Europe and the United States are on their guard after various reports have indicated a significant mobilization of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, thus looming a new coup against Kiev after that of 2014 which saw pro-Russian separatists (armed by Moscow) take control of the east of the country and Russian troops purely and simply annex Crimea, a predominantly Russian-speaking strategic area which allows Russia to deploy its navy in the Black Sea.
With us, Mass has already been said: Vladimir Putin is a bloodthirsty tyrant haunted by dreams of greatness, nostalgic for the Soviet Union and eager to recreate a great powerful Russia. This is why it is hardly surprising to hear some compare the current situation with that of Munich in 1938, when France and its British ally had to negotiate with Hitler. Should we try to appease Putin or should we, on the contrary, learn from Munich and stand up to an individual who will constantly want to expand his territory to the detriment of his neighbors? In short, after having designated the villain on duty, the West now has plenty of time to claim a monopoly of the heart in this affair. It suits us well.
Examination of conscience
This rhetoric, however, prevents us from having to examine our conscience and take into account our share of responsibility for the Ukrainian crisis. In this, it is important to understand the rhetoric of the Kremlin in order to better understand what motivates Moscow’s attitude. For Vladimir Putin, Russia was cheated by the US promise of liberal order which followed the Cold War and which was to unite states within a set of standards and principles that should favor multilateralism, consultation and dialogue. However, these principles desired and encouraged by Washington remained a largely theoretical reality, and the United States never hesitated to act unilaterally when its geostrategic interests were at stake. in 1999 or in Iraq in 2003.
In addition, the United States broke its promise to Russia, which assured Moscow that NATO would never seek to integrate former Soviet satellites or republics into its organization. However, this did not happen, and the alliance is now at the gates of Russia (with the three Baltic countries), which is now threatened by an organization led by a country which has already shown its inclinations to act of unilaterally in order to impose its ideals and its political model elsewhere in the world. This was too much hypocrisy for Moscow and, in the face of this threat, the Kremlin chose to mark its opposition by force in 2008, after Georgia expressed its intention to join the organization.
The Ukrainian crisis follows the same logic, and the West is now paying the price for its former hypocrisy. After launching discussions to admit Ukraine into NATO, the West could only expect a reaction similar to that which Georgia suffered in 2008. The country no longer benefits from ” sufficient demographic mass to elect a head of state favorable to Moscow, a reaction by force was the way for the Kremlin not only to mark its opposition to this project, but also to shatter the Ukrainian dream of joining NATO (this is moreover a provision of the Ukrainian Constitution). Indeed, as it is a mutual defense treaty, any violation of the sovereignty of one of the members of the organization by a third state would require a military response from the other signatory countries. Thus, by maintaining the pressure on Ukraine by massing his troops at the border of the country and by raising the specter of a possible armed intervention in order to defend the Russian-speaking population there supposedly victims of genocide, Vladimir Poutin has found the best way to nip in the bud any possibility that Ukraine could join NATO since Western countries have no will to go to war against the Russian giant. On the other hand, it will easily be understood that the master of the Kremlin has no interest in reducing the pressure on his neighbor as long as the Ukrainians persist in joining this organization.
Provocation
Whether we like it or not, the West therefore has a heavy share of responsibility in the Russian awakening, which seems to want to plunge us back into a new cold war with our enemies of yesterday. While the United States in 1991 promised a new world marked by dialogue, peace and concertation, Washington simply failed in its commitments through its unilateral actions. Can we really blame Russia which sees, to paraphrase Putin in a speech of 2007, appear in Bulgaria and Romania “advanced light American bases” of 5000 soldiers each and that NATO continues to bring its advanced forces closer to the borders of the United States? country ? NATO enlargement is a serious provocative factor and lowering the level of mutual trust, and the Russians have a legitimate right to ask openly against whom this enlargement is being made.
What happened to the assurances given by the West following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? How can Russia believe in its promises of multilateralism after the many Western violations of this principle? Obviously, failing to assume our responsibilities, it is easier to demonize the one who dares to stand up to us by resorting to the most vile comparisons. But that will not get us out of the problem we are facing; this will only make the situation even worse.