By Martinplace Chu
Did the West provoke Vladimir Putin? Not precipitously in regard to the present crisis but the West won the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact disbanded. Pre-Putin, there was arguably no longer any need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a regional security organisation, to continue, let alone expand by 14 new member states. (Why didn’t the West enlarge the European Union, instead, to the extent of taking in even Russia?)
Whatever the truth about any Western promise to Russia not to enlarge NATO membership, the fact is that this was not formalised in any treaty or agreement. The Kremlin has only itself to blame if it takes the Western leaders’ words at face value. The West, however, is to blame for missing an historic opportunity to add to the peace dividend at the time.
Would Russia have felt less threatened if NATO had stopped its relentless eastward advance, all the way to the Russian border? Possibly. But Putin has his own perception of history, including specifically that of Ukraine. You may agree or disagree with the American insistence that NATO expansion and the West’s solidarity with and defence of Ukraine is all in the cause of democracy against autocracy. The US has undermined and overthrown too many democratically-elected governments around the world in the last several decades to convince me of such an enlightened motive in regard even to Eastern Europe.
Living in a small country, we all understand Ukraine’s need for security. Ukraine is in an unenviable situation, caught between two major forces. If the US is serious about Ukraine, it should get NATO to declare and enforce a no-fly zone. It is what the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has underscored as an urgent need in order to protect civilians. Yet, the US has turned down even Poland’s offer to supply Ukraine with Soviet-era MiGs for that purpose.
Talk is cheap; more costly are NATO planes in the air and NATO boots on the ground. After attracting Ukraine with the appeal of NATO membership, does the West intend to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian?
And what about China? I disagree that China has been placed in a difficult spot, even given its recently concluded partnership “without limits” with Russia. First, it has probably confirmed from the Russian tank jam outside Kyiv that to capture Taiwan, a swift operation lasting no more than 36 or 48 hours will be needed.
Second, such a takeover will obviously provoke Western outrage, but little or no actual military action beyond economic sanctions, as in the Ukraine crisis. Sanctions more severe than those Donald Trump imposed – and which Joseph Biden – is continuing, may affect China, but not fatally. Beijing would probably list the two foregoing points in the “good to know” column.
Third, apart from the security distraction that has emerged in Europe, the US has to pay greater attention to China to ensure that Beijing does not totally throw in its lot with Russia. China’s leader Xi Jinping now has the luxury of deciding how to play the Russo-US balance, while avoiding pitfalls as a non-party to the Ukraine conflict.
Finally: yes, the partnership between China and Russia is a marriage of convenience, like the one during the Soviet and early Mao years, but in realpolitik, it’s the best type of marriage to have. Nations have permanent interests, no permanent friends or lovers.
The contributor, a veteran UN-based correspondent, covered US, UN and world developments for decades.