick a fight with a Nuclear Power over a Region where, let’s face it, no US Army
has ever fought? This is a point that I
think John Mearsheimer has made in the past, I’ve made it as well. Even John
McCain who’s never known a War he hasn’t supported, he rules out US Military
intervention, yet Ukraine remains a vital Russian interest. Why should Putin
take Obama’s Threat seriously?
20.
Snyder: You don’t get to pick your fights. Your
fights very often come to you. [This motherfucker’s crazy.] In this case, the fight is not
between Russia, and the United States or even between Russia and Ukraine. The chief fight is between
Russia and the European Union. I think that’s the most important thing to understand. Whether [the
United States] actually does intervene in Ukraine or whether Russian Propaganda
simply insists that it already has done. If you watch Russian Television, you realise
that the Russians are being told that we did this. We funded what Professor
Mearsheimer calls the Coup d’État, all of these things which simply aren’t the
case. There was no Coup d’État. This Government was overturned as a result
of massive popular unrest, which resulted from the mass shooting of People who
were assembled. They were assembled
because the Government of Ukraine, at that time, passed a series of Laws
denying them fundamental Freedom including Speech & Assembly, which it did
because of poor Russian Foreign Policy. Russian Foreign Policy was to pay
Ukraine to suppress its own People. That’s what set off the crisis, that’s what led to Russia invading
the Crimea. There was no precipitant
event which had to do with NATO or the EU there. The precipitant event
unfortunately was Russia’s Bad choices.
21.
Switzer: Before we wrap
up, if the US and Europe continue to expand NATO’s reach, and the Ukrainian Government
has signaled it wants to join NATO, if the West keeps beefing up military
support to Kiev, tightening more economic Sanctions, how will the Crisis play
out in Eastern Ukraine? Is there a danger that we could risk serious
escalation? First you, John Mearsheimer.
22.
Mearsheimer: I think
there’s no question that there will be serious escalation if what you describe
happens. If we up the ante, especially if we start to arm the Ukrainians, the
Russians will respond by moving more Troops and more Equipment into Eastern
Ukraine. The fighting will become bloodier, and Ukraine will be destroyed even
faster than it’s even now being destroyed. I would note that if we’re at all
successful in thwarting the Russians, we’re going to make them more desperate.
What you’re doing here is you’re taking a Great Power that has thousands of
nuclear weapons, and you’re scaring the living bejeesus out of it. This is
asking for trouble especially when it makes absolutely no strategic sense to do
this.
23.
Switzer: Tim Snyder, just quickly.
24.
Snyder: The whole Russian
miscalculation is based upon the idea that Ukraine was going to fall apart. The
reason this War is going on is that Things are just not that simple. They’re
now setting themselves up for a struggle with the European Union, which is
going to have the same Consequence. I might perhaps agree with John about
something fundamental, however. The Russians have to be given a way out. This is
a disastrous War for everyone concerned, perhaps above all, Russia. Regardless
of the brave face they put on it, this has been a disaster for them especially after
dropping oil prices. They will need a way out.
25.
Switzer: A very enlightening
discussion. Thanks to John Mearsheimer [] and Timothy Snyder [].
No comments:
Post a Comment