Did NATO play with fire by expanding its military alliance to Russia’s doorstep? As the gall of Vladimir Putin continues to pour over Ukraine, voices persist in claiming that the West could have listened more attentively to the grievances of the Russian bear. Others believe that the invasion of Ukraine provides confirmation of the need to protect the countries of Eastern Europe from their neighbor with imperialist aims. Deciphering the question with North American, Russian and Ukrainian points of view.
In 2014, in a much talked about article titled “ Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”, the American political scientist John J. Mearsheimer asserted that the West was mainly responsible for the crisis that was then raging with Russia (the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of part of the Donbass).
“The main root of these unrest is NATO enlargement, the central element of a broader strategy to pull Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West,” wrote -he. Words he has since reiterated, on the sidelines of the second Russian invasion of Ukraine, which occurred on February 24.
According to this proponent of the realistic approach, “the great powers are always sensitive to the threats that hover near their national territory”. As would the United States, for example, if a foreign force erected a military alliance to its borders by integrating Canada or Mexico, he illustrated.
To better understand the war in Ukraine
Not a rationale
An argument nuanced by William C. Wohlforth, director of the Dartmouth Institute for Global Security, located in New Hampshire. “To say it would be problematic for any great power is a compelling argument,” he agrees. But that in no way legitimizes the unwarranted invasion of Ukraine. »
The political scientist was also skeptical and opposed to NATO enlargement at the time. A position he is now questioning. “If we replayed history and the military alliance hadn’t expanded, I’m not sure we’d be in a better position today. »
Since the end of the Cold War, five successive waves of enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance have enabled several Eastern European states, including former members of the Warsaw Pact, to join NATO. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined the Alliance, led by the United States, followed in 2004 by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. It was then the turn of Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.
Where the West certainly erred, Mr. Wohlforth believes, was when NATO promised Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 that they would one day be admitted without offering them immediate membership. “Russia was of course opposed to Ukraine being a member of NATO, so it kind of opened a window that Russia had to step into before Ukraine became a member. . A decision all the more questionable as there has never been strong support, within European countries, for the admission of Ukraine into the Alliance, he recalls.
NATO enlargement should not be seen as a cause of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but rather as something that has damaged the relationship between the West and Russia, says the political scientist.
rhetorical tool
Timothy Andrews Sayle, author of the book Enduring Alliance. A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order, also does not believe that the source of the current conflict is on the side of NATO. “The idea that NATO enlargement led directly to the war we see today makes no sense to me,” he said.
Rather, the University of Toronto historian sees this argument as a “rhetorical tool” used by the Kremlin to justify the invasion. A war that would draw its source more from the political gains that Putin believed he could derive from a quick victory, he believes.
When Eastern European countries began knocking on NATO’s door in the 1990s, members engaged in a difficult debate between the need to offer protection to these former Soviet republics (” there was a real and pressing concern”) and a desire not to alienate Russia, says Sayle.
“I think the United States made the most appropriate risk assessment in accepting Eastern European countries into NATO to create a safer Europe. If Russia had given indications that it was truly emerging as a stable democracy, there would have been less need for NATO enlargement. »
Warnings
For Ilya Morozov, a professor at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, in Volgograd, Russia, the West instead sought to “maximize its geopolitical successes at the end of the Cold War”. In a 2007 speech in Munich, Vladimir Putin “warned” the West that Russia was worried about its security, recalls the professor of political science.
“But Western policies have not changed,” he wrote to the Homework. US allies came to power in Ukraine and Georgia and paved the way for their country to join NATO. This is the main factor that led Russia to trade its diplomatic means for military means in order to ensure its security. »
A possible admission of Ukraine into NATO is the main reason that justified this military operation, underlines Mr. Morozov. “The rest of Russia’s demands on Ukraine are secondary,” he said.
The idea that NATO enlargement led directly to the war we see today makes no sense to me.
There is not only a security aspect, but also a political aspect to this issue, continues the political scientist. “Russia sees NATO’s eastward expansion not only as a potential military threat, but also as a challenge to what it represents as civilization, a desire to alienate and isolate Russia from the world western [dont elle voulait faire partie] “says the professor, who also recalls that a whole generation of Russians still perceives the former Soviet territory as being linked by a “common destiny”.
Legitimate choice
A vision vigorously contested by Ukrainian MP and journalist Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze. “Why does Russia believe it has the right to tell other nations how they should develop? “she vociferates in an interview conducted from kyiv thanks to Zoom.
“I want to choose the path that my country will take. I want to live in a free, democratic and prosperous country. And these are the political choices that Ukrainians have voted for for several years,” said Ms.me Klympush-Tsintsadze. The one who has already been Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the country’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration also recalls that Ukrainians took to the streets en masse during the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Dignity Revolution in 2014. to reaffirm their will to live in a democratic country oriented towards Europe.
“It’s our choice and it’s a completely legitimate choice,” she said. Russia still sees itself as an empire: it is this imperial thinking that has led to the radicalization of Russia, not the policies of the West. »