Look at the Map
The American media is filled with doomsday stories about Russia’s threat to invade Ukraine, once a part of the Soviet Union and still a neighbor of the Russian Federation, the major governmental heir to the USSR. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his frustration with all the hype last week, calling on US and European leaders to reduce their war rhetoric. Zelensky who until a few months ago was a comedian on Ukraine television apparently does not think it is funny for the US and Russia to engage in a proxy war on Ukrainian soil.
How the potential danger of such a conflict has come about demonstrates the critical importance of considering carefully the possible consequences of geopolitical decisions. A good place to start in this case would have been to look at the map.
Ukraine is the second largest state in Europe. The first is Russia, its longtime neighbor. The two countries, both former republics of the Soviet Union, share a border of nearly 1300 miles.
Two other former Soviet states also share borders with Ukraine: Moldova to the south (759 miles) and Belarus to the north (606 miles). Belarus is closely allied with Russia. The western borders of Ukraine are shared with four former Warsaw Pact countries: Poland (340 miles), Slovakia (61 miles), Hungary (85 miles) and Romania (381 miles). Clearly, Ukraine is strategically located in the middle of Central Europe.
Ukraine was a key player in the economy of the Soviet Union, producing nearly half of its steel, more than a third of its coal and serving as its “breadbasket.” In addition, Ukraine played a significant role in the military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union. More than a million troops were located in Ukraine when the breakup occurred in 1990, and an estimated 25 percent of all Soviet armaments were manufactured in Ukraine.
A major factor in Ukraine’s military value was the role of the Crimean city of Sevastopol, the chief naval base of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. This had been a sore spot in Ukraine-Russian relations long before the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Nikita Khrushchev created a major complication regarding Crimean when as head of the Soviet Union he initiated the transfer of the Crimean administrative region from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic. There was no indication the transfer had any strategic or political purpose. The step was taken ostensibly to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine’s membership in the Russian Empire.
At least in part, the roots of today’s conflict between Russia and the United States can be found in the latter’s decisions regarding NATO in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s demise. NATO was established in 1949 for the purpose of strengthening Europe’s defense against potential aggression by the Soviet Union. From that perspective, in 1990 logically, NATO should have been dismantled, but like any long standing bureaucracy, it sought new missions that could justify its ongoing existence.
Russian leaders have claimed that the US agreed at the time not to expand NATO eastward. Although US officials deny that any ironclad promises were made, there was no sudden rush to open NATO membership to former Soviet satellites or Soviet republics.
That changed in 1998 when the US Senate ratified the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all former members of the Warsaw Pact. Shortly after that action, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman interviewed George Kennan, who is accepted by most as the father of the US policy of “containment.”
The former US diplomat was blunt when asked his opinion of the expansion, “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”
Kennan, who died in 2005, went on opine, “We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.” But, the US was not through expanding NATO.
In 2004, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia were added. The first three, the Baltic States, had been part of the Soviet Union; Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania had been members of the Warsaw Pact; and Slovenia had been part of Yugoslavia.
In 2008, US President George W. Bush announced that Ukraine and Georgia, another former Soviet republic, would eventually join NATO. Fiona Hill, who served as a national intelligence officer in three US administrations, wrote in a New York Times op-ed last week that Bush was warned Russian president Vladimir Putin would consider the invitations a provocation and react strongly. He did, invading Georgia.
Still, the US and its Western allies continued encouraging Ukraine to consider future NATO membership and providing military aid and trade incentives.
In 2009, the US added Albania and Croatia to NATO.
In 2017, Montenegro with a population of slightly more than 600,000 became the smallest member of NATO. Previously, Luxembourg had that honor.
And in 2020, North Macedonia became a member after adding the “North” to appease Greece which has a geographic and administrative region known as “Macedonia.”
US decision makers seem to see NATO as an alliance capable of responding to worldwide security challenges. NATO was used as the vehicle for military action in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, raising serious questions about its effectiveness.
Expanding NATO membership with countries that do not share American legal and political values also raises doubts about its potential for long term success. Ukraine, ranked 123 among all nations in the Global Corruptions Index, appears unlikely to strengthen the alliance.
For too long supporters of America’s military-industrial complex have been allowed to dictate US foreign policy, giving it a clear emphasis on force. It’s time to shift the emphasis to diplomacy and mutual cooperation.